moved, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

laid upon the Table—

Papers referred to the Select Committee on Crown Lands.

moved—

seconded,

Ek wil nie graag onvriendelik wees nie, maar die Huis daarop wys, dat dit nie ’n gewoonte moet word om die tyd van die Huis op te hou met petities van hierdie aard. Ek weet dat daar eens ’n petiesie deur die Klerk gelees is, maar dit was een met 50,000 handtekeninge, en dit moet die uitsondering bly. Dis ’n verspil van tyd om petiesies van die aard deur die Klerk van die Huis te laat lees en daarom gaat ek die voorstel opponeer en daarteen stem.

Mag ek net ’n woord sê in verband met die voorstel hier gemaak en daarop wys, dat daar gister en vandag petiesies gelykluidend met die wat ek gister op die Tafel gelê het, ook ingedien is en ek dink met die oog op die mosie met betrekking tot dieselfde onderwerp wat ook op die Orde Papier staan, is dit noodsakelik dat die petiesie hier voor die Huis voorgelees word. Die petiesie is geteken deur duisende burgers van die land. Dis nie ’n gewone petiesie nie, en ek dink dat waar die petiesie geteken is deur soveel burgers van die land, daar behoort die gelees te word en ek hoop, dat die edele lid vir Ermelo (Kol.-Kdt. Collins) sal nie staan op sy beswaar nie. Onder die reglement van die Huis het ek die reg om die voorstel te maak.

I move as an amendment—

seconded.

I think that the reason which the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. Jansen) has given for this motion rather negatives the House granting this request. There is a motion down by the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell), when the whole matter will be discussed, and it will be free for hon. members to use what arguments they wish in support of these petitions, but why the time of the House should be taken up in discussing this motion now, I fail to see, and I hope the House will not grant it.

The rule is as follows—

I must, therefore, rule the amendment out of order.

moved, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

moved—

He said: This country has had twelve months experience of the patent medicine tax, which expires at the end of this month, and cannot be taken up again unless the Government include it in their Budget proposals for the coming year. This motion asks that the House express the opinion that the tax for the ensuing financial year shall not be re-imposed. Seventy-four thousand people have signed a petition that this tax should be done away with. They do not ask that the tax shall be transferred to the wholesaler, and I want to impress this on the right hon. the Minister of Finance. These seventy-four thousand people are asking that this tax should be completely done away with. They do not want it modified, and if the right hon. the Minister of Finance suggests that he will modify it, I would remind him that these people are not asking for this, neither are they asking for it to be transferred to the wholesaler, neither are they asking that it should be transferred to the customs as additional customs duty, they are asking that this tax on patent medicines shall be completely done away with. And they are supported by a large number of members in this House. I venture to suggest that apart from every member on this side of the House, a large number of members sitting on the South African Party side of the House are convinced and hold the honest opinion that this tax was a mistake, that it is wrong, and that it is right to abolish it. We are supported in that view by no less a person than the hon. the Minister of Lands.

Oh no, the hon. member is not; he is mistaken.

We are always told to believe that what we read in the South African Party newspapers is correct, and this has been published in one of the papers.

It must have been in Die Burger.

No, it was in the Eastern Province Herald. It seems that in a temporary fit of candour the hon. the Minister said—

We are thus supported by the hon. the Minister in a fit of temporary candidness. I hope that the hon. the Minister will stand by that view, and that he will now support the motion before the House. This tax has been universally condemned because it is an unjust tax and is unsound in principle. It picks out a section of the population for special taxation; it singles out the man who is sick, the man who is in bad health, who is unable to work and who goes to get medicine in order to restore his health, and the right hon. the Minister of Finance imposes taxation on the medicine which he takes to restore his health. The chemist is mostly affected, and he is harrassed and humbugged by having to collect the tax. The chemists are being singled out for this special piece of bad legislation as intermediaries between the public and the Government, to collect the tax from the customer in order that they, the chemists, may pass it on to the Excise Department and ultimately to the right hon. the Minister of Finance. It is an unsound tax because it is only a tax on the sick. Further, in its administration and operation it is one of the most absurd and grotesque taxes passed by this or any other Parliament. For this reason I want the hon. members of this House to view this motion from a non-party point of view. This tax has been condemned by this side of the House and by that side of the House and by people of all parties right throughout the country. The 74,000 signatories do not belong to any particular party or to any particular part of the country, and for that reason, if no other, the House should make this a non-party question and every hon. member should be allowed to vote as he thinks fit. All I am concerned with is that this tax may not be reimposed in any form. I hope the right hon. the Minister of Finance will get up and make a definite and categorical statement that this tax will not be re-imposed, and that he is prepared to drop it. I am prepared, if the right hon. the Minister of Finance will make this statement, in order that there should be no question of party advantage, to withdraw my motion and let it drop.

Very convincing.

I cannot be fairer. The only reason why I have brought forward the motion is in anticipation of the Budget speech —because I know that the Budget proposals are never put before the caucus of the South African Party before coming into the House— and if the right hon. the Minister of Finance had made up his mind that he was going to reimpose this tax in its present form, or in any other form, the country would not hear about it until then, that is when he makes his Budget speech and the Government would then be committed. I do not want the Government to commit itself to this particular form of taxation if I can avoid it, and it is in anticipation that we could get a non-party expression of opinion of the House, as to whether the House desires to continue this form of taxation during the ensuing financial year, that I have brought forward the motion. If the right hon. the Minister of Finance can give the assurance that he does not intend to continue this taxation, and is prepared to drop it, even though he thinks by doing so that he is admitting a mistake, I am prepared to withdraw my motion and accept his public statement as sufficient evidence on this particular point. I see it has been stated somewhere that there has been no outcry on behalf of the public against the patent medicine tax, that there has been a big outcry by the chemists, but no outcry on the part of the public. That is a travesty of the truth. The public are boiling with indignation against the tax, but the chemists have had to bear the brunt of the blame. They have had to collect the tax from the customers. It may be a 3s. or 4s. 6d. stamp tax which the chemist has had to ask a customer for, with the result, in some cases, that the customer insults the chemist and walks out of the shop, as if the chemist was to blame. The chemist has to bear the burden and the discontent of the public outcry against this taxation. For that reason we have not seen many letters in the press or mass meetings of the public, protesting against the tax. The chemist alone has had to bear the brunt of collecting the taxation, and also the brunt of the antagonism of the public. This taxation has been imposed on the country for the past twelve months. Many chemists have not even yet mastered the Act, It has been suggested that they do not try to master it, that they do not want to comply, but I may state quite definitely that even the Excise Department itself does not know how the Act is to be administered. It has been 12 months of persecution and prosecution for the chemists, who, in many cases, did not know what was right or wrong, and even the department, in many cases, did not know. A medicine was taxable to-day, and not taxable to-morrow, but it was no guarantee that, because it was not taxable to-morrow, that it was not taxable the following day. Medicine that was taxable in one town was not taxable in another. The difficulties were too absurd for words to express, and if there had been failures on the part of the chemist to carry out the Act, it was because it was almost impossible to do so. What reasons had the Government given for placing an Act of this nature on the statute book? There were, I think, two reasons given for it. The first reason being, that the Government wanted revenue, and the second reason, the Government gave was that the taking of patent and proprietary medicine should be discouraged, as in many cases they were harmful. These are the only two reasons adduced by the Government in support of this taxation. Let me take the matter of revenue. When the right hon. the Minister of Finance first brought forward this taxation, he estimated to get £100,000, but he took away taxable articles, such as perfumes and powders, bringing the estimate down by £25,000. We find, for the first nine months since the tax has been imposed, that the total revenue which the Government received out of this tax is £53,000. It must be remembered that at least half of that amount is nonrecurring, because the chemists had to stamp their entire stocks, consequently the £53,000 for the nine months’ period represented the total amount of stamp duty on the whole of the stock in the shops. Supposing there are 500 chemists in the Union, and I believe there are, and if each spent on an average £50 in order to put stamps on their stock, that would mean that £25,000 has been sunk in stamps. I ask the right hon. the Minister of Finance, and I ask this House whether they think that the receipt of £30,000 or £40,000 for the trouble, discontent and irritation that the tax has caused, is really worth it. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has pointed out that the department had received in duty £29,000, and that it had cost the South African Party 29.000 votes. I ask, is it worth the trouble and worry for the sake of collecting £30,000 or £40,000, to put this burden on the chemists. [An Hon. Member: “The chemists’ vote.”]. You can take it from me that the chemists do not usually give us their vote. They do not vote Labour. We are not out for the purpose of catching votes—[An Hon. Member: “You have one behind you.”]. He is the exception which proves the rule. The Act has proved unworkable, a hardship, and a burden on the public. It has caused expense, trouble, and discontent, to the chemists, and again I ask, is it worth the £30,000 or £40,000 which the right hon. the Minister of Finance is going to get out of it in revenue? It is not as though he did not get any revenue from patent medicines; they are already taxed at the customs. The right hon. the Minister of Finance need only refer to the Customs Department, and he will find that for the eleven months of last year, we have not got the whole year’s figures complete, but he will find that for the eleven months of last year for medicinal preparations imported into South Africa, no less than £166,000 customs duty has been paid on these articles. £166,000 on medicinal preparations imported into South Africa! Surely that is enough for the right hon. the Minister of Finance. Why now come along with an extra tax and an extra burden of 15 per cent. to 48 per cent. on the different articles? If the article contains rectified spirits the customs tax is as much as 100 per cent., and sometimes even 200 per cent. Seeing that the right hon. the Minister of Finance gets nearly £200,000 out of the customs duty on medicine preparations, is it worth while, in order to get a paltry £40,000 out of the stamp duty, to cause all this trouble? But then there is another aspect, and that is the loss of revenue which the State is suffering, because chemists will tell hon. members that the sales of these articles have gone down tremendously. [An Hon. Member: “And a good job too.”] One of the biggest chemists here told me that they have stopped importing a certain article, the sale of which the tax has practically killed. Fellows’ Syrup is one of the articles. A 10s. 6d. bottle of Fellows’ Syrup has to have a 4s. 6d. stamp on it, and people will not buy it, and the loss of revenue through the non-importation of these articles will more than set off the paltry £30,000 or £40,000 which the right hon. the Minister of Finance will get out of his stamp duty. How paltry is all this! We all know that we threw away £300,000 on the foundations of the Durban grain elevator; we spent £300,000 on the destruction of locusts; we have wasted and are wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds in this country, and does the right hon. the Minister of Finance really think it worth while to cause all this discontent and this uproar to get another £40,000 out of articles which have already paid duty to the extent of £160,000. I have to modify this statement to this extent: that in the customs returns it does not classify under the heading of medicinal preparations which are the proprietary and which the patent medicines. That is not classified, and I have had to take the round figure under the one heading, and there might be articles which are not directly proprietary or patent; but against that I want to say that the stamp duty covers a far wider range than merely the patent or proprietary articles. It covers practically all medicines, which are not prescribed by doctors, as I will show in a few minutes. Well, so much for the revenue side, and I shall now come to the other side. This tax was, it is stated, imposed to discourage the taking of harmful drugs. Well, if the right hon. the Minister of Finance would only pass an Act prohibiting the use of harmful drugs and setting out what these harmful drugs were, then he would do the right thing, and I think would have the support of every hon. member of the House. But if he wants to stop the taking of harmful drugs, why does he tax all drugs? Let him say: “Such and such drugs are harmful, and we will not allow them to be sold.” That would be the logical thing to do. Speaking for myself, I am speaking disinterestedly, because I do not take drugs of any kind, so no one can say that I have any personal interest in this matter. The reason why I do not take drugs is that I have lost faith in them. But I understand under the stamp tax that a drug which is taxed because it is “harmful” under the right hon. the Minister of Finance’s definition, is not taxed if the doctor prescribes it. If a doctor writes out a prescription for a certain drug or preparation, then it is not taxable, but if a customer goes’ to a shop and he buys exactly the same thing without a prescription, then it becomes “harmful,”and is taxable. Well, that argument will not hold water, that these medicines should be taxed because they were harmful. If it did, the right hon. the Minister of Finance would say: “It does not matter whether a doctor prescribes it or whether a doctor does not prescribe it, it does not matter a bit, it is harmful, and it should be taxed.”

