I move—

The object of this Bill is to give effect to the proposals contained in the budget in regard to income tax, as already also discussed in Committee of Ways and Means. Hon. members will see that there are just a few sections. Clause 1 re-enacts the existing rates laid down in our income tax legislation, and also provides for the 20 per cent, rebate which I announced in the budget debate. Then I may say that a clause will be inserted in the Financial Adjustment Bill to protect the position of the provinces in regard to their rights relating to the levying of personal tax based on Union income tax. Clause 2 re-enacts the existing rates in regard to super tax which, as hon. members know, are not affected by the rebate. Clause 3 is merely formal, and necessary to bring into action the administrative sections of the existing Income Tax Act. Under Clause 4 we deal with the position in regard to debenture interest. We repeal the exemption on debenture interest in the hands of the recipients. Debenture interest will now be taxed as an ordinary portion of the taxable income at the rate appropriate to the amount of such income. Then Clause 5 is the only new provision. Under that we give power to the department also to apply the penalty provisions of the Act in regard to bogus or wrong deductions. At present a penalty exists in regard to omissions from a return, but there is really no provision to penalize what should be regarded as more serious, and that is bogus deductions in regard to income.

But if it is through a misunderstanding?

Provision is made that innocent errors will be protected in the same way as innocent omissions are at present protected. The hon. member knows that in the case of omissions from a return the commissioner is entitled to impose a penalty, but if it is proved that it was an innocent omission the penalty can be waived. In the same way we will take power to penalize bogus deductions, but innocent deductions will be protected in the same way as innocent omissions. There is certainly no reason why an omission from a return should be penalized, and not a deliberate bogus deduction. Hon. members will see the necessity for that. These are the only provisions of this little Bill, and I now move the second reading.

I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House, but I do think the Minister ought to have considered this very heavy charge on companies. I know it is a subject that has often been discussed in the past, but, seeing the Minister is making remissions, and is in the position to consider the position of the taxpayer in a way he has not been able to do in the past, I think the time has arrived when this very heavy impost on companies should be reconsidered. I know, of course, that the Minister is not originally responsible for having a higher income tax rate payable by companies than by private individuals, but it is more and more realized that ‘private individuals, whose incomes are small, who do not pay super tax, and who may, in fact, have only £400 or £500 a year, are interested in these companies, and it does seem absurd that for any interest they have in a company or for any income they derive from that interest, they should have to pay 2s. 6d. in the £ in the case of companies generally, and 3s. in the £ in the case of mining companies and diamond companies. The popular idea, of course, is that the holders of mining shares and diamond shares and shares in other companies are wealthy individuals, and can well afford to pay 2s. 6d. or 3s. in the £ as income tax, but that is not the case. The great bulk of the shareholders in these companies are people who have small holdings and whose incomes are, on the whole, small as compared with the well-to-do people. I think the Minister ought to seriously consider the question of reducing these amounts. It is a very serious complaint that a man with a small income who happens to have some gold or diamond shares or some shares in an industrial company should be penalized in this way. He may only pay 1s. or 1s. 2d. in the £ as income tax on his income generally, but if he has shares in any of these companies and gets a dividend, then he is immediately forced to pay 2s. 6d. or 3s. I really think it is a point that ought to be seriously considered when the Minister is framing his budget, and it is a complaint that is generally made, and I think I am only doing my duty in calling attention to it.

I raised this question before about the abolition of the provincial councils, but I think the Minister is not prepared to go as far as I am, although I believe the Minister of Justice has expressed a very strong opinion in favour of the abolition of the provincial councils. I have just received from the Transvaal the “Provincial Gazette” of the 9th of May, imposing certain taxes on the incomes of persons. I do think the Minister might meet us in the Transvaal by increasing the 20 per cent, rebate he proposes in the proviso to Clause 1 to 25 per cent., and to wherever a similar imposition to that in the Transvaal is also exacted. I hope the Minister will seriously consider moving an amendment to that extent himself, as I do not believe a private member can move it, namely, to have 20 per cent, increased to 25 per cent. Before the committee stage, perhaps, he will reconsider the matter, and introduce that. The tendency of taxation should not be, as it is at present, upwards, but downwards. Those of us who live in the north are already squirming under this heavy taxation. We find it very hard to pay. In the way the money is expended we contend we do not get value for it. Under the circumstances I hope the Minister will relent a little and have mercy on those who live in the north.

I have often discussed this question, but I want very much to ask the Minister again if he will consider, not exempting the farmers from taxation, but allowing them to deduct for taxation purposes expenses for wear and tear of fences. The Minister knows that the farmers have paid out millions of pounds for fencing, and through the fences we have put up we produce, in the Cape Province, much more than in the past. Under the present Act it is not permitted to make any deduction for wear and tear. I can assure the Minister that a fence only lasts from. 10 to 12 years, and I very much want him to do something. I do not want to propose anything myself, but I want to ask the Minister to introduce something into the law to put the farmer in a position to write off for fencing.

I want to support the plea of the former speaker for this reason, that, in the Transvaal cattle farming is increasing considerably, and as it increases fences are urgently needed. The result is that the farmer has many expenses. I think that the Minister of Agriculture said here, during the discussion on the estimates, that the Government will readily encourage and assist in improving cattle farming, and this is one of the best and, I think, the most powerful methods of helping the cattle farmer. Therefore, I want to support the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler).

I, too, want to appeal to the Minister to come to the help of the farmers in this respect. In that way he will not only help, but also encourage the farmers. I shall not enlarge upon the proposal of the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler), but I wish that the expense of putting up a fence could be deducted as general expense for taxation purposes. The eradication of prickly pear is also causing the farmer great expense; then he also spends money to prevent soil erosion. These matters are not only in the personal interests of the farmer, but in the national interest, and even the Drought Commission strongly recommends the assisting of farmers for these purposes. I should like to apply to the Minister to assist and encourage the farmers to fence, and to carry out the other work I have mentioned. I want, therefore, to support the motion of the hon. member, and I hope the Minister will give the necessary assistance to the farmers.

I am in favour of the principle of farmers paying income tax because I believe it to be fair, but I do think the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) has put up a very fair case for remission of cost for fencing in making up our returns. The life of a fence is only very limited—perhaps twelve, fifteen or eighteen years at the outside. I think the proposition put forward by the hon. member is very fair, and I hope it will be accepted.

With reference to what has been raised on various sides of the House in connection with the amendment of the income tax proposals, I want to say that it is not the time to discuss it now. It ought to have been raised on the budget, and in Committee of Ways and Means. An alteration at this stage would upset the whole of my budget, and I do not intend to alter it now.

I asked for it by way of a motion.

It was not passed, and this is not the time to move for a reduction in income tax. We gave as much relief as possible, and sacrificed over £700,000 in income tax, which will benefit all classes of the population.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee now.

House in Committee:

On Clause 1,

I move—

I might just point out, the Minister says it will seriously affect the Budget

Can the hon. member proceed in English, seeing he started his speech in Afrikaans?

I had better continue in Afrikaans. The Minister said that the question must not be raised now.

The hon. member must speak English.

The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) objected to it.

I think the hon. member commenced in English.

No, in Afrikaans. The object is not to exempt the farmers, but merely to encourage them. The Minister said that it would make a serious encroachment on his revenue under the Budget. I do not think it will be so much. The Minister himself recently said that he only got about £60,000 from the farmers in income tax, and if they are allowed to make the deductions it will not amount to much. It will, e.g., greatly encourage the farmers to stop the soil erosion. Then we have a good deal of prickly pear in my district, and if the farmers may deduct their expenses for tax purposes, it will encourage them to destroy the prickly pear. The same applies to the jointed cactus. These are very important matters, and I hope the Minister will assist us. We have a little bush in the Eastern Province called the “rapuisbossie” (resin bush), and the farmers spend a great deal on cleaning the veld in order to protect the grass.

Why do you not move to exclude all capital expenditure?

No, I am not doing so. The Minister knows that this House passed a motion to exempt the farmers entirely from the tax. No exemption is being asked for now, but merely encouragement to the farmers in constructing dipping tanks, fences, etc. They are all matters which were recommended by the commission appointed to go into the circumstances of the droughts, and they recommended that the farmers should have the right of deducting it from their income in calculating the tax. It is not a new principle. A little while ago the Minister was quite prepared to meet the farmers of the midlands as regards boreholes and wind pumps for drinking water for stock. I therefore move—

I merely want to point out that we are here dealing with the principle, which, if the hon. member wants it applied consistently, goes the length of our having to exclude all capital expenditure of a farmer on his farm. Does the hon. member then want to propose something which does not apply to any taxpayer in the country? There was a motion in this House to exempt the farmer from income tax. During the debate I said I was prepared to consider it, but the farmers throughout the country said that it would be an insult to them, and that they had never asked for it.

Only two.