One cannot buy poison without a prescription from a doctor.

Well, prohibit those, if you like, that contain poison. We already have a Poisonous Drugs Act, but household remedies and harmless medicines are taxed now because it is said they are harmful; it is absolutely absurd. So from the revenue and from the harmful point of view, which are the only two points which the Minister put forward in support of this tax, the arguments fall completely away. The patent medicine is the poor man’s doctor. Many a poor man cannot afford to go to a doctor and pay half a guinea for a prescription, but he knows what will cure him, and he goes to the chemist and he buys a mixture or a patent medicine, and because he is sick or too poor to go to the doctor he is being taxed on his medicine; but, if he went to the doctor and the doctor gave him a prescription for exactly the same medicine, then he can get it without the tax. It does not matter, I say it to my hon. friend here who is a doctor, it does not matter whether the medicine is prescribed by a doctor, or whether it is contained in a patent medicine in a bottle which is already in the chemist shop, the curative value does not lie in the medicine, but in the faith which the patient has in the medicine which he is taking. Whether it is made up on the prescription of a doctor or not, it does not matter. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred it depends on the faith which the patient has in the medicine which he takes, and if the patient, or the man who is sick, has faith in the patent medicine, if he has faith in the medicine doing him good, that medicine has just as much chance of doing him good as if it were prescribed by a doctor. I have said that this tax is unjust because it only affects the sick. The chemists have had the utmost difficulty in carrying it out, and I want to draw attention to some of the anomalies, to some of the absurdities in the administration of the Act, but before I do so I want to touch on a system of departmental finding which has been going on under the Act; that is to say that if a chemist is found having goods in his shop, which are not stamped and which the department think ought to be stamped, then those goods are confiscated and he is made to pay a fine. He is not taken to court, but he is made to pay a fine departmentally, and sometimes he gets his goods back and sometimes he does not.

Bolshevism!

Yes. I have a copy here of a form which a chemist gets from the department to fill in, and it reads as follows—

(To be submitted in duplicate.)

The Commissioner of Customs and Excise, Pretoria.

Sir,—I beg to be allowed to make a deposit of £6 to cover a penalty for contravention of Section 8 of Act No. 23 of 1923 …. as described hereunder: —

Well, there have been scores of prosecutions, departmental prosecutions all over the country. The Excise Department is the plaintiff, the prosecutor, the judge and the jury. The chemist is asked to deposit an amount which the department thinks is right, and then he gets a letter back saying: “We beg to inform you that you have forfeited the amount of your deposit.” I have a letter here—

Now they have been embarking on this system of departmental fining all over the country. They have taken some chemists to court, but not very many. They have fined them departmentally. In most cases the chemist has acted in ignorance, he did not mean to evade the law; he has had to deposit his money, and sometimes he gets it back. Sometimes he does not get any receipt. I have a letter here dated the 5th March, from a chemist, who was fined £5 departmentally. The letter is on his official paper. It reads as follows—

That is the letter from the chemist, and I read it to show that under the system of departmental fines no receipt is sent in some cases. The chemist does not know where he is. He is entirely in the hands of the excise officer, and he has to accept whatever that officer rules. Now I will just touch on the case of a chemist in Wynberg the other day. A chemist, named Murphy, was prosecuted at the Magistrate’s Court, Wynberg. He thought he was compyling with the Act. He could not distinguish the difference between embrocation and liniment and smeergoed, because, according to the dictionary, these were synonymous terms. He was allowed to sell embrocation without a tax, and he thought he was allowed to also sell liniment without a tax. Well, he was not. Had he called the liniment “smeergoed,” which is the Dutch name, he would have evaded the tax. Another article he had was called “Figson.” This is a mixture, a laxative for constipation. [Laughter.] Hon. members will get funnier things than that in a few minutes. On the 8th of October the Customs and Excise Department issued a circular saying that the term “laxative” was not taxable, that they could use the term, so this chemist thought he was entitled to use it, and he labelled his Figson “laxative, for constipation.” He made a mistake, for though laxative was exempt he was not allowed to say it was for constipation. The magistrate who tried the case said he was completely baffled. He said that it was unfair to expect a magistrate to adjudicate on these matters, that these were matters for the chemist and the technical men to decide. Then he said: “If the Excise Department tells me that there is a difference between liniment and embrocation and that laxative and constipation are not synonymous terms, I must accept their ruling.” [Laughter.] The right hon. the Minister of Finance laughs, but if he were in the position of the chemist I am afraid the laugh would be on the other side.

Does the hon. member know what he said just now?

Although this lends itself to humour, it is far more serious to the chemist and the public than the hon. members seem to think. Another chemist in Port Elizabeth, a firm called Coolidge, was told by one official that certain articles not exposed in their shop for sale were not taxable. Later on another officer came along and said: “These are taxable, and I must confiscate them.” He took them away, and the chemist was fined £44. After considerable delay they sent him back his goods, and I have a letter here from the department saying they are sending him back his money, but he must take great care that he must never do a thing like that again. I have it here—

Then we had a local case in Caledon Square Court of a chemist called Crow, of Sea Point. They confiscated all his stock, some of which he said was stamped. However, they confiscated the stock and took him to court, but the magistrate, although admitting that he was guilty of a technical offence, merely reprimanded him and the man was acquitted. He never got his goods back; £60 worth of stock was taken from him. He never got it back again. When he told the magistrate in court that the Department had taken goods that should never have been stamped at all the magistrate said—

The man said—

Another thing in connection with this man not getting his goods back—they are still in the hands of the Department, and I have a list of them here—

There is the list, but probably the reason that he did not get his goods back was that he was asked by the public prosecutor—

He replied—

And there the matter rests, and they still have his stock. I wish to show how impossible it is for this Act to be carried out. I have already dealt with embrocation and liniment. Liniment, not taxable; embrocation, taxable. Condy’s fluid, a “disinfectant and antiseptic,” not taxable; Dioxyen, a “disinfectant and antiseptic,” taxable. Here is a letter from the Excise Department, dated 8th October—

One would think from that that dioxygen, which is an antiseptic and a disinfectant, both coming within those two terms, would be free from tax. No, dioxygen is taxed, though Condy’s fluid is not taxed. Cascara evacuant, made by Park Davis is free; cascara laxan, made by Petersen’s is taxed. Liquid parafine is exempt; malt extract is exempt, but liquid parafine and malt extract together is taxable. I would like to draw the attention of the House to an incident that happened. Liquid parafine is exempt. In Lennon’s of Cape Town they placed a number of bottles of liquid parafine in the window—nothing on the bottle except “liquid parafine,” but they put a large showcard in the window to say “Refined Liquid Parafine for constipation.” Immediately comes the Excise Department and says: “All those bottles in that window must be stamped.” “Why?” “Because you are saying that they are for constipation.” “But,” they said, “it is not on the bottles.” “Never mind,” said the Department, “it is in the window and they must be stamped.” “What about the other bottle in the other parts of the shop?” “You need not stamp them,” said the Department. “All these bottles adjacent to the showcard have to be taxed.” Could anything be more absurd? Malt extract and cod liver oil is exempt from taxation. A chemist in Cane Town advertised in the Cape, Times the sale of malt extract and cod liver oil for pulmonary diseases. Down came the Excise Department and said that he had got to pay a tax on all his malt extract and cod liver oil. The chemist asked why, and he was told because he had advertised it as being good for pulmonary diseases. He pointed out that there was nothing on the bottle. It did not matter, was the reply of the Department, he had advertised it in the Cape Times and that was enough. Because the firm was advertising malt extract and cod liver oil in the Cape Times as good for pulmonary diseases, all his stock was liable for taxation.

Put a tax on the Cape Times.

Mosquitore is a preparation for the healing of mosquito bites. The firm that imports it was told that it could sell mosquitore without any tax, but they must not put on the box, “It heals the bites.” These words happened to be on the boxes when they were imported: “Mosquitore: it heals the bites” and the Department said: “Well, you had better cover up “It heals the bites.’” They said, however, “Well, if you promise with the next consignment you get, not to say, ‘It heals the bites,’ we will say nothing about it, and you can go on selling.” Could anything be more ridiculous or absurd? What is the underlying principle of the patent and proprietary medicines under the tax? Anyone would think there was a specified number of items which were known to be easily classified at a moment’s notice. No such thing; under the Act the definition of patent and proprietary medicines is that—

That covers a tremendous field, and is it any wonder that the chemist and the magistrate and everybody concerned are completely baffled? I do not know where they are in the administering of this Act, because the Department does not know where it is. I will prove it in another way. Here is the original list of all the articles which were taxable, and might I, at this point, draw attention to the fact that the Department asked the chemists’ association at the end of June last if they would submit to the Department a list of simple names of simple remedies for simple ailments that would be suitable for exemption. So the chemists got together and drew up a little schedule of simple names of medicines and ailments, that were essential to the carrying on of their business, and that should be exempt. On July 10th out comes the Gazette with all the taxable articles in it,. hundreds of them, and the very articles which these chemists had submitted, and asked to be exempted, were included in the list of the articles that had to be taxed. Last month, the Department circulated an additional list of patent and proprietary medicines that are liable to stamp duty, and amongst the very first items on the list are aperient pills, antiseptic throat pastilles. We are told here that antiseptic is exempt, but what is taxed is the throat. It is not a tax on ingredients, but a tax on phraseology. In some cases an article itself is taxed, and in other cases the same article is not taxed. Here is another case. Here is a bottle containing iodised throat lozenges. It is not a secret medicine, the names of the ingredients are on the box. It is for sore throats, tonsilitis, ulcerated mouths, and loss of voice. The people who sell these things are told that these things have to bear a stamp, but that if they take out the term “throat” then they can all be sold without the stamp. This shows that it is not what is inside the bottle that is taxed but what is on the label outside. I will take a more absurd case. This is Jamaica ginger. As it is labelled there with just the plain name and that of the maker it is not liable to the tax, but here is a bottle containing exactly the same ingredients, but as it has got on the bottle “this preparation is an invaluable aromatic stimulant in dyspepsia and flatulance—

The hon. member does not want that then!

The right hon. the Minister of Agriculture does. I think the right hon. the Minister of Agriculture is the most flatulent member in this House. I want to emphasize this: here is a mixture which is not taxable, here is exactly the same mixture with a different label which is taxable. Here is the same thing again, but this time it is called “Jamaica gember,” and because it is in the Dutch language, and the instruction is in the Dutch, it is exempt from taxation. I have got a fourth one here, the label on the bottle is in English and contains exactly the same wording that the other does in Dutch, but it is taxable because it is in English. It is a tax on the English language, and I submit to hon. members that that is a rank injustice to the English language. The reason for taxing like this passes my comprehension, I have never come across anything so grotesque, imbecile, or absurd as the administration of this Patent Medicine Tax. Here is another item. Here are two boxes of corn plasters both the same; one box is taxable, but because a bit of paper is placed over the word “corn” on the other one, it is not taxed. Might I illustrate the point further! Although in every case they are not allowed to put on the bottle anything such as ‘will cure throat trouble,” etc., otherwise it makes them taxable, yet a chemist can say to a customer: “This is splendid for such and such a disease” no taxation is levied. I do not think anything could be more absurd. We are told by the chemists that this tax is interfering with their sales tremendously. The right hon. the Minister of Finance has got a confidential letter, a copy of which I have also received, from one of the largest chemists in South Africa, to the effect that for the six months ending November last year the sales of their goods had dropped by no less than £4,000, and their net loss on their business for those six months was £600. Why should they be treated like this? If you are going to tax harmful drugs, do it, but the examples I have given show you are not doing this, but are taxing phraseology. It is making the operation of this Act absolutely absurd. Then there is the case of Wincarnis, which is not a patent or proprietary article, it is a wine used by people in the convalescent stage, and frequently is recommended by doctors. The sales of Wincarnis has dropped to practically nothing owing to the Stamp Act. Chemists will tell you that they have been hit very badly by the operation of this Act. I do hope I have made out a case that the tax should not be re-imposed. I ask the right hon. the Minister of Finance to wipe it out and drop it. Remember you are getting a very large sum from all these medicines through the Customs duty; I am going to ask the Minister not to transfer this tax to the wholesaler. I ask him to drop it altogether. Surely, the right hon. the Minister of Finance was one of the delegates at the great Imperial Economic Conference. He represented South Africa at the conference, and there they were dealing with world-wide economic problems. When we come to remember that the right, hon. the Minister of Finance was in consultation with the leading men of the world or economic matters I ask him if he does not feel ashamed to be responsible for the trifling two-pence-ha’penny tax such as this for raising revenue in South Africa. If there is such a thing as quack legislation, then this Stamp Act is about the quackest of the quack. I ask him to consider the 74,000 people who have asked that this tax should be abolished. I know there are several members on the other side of the House who are against this tax. I am going to ask them not to make it a party matter, but to abolish the tax altogether. Let bygones be bygones. Let us direct our attention to taxation more worthy of the right hon. the Minister of Finance, more worthy of Parliament, and more worthy of South Africa.

seconded.

I think it will be convenient if I rise at once and state the position of the Government in regard to this motion. Let me say at once that I do not propose to follow the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) in his entertaining description of the various kinds of nastinesses which he has detailed, for a reason which I will explain in a moment, and that is I do not think this is a right time to discuss a matter of this sort, nor the proper circumstances. Now the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) is a very simple fellow in some respects. He says, first of all, that this tax expires on March the 31st, and he wishes me to give him an assurance that it will not be revived, on which condition he will be good enough to withdraw his motion. Apparently he does not seem to know, although he knows the histories of these cascaras and patent remedies, he does not know that this legislation does not expire on March 31st; it will continue unless other action is taken. I am not prepared to give the hon. member— it may surprise him to hear—the assurance he asked for. The hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell), in a still simpler fashion, suggested we might make this a non-party matter, and he comes along and he proposes to repeal part of the taxation imposed by this Parliament at the instance of the Government last session, and he asks the Government to treat it as a non-party matter. Could anything be simpler? It is a simplicity which almost makes one suspicious. He has calculated what the results of this tax will be. The hon. member calculated the yield from the tax, but he is entirely wrong in his figures. The tax from this source is estimated by the department to yield £100,000, and when the amending proposals, which I have already announced to the public, are brought into force the yield of the tax will be a great deal more, mainly because one will be able to prevent the enormous amount of fraud and evasion that is being practised to-day.

Practised by chemists? Is the light hon. the Minister charging the chemists with fraud?

I do; and many have been prosecuted and convicted. I say there has been a lot of fraud and evasion, and people have been convicted of it.

Deliberate fraud?

There is no such thing as unconscious fraud, but the hon. member may be surprised to hear that legal statement. The hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) has attempted to frighten us with a petition. He said there has been lodged a petition signed by no less than 74,000 people of this country. One can get a petition signed for anything, holy or unholy. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) handed in a petition signed by 50,000 or 60,000 persons, and the hon. members opposite said they take no notice of it, as they know how petitions in Johannesburg could be got up. We know quite well how these petitions are got up. We have been told that this is a question of taxing the sick poor, and that the whole countryside was up in arms. I have had telegrams from my constituents. I will say this, though, they emanated only from chemists. I have not had one from any member of the public, not one word. We are told the chemists in this matter are actually powerless and slaves. This is a touching picture. I will leave it at that. We are not going to be stampeded or bulldoged by any petition by the hon. member from Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) or any additional screamers he may make. The hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) is always screaming about something—if it is not the teachers, he is screaming about the drugless healers, or he is screaming about the drug-sellers. Presumably, now he does not put his full faith in faithhealing: he said he has lost faith in faithhealing himself. I should not be surprised from the way the hon. member spoke, that he is now pinning his faith in patent medicines. One would not be surprised if he had lived on them to excess. I wish him joy. Let me see: he want on to say that, as Minister of Finance of the Union of South Africa, I, with the Prime Minister, went to England, we often dined and discussed matters of big importance with big people affecting the Empire, and that I sat down with great men, and was I not ashamed, because I had a patent medicine tax in my pocket. I can assure you, that I did sit down with great men in England, sat down at the same table with them, discussed great matters with them, and they also had patent medicine taxes in their pockets.

Not custom tax?

Has the hon. member started screaming again? In England they have had a patent medicine tax for the past 100 years. As to the customs duty paid on these articles, I would like to hear what the hon. member on the other side of the House would say if we had taxed South African patent medicines only, and not the imported ones. As I have pointed out, in England they have had a patent medicine tax for 100 years, and nothing is heard about it there. There are more sick poor in England than in South Africa, but there one has not the sentimental, mawkish fuss you have in this country. The hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) has asked me to give an assurance to drop this tax. I am not going to deal with all the different points he raised, for the reason I will give. I think that our experience this session must show there is beginning to creep into our practice a very inconvenient and an irregular habit on private members’ days of discussing questions of the Budget, and questions of existing taxation and possible taxation in the future. This is becoming quite a practice—I do not exclude from the accusation some of the members of my own party, because we have had this session a motion in regard to tobacco tax Every reasonable member of the House must see how difficult it is for the Government to have there matters dealt with piecemeal on these days. A motion such as the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) has moved cannot be ruled out of order, but I would like to have such motions ruled out of order. They are certainly most irregular, inappropriate, and inconvenient. I have never heard in the English House of Commons of motions of this sort dealing with taxation being brought forward in this manner. They are either discussed on the Budget debate or in Committee of Ways and Means. That is the proper way. There is only one occasion in which it could be dealt with in this manner, and that is when an hon. member thought there would be no chance of discussing a subject, supposing the matter was not mentioned in the Budget. That does not apply here, because as I have already stated the matter is to come forward, as the Government intends to alter the method of collection of this tax. During the first year it was impossible, for reasons which the officers of the Department told me, to collect the tax other than we did, i.e., by stamps—inconvenient and troublesome as it was to the chemists It was impossible to collect the tax otherwise’ as the stocks were already on hand throughout the country. In future we will proceed to do what we should have liked to do from the beginning, namely, to impose a tax at the ports on the imported article, which forms about 25 per cent. of the total, and the other 75 per cent. from the manufacturers. That will remove a great deal of trouble, irritation and embarrassment. The hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) has asked me for a definite statement, but I submit his motion is one which is inconvenient and inopportune, and should not be discussed at this stage. I am not going into the merits or demerits of the taxation at the moment. That can be discussed during the Budget debate, but there is one point I would like to refer to, and that is the point with regard to Dutch medicine. I have had enquiries made into the matter, and there is no doubt that there is something in what the hon. member referred to. It is undoubtedly somewhat absurd, but it is correct. The reason is that in order to meet the wishes of a large section of the country people who live far away from doctors, and who were used to their old “huis apotheek” the Government endeavoured to exempt those preparations from the tax, and after consultation with the chemists it was laid down that prescriptions included in the old Dutch Pharmacopea should not be subject to the medicine tax. Afterwards there were some cases in which medicines of a similar nature were produced with an English label. For some absurd reason they were charged with duty as mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell). Although the Bill might have been administered in that way, it was the intention to exempt certain articles of which a list has been made and published. That is what has been aimed at, and I have no doubt that mistakes have been made, but whether a concoction has an English name or a Dutch name does not affect the position. The idea that some sort of medicine was taxed when it had an English label, but escaped taxation when it had a Dutch label is too absurd for words. I will not, for the reason I have mentioned, now traverse the arguments of the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell), but will propose an amendment to his motion, viz.—