They were people who spoke on behalf of all the farming organizations, and I have many letters in my office protesting against it, and if we were now to give the exemption asked for, who would be benefitted by it? Not the small farmers, with small incomes, but the big, rich farmers who have large incomes. And is it right to allow them to exempt from tax all the expenses they might be able to incur on their farms?

You have already adopted the principle in another Act.

Those were matters of which it could actually be said that it was necessary to deduct them from the incomes from farming, but now the hon. member wants to extend this to all kinds of capital expenditure. In any case, it is an almost unheard of thing to propose at the last stage of this Bill that the tax should be reduced, which would completely upset my budget. If it is actually necessary it can be done by representations and motions. I cannot possibly accept it now.

I am sorry that the Minister is so resolutely opposed to the amendment. I do not want to debate all the points raised by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden), but only the desirability of exempting from income tax expenses on dams and fences. At present the farmer can deduct the costs of repairing his fence. If the fence breaks and requires repairing, then the farmer may deduct the expense from his revenue, but when he erects the fence in the first instance he may not deduct it. We want to encourage the fencing of farms.

What about the farmers who have already fenced their farms?

We are still busy doing so. In my constituency, before the fencing took place, the farmers had to employ a shepherd, and the expense of the salary and maintenance of the shepherd could be deducted from the revenue, but as soon as the farm is fenced the shepherd is not required, nor the expenditure in connection with him, so that the Minister by the fencing gets much more out of the farmers. The same applies to dams. As soon as the farmers fence and make camps on the farms to make the keeping of sheep more profitable and to provide constant grazing, dams are required in the camps, and the dams must be fenced.

Was that not so before?

I am astonished that the hon. member who comes from a district where there is room for considerable development in sheep farming, is opposed to it.

I am not opposed to it.

The Minister was prepared to go so far as to exempt farmers entirely from income tax, and I think in any case he can do what is now asked, and so assist the farmers in a practical manner. I think the adoption of the motion of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) will meet with the general approval of the farmers, and that the public also will be satisfied.

The hon. member spoke as if I opposed the deduction. Not at all, but I am merely surprised that the hon. members for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) and Caledon (Mr. Krige) are making so much noise here. The hon. member for Caledon has a short memory. He sat in the caucus when his Government passed the law in the form in which fences were taxed, but he now makes out that this is a new thing being recommended now. The Minister gave considerable relief by reducing the tax. All the taxes were imposed by the last Government, by the members who are now shouting so loudly for further exemption. The hon. member must not let the impression be conveyed to the public that I am against exemption, but I want the farmers outside to know who were the people who imposed the tax.

I have not asked the Minister to take the income tax off farmers or to reduce it, but in this case the suggested relief could be given to the greatest possible advantage. I grant that it is capital expenditure to a large extent, but the Minister should take a somewhat broad view. We want to encourage expenditure of this description by farmers. What could be better than for a man to fence his farm, build a dam, exterminate prickly pear or stop soil erosion? The Minister has a fairly good surplus, and I do not think he could make a remission of taxation to greater possible advantage. The country generally would support a remission. If the amendment is put to the vote I shall support it.

I think that an attempt is being made on the other side to make political capital out of the motion. I just want to tell the hon. members that the farmers know them too well to listen to them. The members opposite were in office from 10 to 14 years and did nothing for the farmers, but this Government has already done an astonishing amount for them, and has considerably reduced taxation. This Government has removed burdens which hon. members opposite imposed, and they never did the least thing to relieve the farmers. Since this Government has been in power, however, they want at every opportunity to pose as the protectors of the farmers. The farmers know them too well. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) had an opportunity for 14 years, but never took a step, but two years ago in his budget speech he suddenly thought of suggesting to exempt the farmers from the income tax. What happened? After the motion was introduced into the House the farmers on the countryside themselves said they wanted no exemption from the tax. I am glad that I was one of the few farmer members who opposed the exemption in the House, and I am still against it. It would be an eternal disgrace to the farmers if the Minister were to exempt them from income tax, but what I do think can actually be done is that the Minister should meet the farmers in certain respects. This cannot immediately be done here, but only after careful calculations, and after the matter has been carefully considered. Then only can the Minister introduce exemption, and I hope that if he remains in office and the finances of the country permit it, he will then consider making certain exemptions, as for example, wind pumps, but to say that the motion of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) must be passed at once would result in the rich farmers, like the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) being exempted, while the small farmers received no benefits. When the big farmer expends £10,000 to £20,000 for fences, buildings and other improvements, then, according to the motion, he will not need to pay any tax in respect thereof, but his foreman, who gets a salary of £500 or £600, has to pay the tax on that. I do not consider such a proposal fair. I want the Minister to enquire carefully what relief he can give to the farmers, but it is impossible for him to agree to the Hon. member's motion now. This Government has already given exemption to farmers in all possible ways. The abatement on income tax has been raised from £300 to £400, and £50 instead of £60 can be deducted for each child, and now the tax has again been reduced by 20 per cent. Now, however, some members of the Opposition want to get into the farmers’ good books, but the farmers are not going to take the Opposition attitude seriously. The farmers know what the Government has done, and I still hope the time will come when the Minister can grant fair exemptions, in such a way that the small and middle class farmer will be assisted, but not the big farmer who can, and ought, to pay taxes. There is another exemption which I have long been advocating, and which I almost place before this concession. It is the estate duty. There is a heavy estate duty on the farmers, and it was imposed by hon. members opposite, who are now pleading so strongly for exemption. I appeal to the Minister to go into the question again of the estate duty and to see if he cannot give any relief. For the rest, however, the farmers know that the Minister has given much relief, and that this Government has done a great deal for them.

In supporting the amendment, I may save subsequent speakers a little trouble if I say that I am not actuated by racialism, nor inspired by the South African party press, nor is it my desire to drive a wedge between the two branches of the Pact. As a matter of fact, one branch of the Pact has almost disappeared altogether—there is one solitary representative. I wonder how many hon. members consider this fact, that of agricultural production, which is the largest of any industry in the country, amounting to £60,000,000 or £70,000,000 per annum, only about £4,500,000 is taxable income. Why our public servants, who are not a productive part of the community, have a taxable income of nearly £7,000,000 per annum. Doctors have a taxable income of over £1,000,000, and lawyers a taxable income of nearly £1,500,0000. The moral of that is obvious. A farmer is a man who has to live on a very exiguous income, and has very little to spare to improve his farm or to prevent the deterioration, erosion and so forth, that is going on such a, large scale. A farmer is in a very invidious position. I know of one industry that through the customs is subsidized to the extent of £1,000,000 per annum. That is the boot industry. That is a big subsidy, and surely some relief might be given to the farmers to compensate for the big bonus that is given to another industry. I know of another source of production in this country, so supported by tariffs and otherwise that I believe it would pay to pension off all the white men engaged in it at a very considerable sum per annum. I am not questioning whether it is wise or unwise to subsidize the boot industry, or this other industry, but surely there must be some equality of treatment, especially with regard to our primary industry of agriculture and pastoral production. When we find that the average taxable income of those few farmers, who pay income tax, is only £51 per annum, while the medical profession have an average taxable income, that is to say over and above abatements, of £352 per annum, it is obvious that our farming community is not particularly prosperous. They are handicapped in several ways. A farmer has to arrange for his production at least six months ahead of the harvest—six months or more before he can draw the cheque.

That is why you tax us so hard.

No, I am asking for relief. I will support any reasonable measure that will tend to relieve farmers from taxation.

Why not five years ago?

The hon. member is a public man, and knows that then the condition of things in this country, as in every other part of the world, was in a very difficult state. The hon. member ought not to try and make political points over a very numerous class of people. I suppose the bulk of his constituents are interested in farming, and he ought rather to serve their interests rather than to try and make a small political point, which he will fail to do. The position will not bear analysis. The farmer is in a different position from the merchant and manufacturer. The farmer has to make his plans six months or more ahead. He cannot forecast what the result will be in the shape of markets. There may be over-production of the particular commodity that he grows. There may be a change in the price of gold, which affects him very materially. The merchant, particularly since the war, has learnt to live from hand to mouth, so to speak, or to merely fulfil orders, and the same way with the manufacturer. If times are bad he can close up his establishment or portions of it. The farmer cannot do that sort of thing. He has to keep his farm going, and it is not possible for him to take the same precautions against an adverse turn of trade or prices that others do. In view of the fact that the farmer has to meet unregulated and unrestricted competition all the world over, he is entitled to such exceptional treatment as it may be possible to give him in this matter. It is not so much exceptional treatment that he wants as fair treatment in comparison with others. We are building up industries by means of tariffs and so forth, but we are not doing nearly enough to stabilize the position of those on the land to enable them to tide over bad seasons, such as droughts, plagues, etc., and resume their business properly when the effects of these troubles have passed. Unless we build our industries on the solid foundation of agriculture, they, too, will fail. In view of the facts of the position, I think the Minister will be well advised to take into his serious consideration any reasonable proposition that would tend to their relief. I would like to see the Minister put into the clause we are now considering —

Shall we substitute this amendment for the debenture interest so as to balance the accounts?

Surely that is not worthy of the Minister.

It is very pertinent.

We are speaking of two very different things. I am suggesting that the farmer as a beginning should only pay half rates, but debenture interest, as the Minister knows, was only common-sense adjustment of affairs.

It costs us £50,000.

What is that compared to the £1,000,000 you are paying to the boot manufacturers? What relief are the farmers getting in regard to income tax compared to this? The Minister will agree with me that above all it is necessary that our main industry should be built up on a sound foundation, and to do this we must tax the farmers as little as possible. Every penny the farmer makes he does not put into his pocket, but spends in some form or other, either improving his farm or his stock, but on the miserable savings he is able to get from his farm he is taxed heavily and it would be a far better investment for the country if a large portion of the amount now exacted by way of taxation from the farmers were left in their pockets, and they were enabled to devote it to the development of their business and to their greater security against fluctuations of seasons and so forth.

I support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden). I may say that that principle was supported in the report of the Drought Commission some time ago. That report very strongly urged that farmers should be exempted from income tax in respect of certain improvements such as are proposed here by the hon. member for Cradock. Hon. members all know the farmer’s lot is not a very happy one. He has to contend against nature most of the time. His crops may be in a beautiful condition, and all of a sudden a hail-storm comes along and he loses everything.

Then he does not pay.

A very heavy storm comes along and washes his lands tremendously. An enormous amount of erosion takes place. In order to build up his lands again, he has to make provision against further erosion. I say that we should try and assist the farmer as far as we possibly can. If this amendment was going to reduce very considerably the amount of the Minister’s revenue, it would be a different thing. Personally, I think it will not be a large amount. If farmers knew they would be free from paying income tax on moneys expended for providing against erosion, they would feel that their efforts in this direction were being encouraged. Then there is fencing. The more fencing you put up on a farm the better are the operations on that farm carried on. We should do everything we possibly can to encourage the farmer to put as much fencing as he can on his farm. If, as I say, a very big amount had been involved by this amendment, it would have been a very different thing. This matter has been brought up in this House during the last three years. It has not now been sprung on the Minister, It has been brought to the notice of the Minister for the last three years. I do not regard the matter from the point of view of politics. When hon. members on this side bring up proposals for the benefit of the farmer, hon. members opposite, and particularly the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) get up and make a political question of it. Let me tell him that there is no political move whatsoever in this matter. We are simply doing what we think is right on this side of the House without any idea of party politics at all. When the hon. member for Oudtshoorn in this House asked some time ago for bounties on his ostrich feathers, what happened? He got that bounty, I would like to ask him whether his district has paid back that bounty. When the hon. member asked for that bounty there was not on this side of the Hause any cry that it was all party politics. I hope that the hon. member in future will desist, when we on this side ask for some relief for farmers, from trying to make out that it is a matter of politics. The principle was accepted by the House of relieving the farmers from income tax. This is a step in the right direction, and it seems to me that it is not asking for anything that is unreasonable. It is the best thing that could happen that we should allow farmers exemption on these necessary improvements. It is going to redound not only to the benefit of the farmer, but to the benefit of the man in the town. The more the farmer can produce and the better his methods of production, the more production there will be, and the better it will be for everyone. I am sorry the Minister said he could not accept this on principle. I do not know what great principle is involved. Exemption has been allowed in other directions, and I do not see why in this case exemptions should not be allowed to the farmers.

I am very sorry that we have to detain the House with this afternoon’s debate. I think every hon. member knows the attitude of the Minister with regard to the exemption of farmers from the tax, and it will do no good discussing it. If the Minister were to do what is asked this afternoon, then another section of the population would be dissatisfied. I fear, if he grants the request, that there will be a further appeal to the Minister to fence the farms. I represent a farming district, and am a farmer myself, but it is unreasonable to come at this stage and ask the Minister for exemption. The present Government have already assisted the farmers in many ways. They have already established the Land Bank, which lends money to farmers to fence their farms.

Are the farms in your district fenced?

In my district all farms are fenced, and some have thirteen strands of barbed wire, but it is unreasonable to come at this stage and say, as the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has done, that, when they on that side get up and plead for the farmers, we are opposed to it. However, I shall not for the world vote for the amendment. I am a farmer myself, and I represent farmers, but this is not the proper time to introduce such a motion. If the Minister says that he is prepared to remove the tax on farmers, and if a motion is then made, then I am prepared to vote for it, but not for this motion. The farmers can get money through the Land Bank, and the Government has assisted them in every possible way. It is unreasonable to introduce the motion now when the budget is nearly completed.

I was sorry to hear the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) remark that this had been raised merely for political purposes. Last session when a resolution was moved asking that farmers should be exempt from income tax altogether, how did the him, member vote then? Was he striving for political advantage then? The whole of the members on that side voted for that relief from income tax as far as the farmers were concerned. Now it has been moved to give relief in regard to certain legitimate expenses incurred by the farmers. I am in favour of making no difference between the farmer and any commercial man. The income tax is a profits tax, and I think it is only fair that money spent in realizing that profit should be deducted. That is all that is asked for now. Last year a great fuss was made about exempting farmers from income tax. It was said the farmer was struggling, and for the sake of the poor farmer the Government should give exemption. If that had been adopted, it would not have benefited the poor struggling farmer at all; it would only have benefited ahe well-to-do man who had the requisite income and who could afford to pay, and yet hon. members over there, every one of them, voted for a measure of that sort. Yet when legitimate relief is suggested, we are accused of trying to create a party advantage. I was glad to hear an hon. member (Mr. le Roux) tell us that the people of the Platteland were not in favour of discontinuing income tax. The farmers’ congress which sat in Port Elizabeth last year supported that. It has been claimed that the Government has done a great deal toward ameliorating the conditions of poor struggling farmers. We all agree that it is essential that every citizen should be taxed, but we say do it in proportion to a man’s ability to pay. But what do we find the Government doing? Gradually increasing the customs; and getting at farmers in indirect ways which many do not realize. On our wool we are paying 82 per cent, more railage than we were ten years ago. I support the amendment because I think it is a reasonable one.

As a farmers’ representative, I must say that we are very thankful for what the Government has done for us. If we make a little comparison between what the previous and the present Governments have done, then the farmers must say that they are very grateful that they got rid of the previous Government. What happened? When we were in opposition, and that party had the reins, hon. members on that side shouted that the farmers were not paying enough taxes. Why are they singing a different tune to-day? It is for nothing else hut to try and catch the farmers. Let us be honest. I go so far to-day as to say that all the shouting opposite is only with an eye on the election, and that it is nothing but political propaganda. The Opposition is not in earnest. There was amongst others the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who was one of the worst sinners in saying that the farmers were not sufficiently taxed. Will he deny it?

He has been converted.

Yes, he must have been converted. I think we ought to be very grateful to the Government for all they have done for the farmers. I do not want to enumerate everything, but I think that if we make a comparison between what the former and the present Governments have done, hon. members opposite will have to blush. As I have said, I believe that there is nothing but a political purpose behind the attitude of hon. members opposite.

I should like to move an amendment in a matter which I have introduced before. I asked the Minister on a previous occasion to give relief to the farmers living in the Transvaal, and therefore I move—

The result will he that, besides the reduction of 20 per cent., 5 per cent, extra will be deducted in the Transvaal.

I was a little disappointed with the speech of the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) that the income tax for farmers cannot be abolished now, and that the Minister has already done much through the Land Bank, which advances money to the farmers for making improvements. That is, however, entirely inadequate, and we must reach a point where the farmer is exempted from income tax on improvements. The hon. members from the Free State can laugh, because they have their grain elevator, and do not need to store the grain in bags. They only pay a very small sum for storage of the grain in the elevator. In the wine districts here we have to have vats in which wine remains for seven or eight months before it can be exported, and if we are assisted with our vats, as hon. members are with their grain elevators, then we shall also be prepared to pay so much a ton for grapes.

Why do you not put all the things which you wish to be exempted into the amendment?

The grain elevators are too small.

The Minister misunderstands me. I favour those grain elevators. I advocated them from the day that I saw in Europe what benefit the people got from them. Hon. members say that the elevators are too small, but then they must be enlarged because if more, is produced the farmers can pay more taxes, but as hon. members have already said, if the soil washes away we can produce nothing. Hence I say that if a man puts his capital into improvements of the land, and the department is not satisfied with the returns, let them send a man to see whether he has actually made the improvements. If he has done so he ought to pay no tax on it. If the wine farmer has made improvements then his wine is better in consequence, because if he does not do so his wine falls amongst the sweet wines, which is only worth half. I do not want the farmer to have anything for nothing, but when he makes a return which shows an improvement of the land which is not only in his own interests, but in that of the whole country and of posterity, then he ought not to pay any tax on that expenditure.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) said that the farmers were very grateful to the Government for all that had been done for them, and we all agree with it. We are certainly convinced that the Government has done much for the farmers, but in this connection we have to do with the fact that this House has passed a motion in favour of the exemption of farmers from income tax. The Minister got up and said that he would accept, it, and he gave his reasons. So-called representatives of farmers— I deny that they represent the farmers—said that the farmers would consider it a disgrace to be exempted from income tax. I have not met one farmer in my constituency who said that.