Ek sien geen rede waarom die Huis die amendement van die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies sal aanneem nie. Die amendement van die edele Minister kom hier op neer, dat hy feitelik ’n nuwe reel wil neerlê vir hierdie Huis, dat sodra as daar ’n kwessie ter sprake gebring word waarby die skatkis betrokke is en waarby die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies betrokke is, dat dan Mnr. Speaker of die Huis tussebeide sal kom en sê, dat dit nie in orde is nie. Die edelagbare die Minister het hier soewe ook duidelik gesê en sy hele pleidooi kom daar op neer en hy het hier met ’n mosie gekom en sê, dat as ’n voorstel die Begroting affekteer, dan is dit buite orde. Nou, ek sê, dat as soiets onregmatig is, dan behoor dit te staan in die Reglement van Orde en as dit daar nie instaan nie—en dit staan daar nie in—dan bly dit vir enig lid vry om ’n mosie van die aard voor te stel en ek wens in die eerste plek te sê, dat die edelagbare die Minister nie die minste reg het nie om te kom sê, dat dit onregmatig is nie en in die twede plek wil ek herhaal, dat die edelagbare die Minister deur sy amendement niks anders wil doen as om vandag en vir die toekoms die mond van hierdie kant van die Huis te snoei. Ek erken, dat dit baie ongeriefelik en onprettig vir die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies is om vraagstukke van hierdie aard geopper te kry voor die Huis en vooral as die vraagstukke gepaard gaan met sulke onaangename omstandighede as waarmee die mosie hier vandag voor die Huis gepaard gaan en al gedurende die laaste jaar gepaard gegaan het. Ek wens net hier te sê, dat ek die Huis nie lang gaan ophou nie, maar ek sê dit, dat die argument wat ek laaste jaar by die vasstelling van hierdie belasting voor die Huis gebring het by my vandag nie alleen nog net so geldig is nie, maar nog veel meer in geldigheid toegeneem het deur ervaring wat ons opgedaan het in die tyd van die bestaan van die belasting. Ek dink baie seker, dat as die edelagbare die Minister met ’n bietjie meer hoffelikheid voor die Huis gekom het as wat hy gedaan het, en as hy ’n bietjie meer oorgegee het aan die krietiek van hierdie kant van die Huis en die aanbevelinge wat gedoen is, dan sou hy baie geleer het en vooruit geweet het van wat hy nou het moet uitvind onder die werking van die Wet. Die edelagbare die Minister het die brutale houding wat hy toen aangeneem het, hier vanmiddag weer aangeneem en sy oor gesluit soos hy gewoonlik doen in sulke gevalle. Die edelagbare die Minister het onhoffelik en onbeleefd gewees. Gewoonlik as hy opposiesie vind, dan word hy grof en brutaal en probeer deur sy brutale manier die lede van hierdie kant van die Huis op nul te sit. Ek sê, sonder verder op die argumente in te gaan wat hier vanmiddag gebruik is, dat ek die voorstel nou voor die Huis gaat steun, want as daar een ding is wat duidelik vir my is, dan is ’t dit dat die £100,000 of wat dit ook is, £30,000 of £40,000 soos deur die edele lid vir Durban (Greyville) (de hr. Boydell) aangegee, of £100,000 soos die edelagbare die Minister nog hoop te maak, dat die geld kom byna uitsluitend uit die sak van die persone wat dit die minste kan betaal. Dis my beskouwing van die begin af gewees en ek bly daarby. Nou kom die edelagbare die Minister hier vandag en sê op ’n sekere indrukwekkende wyse, dat hy saamgekom het met groot manne in Engeland en dadelik het by my die gedagte gekom: “ag, had die Minister vandag tog meer getoon, dat hy in die geselskap was van groot manne.” Maar hier kom hy en sê, dat hulle ook net so ’n bil, net so ’n wet, in hulle sak het. Ek weet nie of die edele lid vir Illovo (de hr. Marwick) vanmiddag hier was nie, maar hy het dan weer aan die edelagbare die Minister kan sê, soos gister: “wat het ons te doen met die buiteland, ons moet kyk na die toestande en omstandighede in ons eie land.” As mense buitekant dwase dinge doen, dan hoef ons nie heen te gaan en die dwase dinge nadoen nie en nog bo-dien andere dwase dinge begaan nie. Ons weet dat in andere plekke kom die belastinge ook voor, maar ek wil net die vraag stel, onder welke omstandighede die belastinge ontstaan is. Het hulle, ek vra dit die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies, vóór die invoering van hierdie belasting in die ander plekke ook al eers die “income tax” gehad? Ek sou dit graag wil weet. Ek wonder of die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies ons dit kan sê, of hulle in die ander lande vóór die invoering van die belasting ook al die inkomste belasting het gehad of nie. Dit kom my voor, dat die belastinge ontstaan is in ’n tyd,. toe hulle nie meer wis wat te belas nie en toe hulle moes rondloop om te sien of hulle nog hier en daar iemand kon vind, wat nog geld in sy sak had, om dit te neem en nou omdat die belastinge in ander lande nog voortbestaan, vind die edelagbare die Minister dit nodig om die ook in Suid-Afrika in te voer en instand te hou. Ek is teen die belasting gewees van die begin af en na die ondervinding wat ons opgedaan het, is ek nog meer daarteen. Daarom wil ek die mosie wat nou voor die Huis is, ondersteun.

The right hon. the Minister of Finance has convinced me of one thing in his reply, that he has again adopted the tactics of the zoological specimen, and has thrown up the smoke screen, trying to divert the House from the main issue and being cheaply cynical. The same attitude is adopted by the hon. the Minister of Lands. As to his attitude and reply to the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell), I want to nail his statement, and will, for this purpose, quote his speech or statement from the E.P. Herald—

This speech has been quoted from many times in this House, and it is a curious thing that the hon. the Minister, has not once, until now, protested against it. It has been stated by the right hon. the Minister of Finance that certain concessions were made by him as the result of what the hon. the Minister of Lands stated at Port Elizabeth. I tried to get this matter cleared up by the right hon. the Minister of Finance, but again the smoke screen was raised, and he attempted to get away from the subject, that the statement he made with reference to these concessions, was not made by him at all. The statement was made by the hon. the Minister of the Interior, after a deputation of chemists had met him. Then he stated that these concessions would be made. The concessions referred to were probably made, in fact, they have turned out in practice to he almost valueless to the public and to the profession, in the absurd examples which the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) has so clearly demonstrated to the House, that, after all, neither the Excise Department nor the right hon. the Minister of Finance understood what they conveyed. I want to draw the right hon. the Minister of Finance’s attention to the fact that the hon. the Minister of the Interior made that statement in regard to these concessions. He had just returned from a very important South African Party conference at Bloemfontein, and he was imbued with a certain amount of opposition with regard to this measure, and it was with a view to allaying this feeling that he made that statement, which has eventually terminated in the statement which the right hon. the Minister of Finance made here in this House on the 15th February. The right hon. the Minister of Finance, on the 15th February, without going into heroics, wandered a long way from the facts of the case, and I think that I am entitled to claim, that when he does reply to this question, probably when it comes to the Budget, he will take the trouble to satisfy the House how it is possible for a Minister to make statements which do not conform with the statements made by the hon. the Minister of Lands nor conform to the usual practice of fact as evidence when Ministers are asked these questions. Now, I do not want to go into the bye-ways of the difficulties of this tax, as the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) has dealt with them at considerable length, but I merely wish to state that if the attitude taken up by the Government this afternoon, and subsequently persisted in by the right hon. the Minister of Finance with regard to the measure that preceded it, I refer to that petition, it that is any index of what one must expect from the right hon. the Minister of Finance with regard to this measure, then I say we can be perfectly assured that the unfortunate poorer people, 74,000 of them who signed that petition, are going to get all they deserve from that Government, and from that particular Minister who has just bolted from the room. I can assure you, that when you have a petition from 74,000 people sent to this House, and as the right hon. the Minister of Finance tells us he is going to pigeonhole that petition, and one of the members on the Government side tries to get up and delay that petition coming to the House, on the excuse that the House should have more notice of it, I say that this is the class of attention which the public must expect from this Government, so long as the right hon. the Minister of Finance sits there, with regard to the Patent Medicines Tax. The right hon. the Minister of Finance this afternoon adopted his usual tactics, cynical, and raising a smoke screen to divert the attention of the House from the motion itself, but so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we will support the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell), because we think it is a very unjust tax, which touches the very poorest class of the population, and which effects nothing. The revenue produced, as the hon. the Minister of Lands rightly stated, is not worth the friction and irritation which it has caused, and it does a considerable amount of injustice to that section of the community which should be assisted, rather than injured, by the present right hon. Minister of Finance.