What does the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) say about the Agricultural Congress at Port Elizabeth?

I have not had one of those farmers at my meetings, and I was specially instructed at the meeting to take action in connection with the matter, and they all instructed me to try and obtain exemption from the tax.

What does the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) say about exemption?

I am speaking of my constituency, and the farmers I have met, and I challenge the associations which say they speak for the farmers to hold a farmers’ congress at any place, and allow the farmers to state their views. I have advocated the exemption, but the Minister said that he could not grant it. I submit it and urge upon the Minister at least to go the length of allowing the farmers to write-off depreciation on fences. The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) has spoken, but he does not know what a plague the jackals are. In his district they have no expense in fighting them. I want a man who fences his farms with jackal-proof fencing costing £2;000 possibly to be able to write off 2 or 3 per cent., so that he can deduct £30 or £40 for depreciation. The Minister must know that the jackal-proof fencing only last from 10 to 14 years.

Costs of repairs may be deducted.

But they delay repairing for 14 years, and then the fence is useless.

They can repair the broken part every year.

No repairs are required for the first five or six years.

Then there is actually no depreciation.

The wire rusts, and continually gets worse. When the farmers have erected the fence with great trouble, why should they not have the right to deduct an amount for depreciation? I deplore the position in the House, that when we are discussing agricultural matters party politics are dragged in. As a farmer, I say that it will be a sad day when a party matter is made out of every small agricultural question. I am not influenced by party considerations, but by a deep feeling, and if I feel that a thing is right, and someone opposite says the right thing, then I ought to be able to say what I think without a party matter being made of it. If I cannot do so, then it is a sad matter for our farming interests. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) spoke, but I want to remind him that he voted against the exemption of farmers from income tax, and that we, therefore, cannot expect much sympathy from him. I agree that the other side have done nothing for the farmers, but we now have a Nationalist party Government, a Government of farmers, and, therefore, I feel free to appeal to the Minister. If the South African party were in office I should not dare to do so, because they had no sympathy for the farmers. They were a Government of shopkeepers, and big financiers, but we now have a Government for the farmers. If I have not the right of appealing to the Minister on behalf of the farmers, then it would be better for me to go home and look after my farming. I hope, however, that the Minister will agree to the motion of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden). It will certainly create general satisfaction.

I am very sorry that I have not, unfortunately, been in the committee during the whole course of the discussion, and I am sorry that there is a tendency to make this a party question. I am certain that it was never the intention of my hon. friend. I agree with the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) that it is no argument to say that the previous Government never did anything in this direction. I wonder if the hon. the Minister has read a most interesting article in to-day’s “Cape Times” which gives the experience of a young South African farmer who comes from the district of Villiersdorp, and who has been round most of the world, and written an article which is well worth reading by any farmer. The tenor of the article is that developments in this country are not on a par with developments in other countries, and that everything possible should be done to encourage development of the land. The Parliament of Great Britain is not what can be called a farmer’s Parliament. The Government of Great Britain have gone out of their way to realize the necessity of subsidizing agriculture in an entirely different manner from other ordinary industries. I understand that in the last budget speech provision is made that, owing to the heavy manner in which local rates press upon the farming population in England, the Treasury is going to take upon itself the payment of those rates to the local authorities. In a country like this, subject to such tremendous climatic changes and losses in connection with farming operations, is it not in the interests of the State and the Treasury that everything should be done to encourage production? I will give an example to the committee. I have taken a great interest in irrigation. In the old Cape Irrigation Act we had a clause that for ten years improvements in irrigation should not be subject to extra local taxation. What is my position? Having spent a great deal more of my own and my friends’ money than I could afford in trying to do something to develop and increase production, we have to pay £500 a year divisional council rates for having improved the country —and that in a large area in which in many cases nothing in the same direction has been done. If the Minister knows the condition of farming operations in this country, the necessity for fencing, the necessity for conservation of water, and for stopping erosion, surely he knows it would be in the interests of the country to give a stimulus to agricultural and pastoral developments by saying: “So long as you will invest your money in works of this character, which the Government will check, we will encourage you by relieving you of your income tax in that direction.” I cannot understand how farming members can oppose such a proposal, and I can hardly understand how commercial representatives, whose prosperity is bound up with agricultural prosperity, can object to such a proposal in any way whatever. I am extremely pleased to know that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) who is, after all, a great economist, heartily supports a proposal of this character. The hon. member for Albert referred to the construction of dams and their silting up. I would like a record to be taken, not of great irrigation works, but of the ordinary farmers’ dams to see how many of them, owing to the fact that the farmers are not encouraged to put sufficient money into the original construction, have washed away after a few seasons, very greatly to the loss, not alone of the individual, but indirectly of the State, because the more prosperous the individual, the more prosperous will the State be. In England, which was supposed to be, until a short time ago, the premier manufacturing country of the world, agricultural operations are estimated to be worth from £225,000,000 to £230,000,000 a year, and were those to disappear all the manufactures would not help them. In a country like South Africa the majority of farmers’ capital is invested in the land. You have a people of small incomes subject to great vicissitudes, and as an economic principle it would be well worthy of the Minister to give an amendment of this sort his fullest consideration, because I believe in the long run, the Treasury and the State would benefit. This is not the first example. We had one the other day, when the member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) came down with a resolution, and it was immediately made a party question. A unanimous report of the select committee was made, by the Minister, a party question, with the result that that commtitee went back on its own deliberations, and it would be a great pity if the Minister made a question of this sort, which will not mean very much direct loss to the Treasury, but a great deal of indirect gain eventually to the Treasury, party one, and members should be deprived of an opportunity of expressing the opinions they desire.

I do not know on what grounds the right hon. gentleman insinuates that I have tried to make this a party question. I have already pointed out the unfairness on the part of the committee, at this stage, coming with a proposal which is going to mean the upsetting of my whole budget scheme. I am very glad to see the wonderful solicitude for the farmers in the House. Everybody has been, this afternoon, pleading for the farmers. It was not always like this. I remember the days when we had not this unanimity. I have always had sympathy for the farmer. I do not think it right at this stage to disturb the budget scheme for this year, but even if I were prepared to do so, it would not do to accept the amendment. I remember on previous occasions similar representations were made, and we exempted boreholes, irrigation plant, etc., for pastoral purposes, but that did not satisfy hon. members. I am quite sure the hon. member has not exhausted the list of exemptions. If I accept it, I can think of at least a dozen other things to add to the list; for instance, I do not see why we should not put in the purchase price of the farm.

Don’t make a joke of it.

It is not a joke. The hon. member has brought forward an amendment proposing to omit items which in principle are capital expenditure. If I agree to it, I shall at once have industries asking to be allowed to deduct the cost of their machinery. It is the same thing. Hon. members are advocating the deduction of capital expenditure. If it is the idea of the House that all these things should be included in the exemptions, I am prepared to consider it next year. If financial circumstances permit, we shall do so, but if they do not permit, I shall have to cast about and throw the burden on some other portion of the community. However, I am here to carry out the wishes of the House. I have been urged to agree to this, and if we must agree, we must do so. However, I certainly cannot accept the amendment, as I shall have to readjust the scheme of taxation in other respects.

I am very glad about the Minister’s statement, because I think that this afternoon’s debate has done an incalculable amount of good. Now the Minister has said that he will seriously consider my motion in connection with next year’s budget I am preperad to withdraw my amendment.

I would like to hear the Minister’s views on my amendment.

The same remarks apply to the hon. member’s amendment. I cannot increase the rebate. It would upset the whole budget scheme, and I do not see that there is any ground for it. Why should we single out the Transvaal? It is a provincial matter, and if the Transvaal Provincial Council wants to give some relief, it is a subject for them.

With leave of committee, amendment proposed by Mr. G. C. van Heerden withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Nathan put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment; third reading on 21st May.

I move—

This is a little Bill designed to protect the interests of the revenue and the wine farmer. I have discussed it with the representatives of the wine industry, and I think they all agree with the amendment to the principal Act. With regard to section (1) of the Bill, the idea is to bring all wine received into the premises of wholesalers and distillers under the control of the Excise Department. At present we do not control wines which are not brought into the premises for the purpose of distilling, and seeing that distillers sometimes buy good wine from farmers and afterwards distil it, it is possible in some cases for them to resort to illicit distilling, to the detriment of the revenue and the wine-growers’ association. The other amendment deals with the right of a wine farmer to dispose of brandy providing he distils it, making it clear that he can either mature it or sell it for rectification purposes. Then there is the question of the blending of spirits which it is intended to export. It is now laid down that spirits intended for export need not be affected in the same way as spirits intended for consumption in this country. In order to comply with the principal Act, blended brandy must have been produced entirely by the blender, but that was not the idea of the legislators. The idea is that it should be possible for distillers and viticulturists to dispose of their products to persons whose business it is to blend and sell. Another section deals with the question of liqueurs. At present liqueurs, for instance, aniseed, clove and peppermint should be blended with certain proportions of matured brandy. It is found that in regard to these liqueurs that is not absolutely necessary. The last section defines gin. That is something not provided for in the principal Act, and the Government analysts agree that unless a standard is laid down for compounded gin, it would be better for its manufacture to be discontinued altogether. These are all small amendments intended to stabilize the control of the wine industry, and provide for more effective control in the interests of both the revenue and the industry itself.

These amendments which the Minister has brought forward now have the full support of the wine farmers, for, as he has said, they are simple amendments, not amendments to give the wine farmers’ co-operative association control over anything which it has not had hitherto, but to give it a more effective control of wine which enters a distillery, because that has been very necessary.

Not to sell more, I hope.

We take whatever the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has for sale. We are taking this in now.

You have not had any of mine.

Oh yes, we have had the hon. member’s grapes.

No, you haven’t.

Oh, yes. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) seems anxious about this, and I thought that was the reason for his anxiety. The Act up to the present has worked very well, indeed. It has conferred considerable benefits on the wine industry because it has had the effect of stabilizing prices not only of distilling wines, but of all wines and, through having the whole control of distilling wines, it has been made possible for the Wine Growers’ Co-operative Association to start in building up an export trade, which, without that control under the Wine Control Bill, it would not have been possible to do. Your wine export trade requires the outlay of considerable capital. The capital has been provided by the wine farmers cooperatively, and they are building up at present an export trade which will grow to something very considerable in the future and be of the greatest value to the wine industry. In addition, they have also built up an export of grape syrup which is expected in a few years to grow to about 2,000 tons. We would never have been able to do this if we had not passed the Wine Control Act, which at the time was considered a very novel and drastic measure. Since the Act has come into operation, our membership has grown enormously. A good many members who had resigned have joined on again. The only danger confronting us is that we may soon have over-production in wine, if planting on is continued. We are trying to do whatever we can to turn our surplus production into other avenues, and we have succeeded in doing a good bit of that, but there is always that danger of over-production before you when anything is made a success of.

I have two things that I want to say on this Bill. The first is that this House is usually under the impression that when any amendment to liquor legislation is proposed, then the wine farmer is the person to be protected. I have said before that I do not speak here on behalf of any section, but for the general interest. I just want to point out that this amendment is not, in the first instance, meant to protect the farmers, on the contrary it was primarily introduced to protect the Treasury, i.e., the principal object is to enable the Minister of Finance to make regulations for the better control of the wine from the moment it leaves the vat of the wine farmer until it reaches the still of the merchants. I want to say that, not only has the State been defrauded in the past in consequence of faulty control, but the farmer has also been defrauded by the wholesaler, because the farmer is not able to check everything precisely, that is they do not always keep an eye on the tests which are made by the buyer, and the result is that the farmer is done down by dishonourable merchants. I do not say that it always happens, but it has happened, and therefore I welcome this amendment because it protects the farmer and the Treasury. The second amendment moved by the Minister enlarges the exception, namely that brandy used for export for redistilling, or rectification, or in the manufacture of gin, liqueurs, or vinegar need not comply with the further stipulations mentioned in the clause. I agree that we ought to add some of the exceptions to it, such as wine, for redistilling, or rectification, but with regard to the exception on brandy for export, I want to point out that we not only want to increase our export trade, but if we want to get a proper market for our produce, we must not only find a market, but must properly serve it. If we allow crude and immature brandy to be exported, I want to ask the Minister if it will have bad consequences for us on the foreign market. I think this should have the close attention of the Minister and his department, that we ought not only to prevent over-production of the home product, but also to watch the foreign market. I think it may damage our overseas market if we export immature brandy. I feel that objection very strongly, and I should like to bring it to the Minister’s notice and get his opinion about it. I think the amending Bill is in every respect an improvement on the existing law, and I will heartily support it. I should like to have the assurance of the Minister that the export of crude and immature brandy will do no damage to our overseas market.

As for the last point, I understand the difficulty does not exist. The immature brandy is not exported for human consumption, but for industrial purposes. As long as that is so, there is no reason to prohibit the export. We are not certain what they do with it on the other side, but I understand that in most cases it is used for industrial purposes, and not as a beverage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee now.

House in Committee:

On Clause 2,

I move—

The idea is to lay down that pot still brandy shall not be distilled at a strength over 30 per cent, over proof, so that the constituents shall not be destroyed and so that it shall conform, as much as possible, to cognac and the French types of brandy.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment, which was considered and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted; third reading on 21st May.

I do not wish to move an amendment, because I feel it is impossible in the circumstances to make, for example, an alteration in the age of 65 years, but I just want to bring something to the Minister’s notice. Sixty-five is not too high an age to commence old age pensions, but there is a class of people who, between the years from 55 to 65 are excluded from the possibility of getting work from the Government, or even from private bodies and municipalities. These people are excluded, and they walk about the wide world looking for work, but they are always told they are too old. I feel that, as the Government cannot lower the age, a scheme will certainly have to be arranged to do something for the people during the 10 years from 55 to 65. Then there is the last portion (3), with the proviso which lays down that when a father, e.g., boards with his son or daughter gratis, and gets a room, then that is not counted when the pension of that person is worked out. If the son, e.g., is the only son, and he is not able to contribute anything to his father except the cost of lodging, then the Government still gives the full £2 10s. to the person, but an old man in an old man’s home who gets a roof over his head and free board—which is of the same value as the other father gets from his son—does not get the pension. I want to ask the Minister to treat those in our old men’s homes in the same way as those who live with their children.

Provision is made for the people in old men’s homes in another section. The hon. member is referring to other institutions.

Then I am very thankful.

The hon. member spoke about the 10 years between the ages of 55 and 65, that is of course an entirely different question which I cannot discuss now.

I know that there is such a class of people, but I cannot go into that at once.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) has just made an appeal, but I hope the Bill will not have the effect of preventing people from becoming thrifty. Measures of this kind may have that effect; it should not go outside to the world that we are going to mollycoddle all those people from 55 years upwards. It ought to be the duty of these people, when they get money, to put something aside for old age. Those who have been to school were taught to, put away something for a rainy day. You can do so whatever you earn; you can always save something out of your money.

Those who get lots of money.

We should inculcate thrift; that is the important thing; and invest money in Union loans. The Minister, I am glad to see, has been very cautious in the Bill. It behoves us to be very careful about the way in which we distribute doles. Do not encourage people to come under this Bill.

I should like to ask the Minister if he intends the Bill to replace entirely the existing provision with reference to oud-stryders in the Transvaal and the Free State. Provision has been made for a number of decrepit people, under the age of 65, when they have a medical certificate as to their physical incapacity, or the magistrate is convinced that they are bona fide war invalids. Such men then get £2 10s. a month. I just want to know whether under the new Act they will still get the £2 10s.

Yes, the intention is to allow all over 65 years to come under the new Old Age Pensions Act, but to specially fix the cases under 65 years and their compensation in a special pension Act for oud-stryders. They will then also get the pension.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I move—

1. (i) of any property owned and occupied by the applicant; and
2. (ii) of all other

It is merely a drafting amendment to make it quite sure that what is provided here is not covered by a previous section.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions about this clause, which seems out of keeping with the rest of the Bill. These pensions are intended for old age and indigency, and even if a man gets into gaol the pension is not necessarily cancelled, but suspended while he is in gaol. But here is a clause which gives the Minister power, by reason of a person’s misconduct, actually to cancel the man’s pension, which is giving a tremendous power to the Minister, and is contrary to the spirit of the Act. They are not pensions for deserts, but for old age and indigency; even a scamp deserves it just as much for old age and indigency. I put it to the Minister, whether he wants to retain that power of cancellation. The latter part of the clause, I think, is perfectly right. If there is any chance of the Minister’s accepting it, I would move an amendment that the power of cancellation be not retained in the hands of the Minister.

There is a good deal in the point the hon. member is making. The provision in other schemes is, however, more stringent. We are merely giving discretionary power to the Minister in certain cases to cancel, and I do not think it is wise to take away that power. The other powers here the hon. member himself admits are necessary. The hon. member rightly says that the whole object of the scheme would be defeated, on the face of it, if pensions should be cancelled, but there are cases where it may be necessary.

The Minister has not told us what conceivable circumstances there may be. I move—

That leaves the power to the Minister to suspend the payment of the pension, but takes away the power of cancelling it.