I wish to add my protest to that of the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) with regard to this new doctrine of the right hon. the Minister of Finance. I agree with every word he said that the attitude taken on this amendment is one by which it is desired to establish a custom which is going to deprive members of this House of a privilege which they should not on any account surrender. We know perfectly well that when the Government proposals come on in Committee of Ways and Means it will then be too late to get that proposal altered, except at the expense of inducing some members of the Government party to join the Opposition and turn the Government out. Almost invariably any such an amendment to Government proposals for taxation are treated as measures of confidence, and party allegiance and loyalty will always stand in the way of the free deliberations of the House. The hon. member, by bringing these matters forward in this way, rightly sought to have the matter determined by the House on its merits, and depart, as far as possible, from party considerations, and I think we must all agree. I venture to think hon. members on that side of the House agree as much as we do that the case my hon. friend made out against this tax on every ground, on the ground of the absurdities involved, on the ground that as the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) has just said, it attacks the poorer classes This House should not sanction the renewal of the tax, and the only way to obtain that is by such a motion as this, expressing the opinion of this House, and not after the right hon. the Minister of Finance has made his Budget speech. There is only one remark in the speech of my hon. friend which would make me inclined to vote against this motion, and that is his quotation from the speech of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), if he was correctly reported, when he said that this tax had got £29,000 for the Treasury and had lost the South African Party 29,000 votes. If, with that slight expense to the country and slight inconvenience to the public, we can achieve such admirable results as to deprive that party of 29,000 votes I think South Africa will be well served. But apart from that, and as my hon. friend said, we do not want party considerations coming into the matter, and for that reason I resist that inducement to vote for the continuance of this tax, and I heartily support my hon. friend. The right hon. the Minister of Finance accuses the whole profession of chemists of evasion and fraud. I only leave it at that. If we had made any such remark about any honourable body of men how they would have made the welkin ring! If we made a remark about one person, they take it that the whole honourable body of a profession is attacked, but here the right hon. the Minister of Finance makes a broad accusation against that whole body of honourable men.

I think every hon. member of the House is prepared to accept the statement that in every part of the country there is a dislike to this tax I quite support the amendment of the right hon. the Minister of Finance; of course I do—

Of course!

Yes; and while I appreciate the position, that does not in the least alter my views with regard to the tax itself, nor the views of those whom I represent. It has been stated that it is only the chemists from which all this agitation comes. That is perhaps not quite correct, but suppose it did only come from the chemists, they are the people most affected, and they are very gravely affected indeed. If you will just look at the position for a moment what this tax means to this particular profession you will find that on their wares which they have to sell you have got a stamp showing on each article the amount of the Government tax. It is a bad thing to begin with; it is an innovation which has never taken well in any country, and there is no reason at all why it should take well here. Suppose the same thing was applied to every other trade or profession in the country, and you had on your boots, or box of soap, or a hat you bought, that this article bore such and such a taxation, then I am sure you would hear a great deal more about it from those people than you have heard from the chemists. So this new idea of putting stamps on these articles instead of the old policy of taxing through the customs is not one that commends itself, or ought to commend itself. But I hope the right hon. the Minister of Finance is right, I do not think he is in his seat at the moment, but I hope the right hon. the Minister of Finance is right when he says the future amounts that this tax will bring in will be very much greater. Now, one thing is quite clear. This tax has undoubtedly got to its zenith, and when we remember two statements made to-day, that when the Act came into force there were very large stocks of this character in the country and that large individual payments had to be made which caused a great deal of inconvenience. That is part of the tax which has brought in £70,000 or £80,000, but that is non-recurrent, and you will never get amounts of that character again. Then a statement is also made to me by very responsible people, and I have every reason to believe it is correct, that the more expensive articles, since the tax has been put on, have almost disappeared from sale, because of the tax and the way the amount is shown on the article. That, in itself, would be another reduction in the amount which will come in from this tax; then there are the items which have since been realized and the goods have gone out of stock altogether, and will not be offered for sale again because the tax has made the price prohibitive and simply stopped the sale completely. There again you reduce the revenue. But one of the most serious things is that the proprietary medicines which are manufactured in South Africa have hitherto been liable for the tax from their phraseology. There is no question about that, it is accepted as common cause that the phraseology on the label has made them liable for the tax. What are the manufacturers doing to-day? They are doing just as you would expect them to do— they are changing their phraseology, and I understand that 95 per cent. of the wording; on the labels can be changed, and thus the tax will be avoided. Now we know that the medicines are already rated highly by the customs; they are amongst the most highly rated articles we have, and it is remarkable that there are few articles of importance which are used in the healing of the sick which are not heavily taxed. To me the most important feature of this tax is the effect upon this little South African industry which has been making such considerable strides during the past few years. I am informed that along the coast-belt you have almost 300 young people engaged in making these medicines. If you are going to reduce the sale of these articles or wipe the sale out altogether by this tax, then I say it is totally foreign to the policy the Government has adopted previously in regard to industries, and just as sure as you raise these prices to a very great extent, to anything between the minimum and the maximum provided, that is, between 15 per cent. and 66 percent., just as sure as you raise these prices then just as surely will the sale be reduced, and so surely will these people who are at present in employment gradually disappear. It is a very bad time for anything of that kind. Now my main object in saying a word upon this motion is first of all on behalf of the people whom I represent, and on behalf of the great majority of the people of this country that no amending of the tax will satisfy them. The tax should be wiped out and disappear, and one does not doubt for a moment the statement made by the Minister that it will have consideration in his Budget proposals, but suppose this patent medicine tax appears again with slight amendment, what position will we be in then? The whole feeling of the country which is aroused to-day will be aroused still more at the injustice when the Budget proposals come along, when they know that the tax is still to be continued. Naw what I want to say is this, that one does not ask for any assurance from the right hon. the Minister of Finance, I think that would be unreasonable, and I quite accept the position with anything that reflects on the Budget or any taxation proposals in a motion of this character, that the Government cannot accept it because it does attract attention to certain forms of taxation, and if that became very common in this House I can quite appreciate that there would be a direction to Government in the matter of taxation which is certainly entirely undesirable. But I want to say this that this tax works anything but well, and never will work well. If you have the stamp on your South African manufactured medicine, it will create eternal trouble, and eventually and unquestionably reduce the output and manufacture of those medicines to the detriment of the people employed, and the people who have considerable machinery to-day in manufacturing those medicines are becoming to be a fairly important part of our small South African industries. I think the House would be perfectly satisfied if it gets a feeling from this debate to-day that from the end of this financial year this tax will be no more. One might say a great deal more upon it, but I want to express my view in that belief, and to assure the right hon. the Minister of Finance that he has our hearty support in his amendment. We do not however want to feel that in giving our support we are either giving encouragement to its continuation or suggesting that we would support this tax should it come along in the taxation proposals. Therefore, at the end of this year one will hope that this tax, which is disagreeable in itself, which has worked badly, which has irrited everybody, and the income from which will be reduced until in all probability it will not be worth collecting, will disappear at the end of the financial year.

The right hon. the Minister of Finance is not here, and it is hardly worth while saying anything. As for the last speaker, considering what he says, he is fully in sympathy with my resolution, and the protest which has been made against this tax, but the South African Party whip has cracked, and he has fallen into line to vote for something which he does not approve of. I think it is time that some hon. members opposite should reconsider their position and see how they can get out of the straight jacket which compels them to vote against their own convictions.

What about the Labour caucus?

I think the hon. the Minister for Education has fitted himself into that cosy corner far better than I thought he would. But I just want to deal with one or two points the right hon. the Minister of Finance made. My object in bringing this motion forward at this juncture, was, as I stated, to prevent the Government, through the right hon. the Minister of Finance, committing his party and the Government to a policy of continuing this tax in a modified form. Had I thought for one minute that the members of the South African Party would have been consulted, had I thought the right hon. the Minister of Finance would have condescended to consult the members of the South African Party in caucus, in order to get their views before he brought forward the measure, I would never have brought forward my motion to-day, because many members of the South African Party are against the tax, and they would have killed it in caucus. But I know that such matters are not brought before the caucus. I know the right hon. the Minister of Finance does not take into his confidence the members of his own party, and I thought the best thing would be to bring my motion forward, and ask the House to take a non-party vote on the question. The right hon. the Minister of Finance is not making it any better by transferring the trouble to the manufacturer or wholesaler. In fact, from the consumer’s point of view, it will make the position worse. The manufacturer in importing will have to stamp all the articles, and will have to charge the retailers interest on the money sunk, the retailer will be asked to pay a bigger price for the article under the right hon. the Minister’s of Finance new measure than what they are asked to pay to-day, and the consumer will pay more accordingly. Under the right hon. the Minister’s of Finance proposal the consumer is going to suffer more than he is suffering to-day. The manufacturer to-day pays duty on the raw material for the manufacture of his product, now he is going to pay another excise duty on his product. The second stage is going to be worse than the first. With regard to the United Kingdom, the right hon. the Minister of Finance went off at the deep end and said the United Kingdom had had a tax like this for the last hundred years. But what the right hon. the Minister of Finance did not say, what he was very careful not to say, was, that in Great Britain there was no import duty. They do not pay any customs duty there before they enter the country. They are allowed in free. In South Africa we collect nearly £200,000 in customs duty, and on top of that we pay a stamp duty, which the right hon. the Minister of Finance says will bring in £100,000. Now I wish to resent and protest most strongly against the right hon. the Minister’s of Finance accusation that the chemists of South Africa are guilty of fraud and evasion. I wish to register my strongest protest against that unwarranted and uncalled-for attack on the chemists of South Africa.

Hear, hear!

I know that many of these chemists try their best to carry out this Act according to the letter of the law. If they have made a mistake it has been through ignorance, and not through wilful intention. Many of them have been prosecuted because the Department did not know how the Act should be carried out. They have been departmentally prosecuted and fined, and a black mark made against them, not because they have contravened the Act, but because the department did not know how the Act should be carried out. I wish to register my strongest protest against the remarks of the right hon. the Minister of Finance.