Might I appeal to the Minister to consider this?

All right, if it is the desire of the House. It is not very important.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I move—

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

I move—

I do not want to enlarge on it, I just want to say that I approve of the principle of reciprocity, but we must, for many years in any case, expect old people to come here from other countries, and not to go overseas from here. We may, however, expect that the countries where this matter of old age pensions will be particularly important will be Rhodesia and South-West Africa. I understand, however, that it is only an enabling clause, and I hope that the Government in reciprocity will, in the first place, only enter into an agreement with countries whither old people from South Africa will probably go, and not with countries from which old people will only come.

Does the hon. member think that the Union Government is going to make arrangements with Governments all over the world outside the British empire? Is that the reason for moving this extraordinary amendment, which I hope the Minister will not accept? I suppose he will not make reciprocal arrangements with all sorts and conditions of kingdoms. I don’t see why the hon. member should be so opposed to the words “British dominions”.

I want more than that.

The hon. member realizes as much as I do that we are one in the British commonwealth of nations, and why we should be afraid to see that appear on the statute book I cannot for the life of me understand.

This is an enabling section, and as long as my hon. friend does not limit it I will have no very serious objection to the amendment. It is necessary to retain the principle. We may find it very necessary to come to an arrangement with Rhodesia or South-West Africa, but it is not likely that we shall go to other countries all over the world. I have no objection to the amendment.

Why not “his Majesty’s dominions, colonies, or dependencies beyond the seas”?

There may be other countries with which we may want to enter into reciprocal arrangements.

I do not understand the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe). He says he has the greatest objection in the world to a clause of this nature.

I did not say that.

Why enlarge the Bill so much as practically to make it unworkable?

I support the amendment on the ground that it forms part of the convention passed at Geneva last year. You often find persons who have lived a long and useful life in other countries; they may be 65 years of age, but have lived here ten years only, but had they remained in their own countries they would have been in receipt of an old age pension. It would be possible to enter into an arrangement with the British, French or German Governments to pay half the pension to their nationals, and the governments of the country in which they resided would pay the other half, or pro rata to their residence in the respective countries. This is done in Australia and Canada; somebody has to provide for these people, as you cannot let them starve in the streets. Under the amendment we ask some other country to share the burden with us.

I want to support the amendment. I think the principle of reciprocity is a good one, if we were to restrict it to certain countries, we should encroach on the acknowledgment of an established principle which may actually contain the germs of injustice. It may be that old people will go from our own country to other countries where the principle is admitted, and we shall exclude them. This will amount to our adopting an unjust principle, and, as the Geneva Convention and our sister states in the British empire have already adopted the sound principle, I hope that we shall also adopt the principle of reciprocity.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

I move—

†I think it advisable to move this amendment so as not to disturb the principle already in our Income Tax Acts that the records of the Commissioner for Inland Revenue are secret, and should not be divulged to anybody. That is the principle which exists. I do not think it is necessary for our purposes to have this information from this particular official. We can get the information from other sources.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

I want to thank the Minister heartily for the principle contained in the Bill with reference to the liability of children. Up to the present there has been an unsound position in connection with pensions, because the parents had to call upon the children to support them, which is not usually done. Now the Minister had adopted the principle that the Government can demand that the child bear his share of the support of the parents. I should like to ask the Minister to see if he cannot in some way or other see that influence is first brought to bear on the children to assist voluntarily. In many cases it will be done. There are children to-day who neglect their duty to their parents. It is one of the worst signs of our times that the children leave the parental home, cut themselves off entirely, and do not care what becomes of their parents. There are cases of rich and well-to-do children whose parents are living in distress. I hope the Government will follow my suggestion if possible.

I think that it is a very good principle, and I hope the Minister will stand by it. The voluntary feeling of responsibility we shall not instil into the children. They will become angry if it is suggested. I think things are best as they are. With reference to old age pensions for oud-stryders, the difficulty has been experienced that each case has, first of all, to be investigated as to what the children possess, although usually they are also very poor. But the Bill as drawn is good, that, where cases occur of rich children who ought to provide for their parents, and do not do so, the Government may hold them to their liability, and recover the money from them.

I want to appeal to the House to drop this clause. I stated the case very fully on the second reading. The position is that it only portrays what the law is at present, and that has failed to provide for the aged. Commissioners who have gone round the country have had it said to them that most of the old people object to impoverishing their children in any form whatever, and that a good deal of friction has resulted from the administration of the present law. Under this clause we are compelling the old people to avail themselves of the present law, which they very rarely do at present. If they want this pension they will have to go to the commissioner and tell the commissioner what children they have, and where they can be found. It will be part of the duty of the commissioner, at great expense to the country, to find out the circumstances of the various children and the premium is to the biggest liar. The person who tells the biggest lie will get away scot free. This law will lead to all sorts of injustices and cause ill-feeling between parents and children, and it distinctly taints the people who receive the money with the stigma of pauperism.

I support with all the power I have the suggestion of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). I think the Minister could withdraw this clause. It is not really necessary in an old age pension Bill. For instance, sons join building societies and own their own houses because they have stinted themselves to try and provide for their old age, the commissioner will say that, because they have their own property, they will be compelled to contribute. The commissioner can interpret the financial standing of the children and compel them to contribute to the support of their parents. Are we dealing with charity or are we dealing with an old age pension for services rendered? I thought that old age pensions were given to the old people because, during their life, up to the age of 65, they either must have been an asset to the State, or they must have benefitted the State. Therefore, my view was that the old age pension was some form of recompense for services the recipient had rendered to the State. We know that the matter is, and does, rest in the discretion of the commissioner, but we also know that differences of opinion do prevail, and that one commissioner might interpret one way and another commissioner in another way, therefore, I do think, after considering this matter from all possible points of view, the Minister will give effect to the desire of the majority in this House if he withdraws this clause. I believe this clause is put in, not because the Minister wants it, but because he believes that a large number of members in this House desire it to be in. I think I am voicing the feeling of the majority of members when I say that it is not their wish that this clause should be retained, and I trust, therefore, that the Minister will reconsider the matter and withdraw this objectionable clause.

I am one of those who believe that the life of the community depends, in the first instance, upon family life. I do not believe that any State can be strong and virtuous, unless you have a strong and virtuous family life. For that reason, I believe it is our duty to safeguard that which is noble in family life, and that we should be very cautious about removing any of the strongholds or anchors which safeguard the family, and I do not think there is anyone who will not hold that the duty of the child towards the parent must first be fulfilled before you can lay a claim upon the taxpayer of the country for the support of the father or mother. I believe the principle is absolutely sound as laid down there, and I, personally, feel that we have no right to compel the taxpayer to support old people, when the children, men and women, are in a position to support their father and mother.

Why not change the title of the Bill and call it a Poor Relief Bill?

I do not think we can do that as a principle. Parental responsibility, that is of the child towards the parents, must be exercised. I realize the difficulties which hon. members have brought forward, that is that you may get a certain amount of friction if you were to apply to provisions of this Bill strictly, but we all agree that the commissioners must be men of discretion, and they must apply this provision reasonably. There are men and women whose fathers and mothers depend very much upon them, and these men and women refuse support and use all sorts of subterfuges to evade their responsibilities.

That is not our experience.

I know personally that there are men of that type and, therefore, although I recognize the duty of the State towards the old people, I lay more stress on the duty of the child to the parents, and I hope the provisions of this clause, as laid down, will not be deleted.

I hope we shall not have a long discussion about this matter. I said at the beginning that, personally, I think we should retain the clause, and I am going to leave it to the House to vote on it. If it is the view of the House that it should come out, I will not object at all. Let us ascertain the sense of the House on the point.

I would like to ask the House to reject this clause for the reasons given by the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals). He said those reasons made him want to retain the clause, but I think the reasons he gave are really in favour of leaving the clause out. He says he wants to help family life. If he wants to help family life, he should leave this to be settled between the parents and the members of the family. Does he think it will tend to peace in the family, because, when the father gets a pension, the son may be sued by the State for the money? I think that is going to create far more trouble in family life. To my mind, this clause is quite unnecessary. The matter is dealt with in Clauses 4 and 5. Under these clauses such evidence and information has to be supplied as may be prescribed, and the commissioner is then to determine whether the applicant is, or is not, entitled to a pension. What is simpler than to put on the form these questions: “Are any of your children alive? ’’ “If so, are they supporting you or are they able to support you?” “If they are not supporting you, why not?” That is the way to do it, rather than to put a clause like this in the Bill. The point is that to-day it is only in these cases where a father, for some reason, does not want to be under an obligation to his children, that he does not enforce the law. The law is there today that every child who can afford it has to support his parents. Are you making it any better by saying that the parent is to get his pension, and it is to be left to the State to take action against the children? Surely if the father does not want to take action, he is going to be just as unhappy if the State takes action. It is left entirely to the discretion of the commissioner whether he recommends a pension. To go and introduce this system by which the State, every time a parent gets a pension, can extract the money from the children will lead to very much more family unhappiness than there is at present. I think you get all the safeguards you want under Clauses 4 and 5. The difficulty arises when they are not living with their parents, and when the son refuses to have anything more to do with his parents. In those cases the law is there. As to family trouble spoken about by the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals), I think you are going to create far more family trouble by this clause than under the present system.