I did not say all the chemists. May I rise to explain?

The right hon. the Minister of Finance can rise when I finish. The right hon. the Minister of Finance, clearly and deliberately, said that the chemists were guilty of fraud and evasion. [An Hon. Member: “Nonsense.”] And when he was challenged by my hon. friend he repeated it. I say he had no right to malign the chemists of South Africa the way he has done when they do not deserve it. But he is so keen to carry out his Act to the last letter that he does not care what he says. It is a shame that any Minister should make a remark like that, and we are not going to allow a statement like that to go unchallenged. It was untrue. If any chemist was guilty of fraud why did they not prosecute?

They did and they were convicted.

They did not know in many cases what to do. The Department has pounced down upon them, and the right hon. the Minister of Finance now says these things about them which are unfair and untrue. I cannot support the amendment as it turns the whole trouble over to the wholesaler, in fact, it makes the position worse, and will make it still worse for the consumer than is the case to-day. To try and wriggle out of it in this manner is only to make confusion worse confounded, and the last state worse than the first. I would have been prepared to have withdrawn my motion, but in view of the unreasonable attitude of the right hon. the Minister of Finance, I will now divide the House on it.

[voor de hr. I. P. van Heerden (Cradock)] stelde voor—

Hij zei: Ek is gevra deur die edele lid vir Cradock (de hr. I. P. van Heerden), wat onvermydelik afwesig is, om die voorstel wat in sy naam staat, in te dien. Dis al ’n bietjie laat en ek wil dus so kort moontlik wees, want ek wil baie graag, dat nog vandag oor die mosie gestem sal word. Ek het nie die minste twyfel, dat die mosie deur die Regering aangeneem sal word, omdat ek oortuig is, dat die Regering die erns en die besondere belang van die posiesie net soveel voel as ons aan hierdie kant van die Huis. Die posiesie van die besproeiïngswerke, sê ek, verdien die onmiddellike aandág van die Regering en van hierdie Huis. Dit is aan die Huis bekend, dat die Regering in die laaste tien tot twaalf jaar tussen die vyf en ses miljoen pond gespandeer het aan besproeiïngswerke in verskillende dele van die land. Die meeste van die besproeiïngswerke is klaar gemaak teen grote koste,. ongetwyfeld groter koste as wat die werke regverdig. Dit is veroorsaak, deurdat die werke uitgevoer is in ’n tyd, toe tengevolge van die oorlog die pryse onvermydelik hoog was, toe dies pryse van materiaal ens., op die hoogste punt was en die posiesie vandag is, dat bykans elkeen van die besproeiïngs-skema’s is te duur klaar gemaak, met die gevolg dat die belasting daarop gelê bokant die draagkrag is van byna al die skema’s. Daar behoort noodsaaklik ’n Selekt Komitee aangestel te word om elke skema behoorlik na te gaan en te ondersoek, wat die koste is en hoever die afgebring moet word, om die werke op ’n gesonde basis te kry. Met die aanleg van die werke, die edelagbare die Minister sail dit toestem, is daar groot foute gemaak, ook deur die ingenieurs, waarvoor die grondeienaars nie verantwoordelik is nie, maar as gevolg is die koste so hoog geword. Daar is verskillende skema’s waarvan ek weet waarby die departement foute gemaak het en as gevolg is die koste van die skema’s ontsaglik vergroot. Nou moet die mense meer afbetaal en die skema’s moet hoër belasting verdra as die werke in werklikheid kan bekostig. Nie alleen in verband met die aanbou van damme is daar foute gemaak, maar ook op andere maniere en die departement twyfel daar self ook nie aan nie. Die besproeiïngswerke naby Worcester en daaromtrent en ook die in Oudtshoorn, wat vroeër deur die mense van Oudtshoorn self bekostig is in die tyd toe die voëlstruisboerdery nog gebloei het, is, glo ek, wel ’n sukses gewees maar ek praat nou net van besproieiïngswerke wat aangelê is met Regerings geld. Somerset, waar ek vandaan kom, is seker een van die verste gevorder met die besproeiïngswerke en selfs daar is die mense onregmatig hoog belas. Een van die foute wat gemaak is, is dat die “levels,” die waterpasse, die waterpeile heeltemal verkeerd uitgeneem is, so dat jou vore n:e so werk as hulle moes werk nie. Ek dink die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou weet wat ek sê, en dat dit heeltemal korrek is. Ons glo natuurlik nie, dat daar van die kant van die departement enige kwaai bedoeling gewees is nie, maar die posiesie is so, dat die boere daar vandag met die hoë koste van hulle skema’s sit. Dis ’n punt wat ongerwyfeld ondersoek moet word en die Regering meet nou eenmaal vermindering aanbring en hoe eerder hoe beter die geld gaan afskrywe en die werke op ’n ekonomiese en gesonde basis plaas. Ek glo nie, dat daar enige verskil hieromtrent bestaan nie en ook die direkteur van die besproeiïngswerke self besef die noodsaaklikheid. Maar dan ’n ander punt wat noodsaaklik ondersoek moet word is, hoe die werk in produktiewe toestand te bring. Dis waar, dat die belasting op die skema’s te hoog is en afge skrywe moet word, maar dit sal niks help om die belasting op die gronde af te skrywe, solank as die grond wat onder die skema’s nie in produktiewe toestand kan gebring word nie, nie ontwikkeld kan word nie en in produktiewe staat kom nie. Solank dit nie gebeur, sal dit nie help of die, belasting selfs afgebring word van £5 tot 5s., want die mense sal geen belasting kan betaal nie en die groot kwessie vir die Huis en die Regering is om al die skema’s te laat ondersoek en voorstelle te kry omtrent die stappe wat geneem moet word om die grond in die kortst moontlike tyd in produktiewe toestand te bring. Ons weet, dat byna elke boer veel meer grond het onder besproeiïng, as wat hy ooit kan hoop om te kan bewerk en dit is een van die vernaamste redes waarom ek beskou, dat die besproeiïngs-skema’s geen sukses is nie. Nou sal gevra word: “Waarom verkoop die mense die grond nie?” Die mense is bereid om enige ding te doen om van die grond ontslaë te raak, maar hulle sien daartoe geen kans nie en juis hier moet die Regering met behulp van die Selekt Komitee instap en bepaal, wat die stappe is wat geneem moet word. As dit nie gedoen word nie, dan kry ons by andere skema’s, wat ons gekry het by Graaff-Reinet, waar 8,500 morge besproeiïngsgrond onder die dam in Van Rynevelds Pas opgekoop is deur ’n maatskappy. Die maatskappy het onder die boere die hele stuk grond opgekoop teen ’n gemiddelde prys van £17 per morre. Die maatskappy koop nog verder 50,000 morre veld teen ’n gemiddelde prys van £2 10s. per morre. Die maatskappy het ’n bookie uitgegee, en ek glo, dat alle edele lede in die Huis die boekie gekry het, waarin besonderhede voorkoom, en waarin aangetoon word, wat die Regering behoort te doen. Want in plaas van dat die maatskappy die saak in hande neem, had die Regering dit moet doen. Die maatskappy het die besproeibare land teen die gemiddelde prys van £17 per morre gekoop. Hul stel voor dat hul die gronde sal skoonmaak. hul sal die bosse uitkap. Die hoogste prys wat dit sal kos om die grond skoon te maak sal £2 10s. per morre wees.

Hoe veel?

Ja, ek stel dit so hoog as ek kan—£2 10s. per morre.

Hul sal dit nooit vir die prys kan skoonmaak nie.

Ek sê dat dit die hoogste prys is.

Op Sondags Rivier kos dit so veel as £10 per. morre.

Ja, ek weet dit maar hier sal die gemiddelde koste nie hoër wees nie as £2 10s. per morre. Dan stel die maatskappy voor, dat hul vore sal maak van af die hoof kanaal na hierdie stukke grond: dit sal ook nie meer kos nie as £2 10s. per morre. Dit alles breng die koste op £22 per morre, en dis al wat die maatskappy doen. Hul sal die gronde nie onder die ploeg set nie. hul sal die grond nie omhein nie en hul sal daar geen geboue op set nie. Hul is net allenig van plan om die gronde skoon te maak en paaie in te leg en dan kom hul en bied die gronde aan teen £120 per morre. Dis dieselfde land wat hul £22 gekos het. Hier het ons te doen met ’n posisie waar dit die plig van die Regering gewees was om in te stap, want hier het die Regering omtrent een half miljoen pond uitgegee oor die bou van die dam, en dieselfde gronde was aan die Regering aangebied gewees. Dis ’n kwessie waarop die Gekose Komitee behoor in te gaan om te ondersoek in hoe ver die Staat behoor in te slap en die land behoor oor te neem en te bewerk. Die vraag is gestel: “Waarom werk die boere nie self die grond: nie?” Ek sê dat dit onmoontlik vir die individuële boer is om dit te doen, want die onkoste is te hoog. In die eerste plaas moet die boer die grond koop; hy moet die kapitaal vind om te koop. Wat ek nou sê is die ervaring van byna elke nedersetting. Die boer moet die grond koop en hy moet dit bewerk. Ons weet wat dit kos om ’n morre grond intensief te bewerk soas dit behoor bewerk te word. Dis nie net genog nie om die ploeg oor die grond te set en daar mielies te plant nie, maar die grond moet bewerk word soas dit behoor bewerk te word voordaat dit kan produseer. Die man moet die kapitaal in die grond steek en dit dan bewerk en dan moet hy klaar wees om op die grond te woon totdat dit kan produseer. Dis onmoontlik vir die individuële persoon om dit te doen. Die gronde kan net alleen door maatskappye of door die Staat bewerk word.

Door die Staat?