I just want to say that I should be sorry if the House deleted the clause. At present we are following an unsound principle in connection with the responsibilities of children, namely, that the parents have to summons, and take their children to court. That produces eternal enmity between parents and child, and, according to the system, the State has to refuse the parents so long as there is a single child who can support them. The State will now be able to force a child, who is able to do so, to refund the money after the State has paid the pension. Even if the Government makes no practical use of the power, the mere provision in the Act will itself have a good effect on the children in South Africa, who do not fulfil their duty. I would, however, prefer efforts first to be made to induce the children by friendship to fulfil their duty to their parents. We cannot allow children to get rid of their responsibility. The parents often have to educate, rear and teach their children under great difficulties, and the parents of South Africa make great sacrifices for the children, because there still exists a tender feeling, but the children are gradually separated from the parents by modern circumstances, and the influence of the modern world. If we remove the responsibility it will become much worse. Let us try to preserve the feeling of responsibility, then we shall really be doing a service to the children of South Africa.

I think the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) has taken the right line. I hope the House will not discard this section. I would like to put this position before the Minister. I want his legal ear, not his financial ear. I submit this clause should go a little further. There should be a provision making it clear that the right is reserved to a father to sue his child.

We are not altering the common law.

But it may be thought so by some magistrates. I want to make it quite clear. I am going to suggest that the Minister accepts these words—

I appeal to your legal mind.—Is that necessary?

My mind always preserves things as they are, if possible. If the Minister is not going to accept it I am not going to press it.

I am really disappointed at the attitude of the Minister, who now appears indifferent whether the clause is passed or not. In connection with the pensions of the oud-stryders, we have had much experience. It appears that there are a number of children who do not sufficiently realize their responsibility towards their parents. The proof was furnished that the sacrifices of the parents are usually greater than those of the children. Owing to the provisions of the Act on pensions for oud-stryders, many parents have had no pensions in consequence of the indifference of the child or children. The children were actually in a position to assist their parents, but do not realize their responsibility, and for this reason the State could not pay a pension. It can, however, not be done under the clause. The pension is paid out in any case, and the child who is able to assist his parents but has not done so, will, then be compelled to refund the pension to the State. It is an excellent provision, and ought to remain in the Bill. Then it may happen that the son or daughter is not in a position to maintain the parents at the time of the application, but he or she may subsequently obtain good posts, and then the State should have the right to claim from the children a refund of the pension paid to the parents. I hope that the clause will not be taken to a division, but if it is I hope hon. members will vote in favour of retaining it.

I feel this matter is of very great importance, and is not to be treated in a light way. It is a matter that affects thousands of people in this country. If hon. members will read Clause 6 they will see that in determining whether any person is entitled to a pension or the amount of pension, or the means of any person, no account shall be taken of free board or lodging except where given as wages, or part wages, or as a reward for services rendered. Quite contrary to the experience of the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) the experience of the people who went into this matter is that generally speaking, on enquiry they find that children are, to the best of their ability, providing for their parents. In many cases the help given is quite insufficient and parents are forced to apply to the magistrates or to the boards of aid for further relief. Very few hon. members do not know of some instance where children are giving lodging, allowing their parents to share the table with them, but often they find themselves unable to provide them with clothing and all the things they want. We find, on going round the country, that a large number of old people are already living with their children and are partly provided for by them. These people may now apply to the commissioner for a pension, and nothing in this law will stop them getting it. But under this clause, even with the proviso of the commissioner, whoever he may be, has to ascertain whether the children are in a position to contribute to the support of their parents, and if they are, he must recover the whole or part of the amount of the State’s pension from them. The old people will receive a pension in addition to the board and lodging provided by the children, and the first the son or daughter will know about it is when the commissioner demands the amount of the pension from them. There is no question whatever about it; that is the way in which this clause will work—the State will have to recover this pension wherever possible—that is the principle of this clause. The children will be called upon to make a double contribution or turn the old people out. There are numerous cases of this kind I know of. I want the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) to think of the friction that will be caused between the children and the parents. This is got over in other countries—where children or any person gives board and lodging to aged people by taking 50 per cent, of the value of the board and lodging into account, and the pensioner receives, not the whole, but a portion of the pension. It would be perfectly reasonable where the children are already providing in some way for their parents, that you should encourage that sort of thing, because it is the best position you can create for old people, and by giving them a portion of the pension you assist the children to keep them in their homes. But you are preventing this being done by this clause. When the children are in a position to contribute more, the commissioner can come down on them again. You prevent the children rising by tying a stone round their necks. I think it is a very bad principle you are importing into a Bill of this kind.

I am deeply disappointed at the attitude of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh). We have had much trouble about the pensions of the oud-stryders. The son of poor parents works perhaps for £9, £10 or £11 a month, and then he is called upon to provide for the parents who then get no pension. I am certain that if it is left in the hands of the commissioner, the parents in many cases will not apply for the pension, because they will be afraid it can be recovered from the child. The poor parents are possibly lodging with the child, and sitting at the same table with him, but if that child is further to be compelled to repay the pension paid by the State to the parents, then it will only cause trouble between the parents and the, child, and the parents will possibly no longer be able to sit at table with the child. I am very glad the Minister has left the matter open, and has allowed the committee to vote as it thanks fit. I hope the Committee will delete the clause.

It is usual in this country for children to support their parents when they are in need. It is very fine to see it and we also find it amongst the coloured people. When the parents are old and can no longer work, then the children provide for them. That is the custom among the Europeans as well as the coloured people. It is always good to see the care and the love of the children for their parents. I fear that if we take out Clause 18 it will have the tendency that the children will rid themselves of the responsibility of supporting their parents. My friends on the cross benches are not in favour of the provision. They want everything to come out of the Treasury, they even want the State to educate the children. We cannot go by what they say. I am disappointed that the Minister has not stood by his clause, and that he is leaving it to the Committee. Where there is need, provision must be made, and the law makes adequate provision. We must not try to put as many people as possible on the pension list, because it all falls on the taxpayer. If the child cannot pay, then the State will have to do it, but if the child can, then it ought to pay. Clause 18 is practically a kind of sanction to the unwilling child, and if we remove the clause, then the sanction also disappears.

On the motion of the Minister of Finance, it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in Committee on 21st May.

When the estimates were last before us. I was dealing with the general question of what lessons we have derived from the last great drought, and what advantage we are taking of the recommendations of the Drought Commission of 1924. Will the Minister not carry out the recommendations of the commission which seem to be of the utmost importance, not only to the farmers but to everyone in the country. What steps are being taken to carry out the investigations of the commission regarding over-stocking? Closely connected with that is the question of fodder plants. What are we doing about our valuable veld food plants? The commission recommended an investigation into our indigenous plants. I have asked farmers why they do not experiment with various kinds of plants, and they say it is impossible. I understand the department has made a beginning with certain types of seed plants. Then there is the question of grasses. Where in South Africa does one see the huge hayricks which are such a remarkable feature of the landscape throughout England and Scotland? What steps are being taken to determine the value of the various grasses for haymaking purposes and for the propagation of these plants? When I was at Oudtshoorn in 1924 during the drought, the only transport was that of prickly pear, stock being largely kept alive by a mixture of hay and prickly pear. I find from a farmer friend, that prickly pear will grow luxuriantly as a weed in one district when it will not grow at all in another district. What steps are being taken to grow the spineless prickly pear? These simple forms of development seem to be neglected. I know that experiments have been carried out at Grootfontein in regard to spineless prickly pear, but what has been done to impress on the farmers—

Read “Farming in South Africa.”

I do. What is being done to impress on the people the immense value of such a simple thing as the prickly pear? I come to another recommendation of the very highest importance—that referring to the various catchment areas. This House is constantly voting large sums of money for irrigation works and is constantly having to write down large sums of money. The Joint Commission recommends strongly that that matter should be dealt with without delay, and the subject of the decreasing value of catchment areas for irrigation works should be investigated thoroughly and dealt with. [Time limit.]