Ja, ek sê door die Staat, sekerlik. Dit kan door die Staat bewerk word en sonder enig verlies. Dis nie gesond nie vir Suid-Afrika of vir die toekoms van Suid-Afrika dat ’n maatskappy hier sal instap en dat hul land sal koop wat hul hoogstens £40 per morre sal kos en dat hul dit dan vir £120 per morre sal verkeep; en dan is daar nog ’n klausule in die kontrak dat as ’n man vier of vyf jaar lang betaal het en hy kan nie meer betaal nie dan verbeur hy alles. Hul vat dit vir roukoop. Besproeiïng is te ernstig om die soort van ding te kan toelaat. Wat ek hier gesê het is van toepassing op byna al die skema’s. Ons het die ander dag ’n telegram in die koerant gesien waarin verklaar werd dat die maatskappy na hulle sulke goede sake in Graaff-Reinet gedoen het, nou ook van plan is om die besproeiïngsgronde in Cradock op te koop. Ek hoop die mense in Cradock sal nie so dwaas wees om te verkoop nie. Ja, hul het baie goeie sake gedoen. Maar dis ’n baie treurige posiesie as die mense wat daar op die gronde gewoon het op die manier verongeluk moet raak. Die Staat behoor in te stap. Ons het in die eerste plaas die geld gegee en ons behoor nou in te stap. Die Staat het die geld opgeset vir die aanbou van die dam en die Staat behoor nou die geld te vind vir die bewerking van die gronde, want ek denk dat as ons aangaan soos ons nou doen, dan sal elke skema op mislukking uitloop. Elke skema is dieselfde. Selfs ons skema in Somerset is dieselfde—dis een van die meest ontwikkelde skema’s in die land. Mense het vrugte borne ingeset, maar die bome draag nog nie; en die mense kan nie hul agterstallige belastings betaal nie en wat doet die Regering? Die Regering neem die Rade oor en die mense word nou bedreig met dagvaardings en hul moet betaal. Dis heeltemaal reg dat as ’n mens kan betaal dat hy dan moet betaal, maar die mense kan nie betaal nie. Ons moe nie vergeet nie dat daardie mense pioniers werk verrig en dat hul onder baie moeilike omstandighede die ontwikkeling van die land onderneem en die Staat sal eventueel daarvan die vrugte pluk. Daar is die boere op die Groot Vis Rivier skema van Cradock. Die mense wens al die land wat hul het—die land wat hul te veel het—te verkoop; dis die land wat hul nie kan bewerk nie. Wel, die maatskappy sal daar inkom. Waarom sal die maatskappy die voordeel trek, waarom sal die Staat of die boere self nie die voordeel trek nie? Ek sê, dat die Staat die mense moet kom help, nie alleen nie met geld maar met advies. Ek glo daar is baie geld in die land wat verkry kan word as mens op die inkomste let volgens die Kommissaris vir Inkomste Belasting. Daar is baie mense met salarisse wat kleine beleggings soek vir hul geld. Hul het ’n paar pond elke maand vir belegging, en die mense behoor ’n geleentheid te kry, om hulle besparinge in die ontwikkeling van die grond te belê. Die kwessie is of die maatskappye wat die gronde wil bewerk vertrouwbaar genog is. Ek meen, dat die Regering van tyd tot tyd die sake van sodanige maatskappye behoor te onderzoek en daarop te let dat mense nie veruineer word nie. Ek meen, dat as ons maatskappye kry wat door boere beheer word, sonder spekulasie, dat ons in staat sal wees baie geld te verkry onder Regerings toesig. As die grond eers ontwikkel en bewerk word dan sal daar nie ’n enkel van die skema’s voor die Huis kom, om te vra dat die skulde afgeskryf sal word nie. Maar daar behoor in die eerste plaas geld verkry te word. Dis ’n saak waar ’n Gekose Komitee op in behoor te gaan en waaroor hul aanbevelinge moet maak. Dis in hoofdtrekke wat ons verlang. Daar moet iets gedoen word en des te spoediger dit gedoen word, des te beter. Die Minister weet wat die toestande van die boere is—hy ontvang elke dag versoeke van hul en hul is in ’n baie treurige toestand, en viral nou dat hul elke dag opgedruk word om water belasting te betaal. Die een na die ander sal bankroet gaan en sal uitverkoop moet word. En waar sal die gronde dan gaan? Ons sal die man kry wat meest bekwaam is om die grond te bewerk—die boer— hy sal uit die land raak en ons sal ’n klomp leerjongens daar kry en hul sal die een agter die ander kopspeul. Ek hoop, dat die Minister die noodsakelikheid sal insien om die mosie aan te neem en om die Gekose Komitee dadelik aan te stel.

Ek sekonder die voorstel. As daar ooit ’n belangrike mosie voor die Huis was, dan is dit die ene. Ek meen dat dit absoluut nooksakelik vir die Minister is om op die saak in te gaan want daar is baie besproeiïngs skema’s wat heeltemaal op ’n verkeerde basis is. Daar is besproeiïngs werke in my afdeling wat begin was toe daar ’n geweldige vo’elstruis koors in die land was. Ons kan nie die mense blameer nie dat hul verkeerd gegaan het. Ons het die Regering wat agter die belange van die mense moet kyk. Die edele lid vir Somerset (de hr. A. P. J. Fourie) het sy mosie pragtig voorgestel namens sy vrind, en ek hoop dat dit hier nie dood gepraat sal word nie, maar dat die Minister dit aan sal neem en dat daar ’n ondersoek gemaak sal word. In my afdeling is daar twee besproeiïngs skema’s. Ek wil nie sê nie, dat die mense verskriklik hoog betaal, maar hul betaal te hoog. Die skema’s is in die vo’elstruis daë begin, maar vandag is die belasting so hoog, dat die mense nie kan betaal nie. Die Minister behoor ’n ondersoek in te stel om te sien wat daar gemaak kan word en wat verligting daar gegee kan word so dat die mense nie belastings sal behoef te betaal op land wat nie geile aarde is. Daar is lande wat onder water is, maar waarop die mense nie belasting kan betaal nie. Daar kan ’n komitee aangestel word om ’n ondersoek na die hele kwessie te maak. Hul kan dan sien wat die mense sal kan betaal. Dit spreek van self dat daar mense is wat op goeie grond is en wat kan betaal, en hul behoor te betaal, maar daar is ander mense wat nie so gelukkig is, hul het nie goeie grond nie en hul behoor verligting te ontvang, want anders sal dit nie help nie om land onder besproeiïng te set. Mense sal ten onder gaan en dit sal die land nie help nie om sulke skema’s te onderneem. Ek hoop, dat die Minister die mosie sal aanneem en dat hy ’n Gekose Komitee sal aanstel om ’n ondersoek te maak. Daar is skema’s wat vandag betaal, maar daar is ander skema’s wat nie kan betaal nie.

Dis vir my ’n raadsel waarom die edele lid vir Cradock (de hr. I. P. van Heerden) die voorstel op die Papier geplaas het. Hy was teenwoordig gewees by die Besproeiïngs Kongres in Johannesburg, hy woon op Cradock en hy weet, dat ek op die kongres beloof het, dat ek die Sessie wetgeving sou invoer wat hierdie voorstel sou dek. Die voorstel bevat feitelik wat ek beloof het. Dit bevat wat ek op die kongres gesê het en die edele lid weet—hy het die sirkulaires gesien wat aan die Water Rade gestuur is—dat die sirkulaires bevat wat in die mosie staan. Wanneer die edele lid vra om ’n Gekose Komitee dan moet hy weet dat dit onmoontlik is. Die Gekose Komitee sou die hele jaar door moet sit om op die omvangryke kwessie in te gaan. Ek hoop, dat die edele lid sy voorstel terug sal trek. Dit is vir my baie vreemd dat hy dit op die Papier sou hê. Hy het die beloftes gehoor wat ek op die kongres gemaak het en andere beloftes dat ek hierdie Sessie wetgeving sou indien. Die irrigasie publiek weet dat ek ’n kommissie aangestel het wat nou nog besig is en ek wag op hul verslag; die kommissie bestaan uit Regter van Zyl en die twee Waterhof Regters.

Maar dis nie op hierdie kwessie?

Ja, hul gaat op die hele saak in en ek het beloof, dat ek ’n permanente kommissie sou aanstel, en ek gaat veel verder as die edele lid in sy mosie; die kommissie sal nie alleen handel oor bestaande skema’s, maar hul sal ook handel oor toekomstige werke sodat daar nie misverstande sal wees nie soas nou voorkom. Ek hoop derhalve dat die edele lid sal insien dat dit onmoontlik is vir ’n Gekose Komitee om ondersoek te maak na omtrent 80 irrigasie skema’s Dis liggamelik onmoontlik om dit gedurende die Sessie te doen. Maar, soas ek beloof het, sal die wetgeving ingevoer word en al die kwessies door die edele lid opgebreng is in die konsept ontwerp; as die edele lid wens, dan kan hy die konsept ontwerp in my kantoor kom sien en ek sal bly wees om dit aan hom te wys. Ek is ongelukkig nog nie in staat gewees nie om die ontwerp te laat druk want ek wag nog op die verslag van die Irrigasie Kommissie; ofskoon die kommissie nie oor hierdie punte handel, is daar tog punte wat hul moet oorweeg. Die wetsontwerp is opgestel, maar ek wag op die verslag van die kommissie in verband met die proteksie klausules.

Sal die kommissie ook op hierdie punte ingaan?

Ja. Dis nie my bedoeling nie om nou in die brede op die ontwerp in te gaan, maar ek sal net korteliks dit sê—die kommissie wat aangestel sal word sal ’n permanente kommissie wees. Die kommissie sal belas wees om op alle bestaande besproeiïngs werke in te gaan en as daar iets verkeerd is, dan sal die kommissie in die brede daarop moet ingaan, wat verkeerd is en hul sal verslag by die Huis moet uitbreng en hul sal moet sê wat hul as die remedie voorstel. As die waterbelasting agterstallig is, dan sal hul moet aanbeveel of die belasting afgeskryf moet word, en of die Regering die surplus grond moet oorneem, ens., en hul sal ook belas wees met toekomstige skema’s. As daar ’n skema voor die Huis kom, dan sal die Huis aan die kommissie sê: “Stel ’n ondersoek in na die skema.” Teenswoordig bou ons ’n dam en breng ons die water op die land, en dan sê die Staat: “Daar is jul land, ons het jul die water gebreng, boer nou.” Ons het nou tot die oortuiging gekom dat die “post construction period” van veel meer belang is. Ek het die insig ten voile verduidelik aan die kongres en aan die water rade op Visrivier, Sondagsrivier en elders. Ek hoop onder die omstandighede dat die edele lid my versekering sal aanneem dat die wetsontwerp oor al die punte sal handel.

Sal die edelagbare die Minister die invordering van agterstallige belastings oorlaat totdat die permanente kommissie ondersoek gemaak het? Sal die kommissie die agterstallige belasting kan afskryf?

Die kommissie sal die mag hê om aanbevelings te maak, maar die Huis sal seker nie verwag dat hul uitvoerende magte sal kry. Die Huis sal die reg behou om oor die sake te oordeel op aanbevelings van die kommissie. Daar is ’n aantal irrigasie skema’s wat nooit by sal kom so ver as dit agterstallige belastings betref, maar dis nie vir my nie om te sê dat dit afgeskryf moet word, en dis ook nie vir die kommissie nie om te sê dat dit gedaan sal word. Die kommissie sal sy aanbeveling maak en die Parlement sal dan doen wat hul best denk.

Daar is die kwessie van die invordering van agterstallige belastings en daar word dagvaardings uitgestuur.

Die edele lid is verkeerd ingelig aangaande dagvaardings. Ons het sekere skema’s oorgeneem, maar ons het die mense nie gedagvaard nie. Ons het die skema’s net oorgeneem om betere administrasie te verkry.

Nie op Somerset nie?

Ek sal nie sê nie dat daar nergens gedagvaard sal word nie, maar ons het die Rade net vir betere administrasie oorgeneem. Daar is ’n soort van paniek gewees op sekere plekke, en mense het gemeen dat die Departement sou dagvaar, maar daar is geen stappe geneem nie. Dit was net alleen omdat die administrasie gebrekkig was, dat ek tusse beide gekom het en dat ek gesê het: “Ek sal die administrasie oorneem en ek sal die nedersetting beheer.” Ek dink die edele lid sal dus met my instem, dat ek horn op alle punte van die mosie geantwoord het, en ek hoop dat hy dus die mosie sal terugtrek.

Ek hoop die edele lid sal, na wat die edelagbare die Minister gesê het, sy mosie terug trek. Daar is net één punt waar ek die edelagbare die Minister nog attent wil op maak, en dit is die spekulasies wat vandag plaasvind. Dit is hoog tyd, dat die Regering ingryp en so vroeg moontlik maatreëls neem, want in die tussentyd word onherstelbare skade gedoen deur die spekulasies. Ons weet, dat die boer vandag in ’n treurige toestand verkeer en dikwels nie in ’n posiesie is om te kan betaal nie. Hy kry ’n aanbod vir sy grond wat hy onder normale omstandighede nooit sou dink om aan te neem nie, maar nou moet hy dit doen. Ek verstaan wel die moeilikheid van die edelagbare die Minister dat hy wil wag tot die rapport van die kommissie ontvang is, maar dit is hoogs noodsaaklik dat daar dadelik maatreëls geneem word om aan die spekulasie stop te sit, wat ’n baie groot gevaar is vir die Staat as ook vir die boer.

Die edelagbare die Minister sê, dat enkele van die besproeiïngswerke deur sy Departement oorgeneem is. Ek hoop dat dit nie beteken, dat as gevolg daarvan die besproeiïngsrade, omdat hulle dink dat as hulle nie hulle huis in orde sit nie, die Regering ook hulle werk sal oorneem, dat hulle dan miskien belastingbetalers wat agterstallig is, gaan dagvaar. Wil die edelagbare die Minister nie miskien hulle ’n bietjie laat verneem, dat hulle eers die rapport van die Besproeiïngskommissie wat die ondersoek sal instel, moet afwag en dat hulle nie so gou moet wees met die dagvaardings nie?

Ek wil ook graag dat ’n Gekose Komitee aangestel word, maar ek is baie tevrede gestel deur die woorde van die edelagbare die Minister van Lande, dat ’n kommissie die hele saak sal ondersoek en ek dink die voorsteller van die mosie kan ook tevrede wees, dat ’n kommissie gaat aangestel word.

Ek denk dat die punt wat door die edele lid vir Humansdorp (de hr. C. W. Malan) opgebreng is ’n baie belangrike punt is. Ek gloo, dat die edelagbare die Minister die Huis al by vorige geleenthede meegedeel het, dat dit die bedoeling van die Regering is daar in die vervolg op te let, dat wat nou gebeur nie langer moontlik sal wees nie. Maar wat nou gebeur het sal weer gebeur, dat miljoene ponde van die belastingbetalers op besproeiïngs skema’s besteed sal word en dat die eienaar in staat sal wees met die surplus land te spekuleer. Ons het gehoor dat dit die bedoeling was dat die surplus land, wat die boer nie kan bewerk nie, door die Regering sou oorgeneem word. Ons kan sien wat nou op Graaff-Reinet gebeur—mense is daar in staat om te spekuleer met staatsgelde, maar later sal die regte van die mense weggeneem word. As dit die bedoeling van die Minister is om wetgeving in te dien om die regte van die mense in die vervolg weg te neem, dan behoor die Regering nie te draal met die wetgeving nie, sodat mense in die vervolg nie meer met die lande sal kan spekuleer.

Ek besef, dat die punt van spekulasie van groot belang is, maar die skuld lê nie by die Regering nie, maar by die publiek. Wat het gebeur is dit, ons het die geld geleen en toe ons die ander dag opstaan, is die grond, waarvoor die geld geleen was, opgekoop deur spekulante. Ek erken, dat dit verkeerd is, maar dis die skuld in die eerste plaas van die mense, wat die grond verkoop het. Ons hoop in die toekoms maatreëls te neem, dat by nuwe skema’s dit nie weer gaan gebeur nie, maar wat betref geld wat in die verlede geleen is vir besproeiïng doeleindes, daar kan ons niks aan doen nie. Ons het geen reg om maatreëls te neem om dit stop te sit nie. Elkeen, wat grond onder water gesit het met die leninge van die Goewerment, het die reg om die grond te verkoop aan wie hy wil. Ons kan dit nie verhinder nie. Die koper neem al die laste oor van die verkoper. Ek hoop, dat die kommissie met nuwe aanbevelinge sal kom om te voorkom, dat dit weer sal gebeur, maar ons kan nie die spekulasie van die verlede ongedaan maak nie.

Ek wil net daarop wys, dat die groot gevaar nie lê by die enkele stukkies grond, wat onder die skema gekom het nie en opgekoop word, maar by die groot gevalle soos die waar die Amerikaanse Maatskappy kom en die hele ding met sak en pak opkoop, sodat daar niks oorbly vir die boer nie. Die gevaar is nie by die klein stukkies nie en ek wil hê, dat die edelagbare die Minister baie versigtig sal wees en sal voorkom, dat die Amerikaanse kapitaal hele besproeiïng nedersettings opkoop.

Ons het geen wet om dit te doen nie.

Mag ek die edelagbare die Minister daar net op attent maak, dat dit nie die besproeiïngs skema’s is wat verander het nie, maar dat dit die politiek van die Regering is wat verander het. Die Regering het ’n goeie houding aangeneem toe die voorstelle ingebring is vir die besproeiïngswerke, maar nadat die geld gestem was vir daardie doel, had die edelagbare die Minister moet voorkom dat sou gebeur wat gebeur het aan die Van Rynevelds Pass.

Ons had nie die reg om in te gryp nie.

Die Huis verwag die leiding van die Regering in verband met sulke gevalle.

Wat betref die kwessie van Graaff-Reinet, weet ek, dat ons daar niks aan kan doen nie, en dat die Regering daar niks aan kan doen nie. Die maatskappy het die grande gaan opkoop vir die bespotlike pryse en ek dink hulle sal daar ook in slaag om die grond weer te verkoop teen die hoë prys wat hulle voorstel. Maar wat ek hier vandag voor die Huis gebring het, is, dat ek graag wou sien, dat ’n kommissie, of ’n Selekt Komitee die reg sal hê om al die bestaande skema’s te gaan ondersoek en dat daardie Komitee met ’n skema voor die Huis sal kom, waarby die Staat die grond kan oorneem, in plaas van die maatskappye, al was dit teen dieselfde prys as wat hierdie maatskappye betaal, sodat as daar enige profyt gemaak word, die aan die Staat kom, en ek dink, dat die Regering aan die boere iets moet terugbesorg vir al die moeilikhede wat hulle gely het. Ek wil dit graag op die Regering druk, dat ons eers moet sien dat elke duim van die bestaande besproeiïngsgronde bewerk sal word. En ons wil ’n kommissie hê, of ’n Selekt Komitee of enige andere person®, wat planne aan die hand sal gee omtrent steppe wat ons moet neem om die grond bewerk te kry. Ons besef vandag, dat die boere nie die kapitaal het om die grond te bewerk nie, en daarom moet ons tot ’n stelsel kom waarby die Staat of ander persone of liggame die boere in staat sal stel, om geld in die hande te kry, sodat die land bewerk word. Die mense moet in staat gestel word om ’n bestaan te maak, maar soos die posiesie nou is, moet hulle wegloop van die skema. As dit die funksie is van die deur die Minister voorgestelde kommissie om maatreëls in hierdie verband voor te stel, dan trek ek die mosie met die grootste plesier terug. Ek wil net sê, dat ek bly is, dat die Regering en die Huis die omstandighede vandag in aanmerking neem. Moenie die mense druk, wat vandag agterstallig is, met belasting nie. Die mense is in ongelukkige moeilikhede en ek glo die edelagbare die Minister kan nie een boer opnoem nie; wat welvarend is. Algar is in ’n moeilike posiesie. Die voëlstruisboerdery het geen mark meer nie en die mense kan hulle belastinge nie betaal nie. Jaag hulle skrik aan, maar moenie hulle dagvaar nie. Ek hoop dat, volgens die verklaring van die edelagbare die Minister, in die toekoms belet sal word, dat gronde verkoop word op die spekulatiewe manier, soos dit gebeur het in Graaff-Reinet. Ek trek dan die mosie terug op die gegewens deur die edelagbare die Minister gegee.