I do not wish to delay the committee, but I just want the Minister to tell me one thing, what is the position about scab in Basutoland. We live on the border of Basutoland and there was always a danger in the past of scab coming into the Free State. A commission of enquiry was appointed to see how the co-operation of Basutoland could be obtained in eradicating scab. I should like to know how the matter stands, because we are at present in the dark with reference to the position of scab in Basutoland. My district is on the border, and when one engages Basuto boys, they want to be paid in sheep, not in money. They take the sheep to Basutoland and it happens that a sheep breaks away and returns to its old farm. If, therefore, there is scab in Basutoland, there is always great danger of the Free State becoming infected. A few years ago in one of the border districts there were no less than 16 cases of scab, but the Minister tried to change conditions, and we are very grateful to him, but I should like to know how far scab has been eradicated in Basutoland, and what steps are being taken to prevent the disease spreading to the Free State.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he is going to agree to the request of the Wattle Growers’ Union. They want a full time entomologist to devote his energies to combating the pests and diseases from which this industry is suffering. We are not asking the Minister to create a new department, but to allocate one of his entomologists. The industry is a very large and growing one. In 1925 our exports of wattle bark and extract amounted to £1,109,000—more than the exports of cotton, tobacco and eggs combined. The extent to which this industry has grown is shown by figures to have reached 300,000 acres, and during last year an additional 40,000 acres have been planted. The reason the industry is growing at such a rate is the great use of leather in the manufacture of motor cars. To-day South Africa is the greatest producing country in the world of tanning material. The world to-day is looking to a country that can produce tanning materials, and South Africa is that country. It is a peculiar anomaly that the black wattle tree originally came from Australia, and to-day the Australians are so short of tanning material that they are importing from South Africa. Last year they imported something like 14,000 tons, and their imports will increase. During the week ending April 28th, we find that exports of wattle bark to the United Kingdom amounted to 1,118 tons, to the continent 540 tons and to America 665 tons. Of the extract something like 200 tons were exported to the continent and Great Britain. These figures show that the industry is one of the most important agricultural industries that we have and it is growing. The difficulty is reestablishment, on which we want expert advice. Far more money is being spent on re-establishment than is necessary, owing to lack of knowledge of the best way to do it. If a whole time entomologist were seconded to this work, we should have less trouble with the pests. We are not asking for extra staff or extra expenditure of money. They spent £150,000 in eradicating the citrus canker, that expenditure of money is quite justified by to-day’s exports.

In connection with the maize industry, I want to ask the Minister if it is not possible to give more attention to the caterpillar plague. I think it is necessary for a special study to be made to find better methods of fighting the caterpillars, because every time there is a plague of them it is more extensive. A few years ago, when the plague was bad, 10,000,000 bags of mealies were eaten up according to a rough calculation, and if we take a bag at 10s., the loss to the country amounts to £5,000,000. If that is the damage done in one year by caterpillars, I think it is time to make a serious study of methods to get rid of the caterpillars. Such a plague does not occur every year, but when it comes it occasions considerable damage.

I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions arising out of the report of the Auditor-General to the 31st March, last year. On page 233 reference is made by the Auditor-General to a case of “irregular use of rail warrants by a sheep inspector.” The Auditor-General says that this sheep inspector issued unto himself two rail warrants for the purpose of proceeding on leave. “I enquired,” he continues, “whether any disciplinary action had been taken. As a result the officer concerned has been asked to state any reason why he should not be discharged from the service, but at the time of writing had not replied.” The Auditor General says that he has before now drawn attention to this sort of thing taking place. I would like the Minister to tell us whether he has had any reply from the officer, and what the result is? On page 237 appears a paragraph headed, “Expenditure on scholarship not fully recovered from student.” A student had gone overseas and had undertaken to remain in the department on his return here, for a period of five years, but he had only been two years in the service. I believe that is the common practice. In terms of the contract, he had to refund £787 in cash. Of this the Treasury agreed to relinquish two-fifths, and the balance had to be paid in two years’ time. I want to ask the Minister whether, in this case, security was not taken from some people for this money which the State was advancing. I believe it is the practice to insist upon such security, and I would like to know whether, if it had been got in this case, the sureties have been excussed? Further down on the same page, is a paragraph headed “Loan of £100 to overseas student.” It appears that the student was not in a position to pay his return fare to the Union, and the Treasury advanced him £100. The Auditor-General says—

As a broad principle, I do not disapprove of the Government assisting capable and competent young fellows to go abroad to study and to undertake to enter the service of the Government, if so required. I believe it is also the practice, under such conditions, to get suretyships for this money. In those two cases I cannot find that the money has been refunded; on the contrary, it appears that the money is still owing. I would like the Minister, under the circumstances, to explain to the committee the exact position in regard to these moneys.

I was very much interested in the speech of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) the other night, when he treated us to an almost idolatrous and wholly undiscriminating stream of admiration for the Minister. The only matter of wonder was whether he was in eariest. Although almost bearing on the fulsome in his tribute to the Minister, he did not seem to bring forward any particular matter in which the Minister had rendered yeoman service to the country. I am on a totally different note to-night. The Minister, I know, resents criticism, but I hope he won’t continue in that mood. He has shown himself to be resentful, in fact the other evening so resentful was he that he used, words towards his critics which one would hope would pass no Minister’s lips. I trust the Minister will not hurl abuse at anyone who, out of a spirit of honesty, wants to tender criticism upon his policy or administration. I hope the Minister will profit by the guidance which Lord Birkenhead has given for all the sundry on the mater of criticism. He says that a man who undertakes public life is rather like a man who publishes a book. Within reasonable limits he challenges observation and relevant criticism. I think that is a fair statement of the case, and this evening I propose to offer a few remarks on matters upon which the Minister’s policy or actions have challenged criticism. I maintain that the agricultural industry should be built up so that its broad shoulders will be able to carry the main burden of supporting a wealth-producing population of limitless numbers in South Africa. Instead of being inspired by a policy of foresight and vision, the Minister has disappointed us by a narrow interpretation of the great role which a Minister of Agriculture should carry out in this country. The last published report of the Department of Agriculture shows how far off the Union is from being able to feed its own inhabitants. The statement of relative imports and exports of food and drink alone for the year ended June, 1927, shows that we imported food and drink to the value of £7,000,000, while our exports of those commodities were valued at a shade under £4,000,000. On the preceding page of the report, the Minister records the fact that in the year 1927 he increased the officials of his department by 154 men. As the Minister told us the other evening that he would always appoint a man belonging to his own party, in spite of his critics, we must assume that this recorded achievement of the Minister has added 154 good Nationalists to his pay roll! Let me for a moment dwell upon the importance of our developing our agricultural industry, our agricultural production in this country, and let me emphasize that unless our export market is assured we shall make no progress in this direction. We all recognize that our best market is the United Kingdom. The Government of Great Britain gives a customs preference to a considerable range of our products, and with regard to others in respect of which it is felt that public opinion in Great Britain would not support a preference, the British Government has set aside £1,000,000 per annum to be devoted to publicity and research for the encouragement of the marketing of these dominion products. Let me mention only six of the products for which a magnificent export trade could be established if the Minister would only co-operate wholeheartedly with the Empire Marketing Board. We will deal first with eggs, that being a commodity which members of Parliament are interested in. In 1925 the United Kingdom consumed 5,700,000,000 eggs. What is our contribution? Of every thousand eggs consumed in Great Britain. South Africa supplies five. Let me by contrast show what the Minister’s task might have been. If the Minister had succeeded in increasing South Africa’s supply of eggs to Great Britain by another five, and had made it 10, he would have served his day and generation much More faithfully than by adding 154 Nationalists to his pay-roll. In 1924 the United Kingdom consumed £44,800,000 of fresh fruit, and of this £1,000,000 was paid to South Africa. In regard to beef, in 1925 the United Kingdom imported £32,750,000, of which South Africa contributed about £3,000 worth. Of pig products the United Kingdom imported £15,750,000 and the Union contributed £1,000 worth, not because we could not produce an article of the requisite quality; we have won prizes at shows in Great Britain against all comers with bacon. It is only by co-operation and propaganda, of which the Minister should be the mainspring, and to which he should give the requisite thrust, and by vision, that we will ever become the exporting country we deserve to be. In poultry, in 1925 the United Kingdom imported £1,000,000 worth, of which our contribution was £4,000, and the other day when I indicated how the Minister was injuring the poultry industry by mismanagement of the Egg-Laying Test, he said, with a curl of the lip, that if the hon. member had any more hens to bring up he could do so on the estimates. I propose to take the Minister at his word. With regard to dairy products, the value of butter and cheese imported into the United Kingdom from all sources in 1924 was £63,000,000, and of this £33,000,000 was paid to empire countries and £34,000 to South Africa—and it has fallen since. The figures I have quoted serve to show how important it is to avail ourselves of every bit of help from the country in which our main markets lie, which happens to be the country which is most willing to assist us. The Empire Marketing Board, on which the Union Government is represented, and ably represented, either by Mr. Dimond or Mr. du Toit, was called into being by Mr. Amery, and I wish the Minister could get imbued with the Amery spirit and on the project of marketing our produces take Mr. Amery’s hand in his. Let him be one of our most distinguished visitors to that country, and come back a more useful Minister, with widened outlook, as everyone does after such a visit. Mr. Amery called that body into being to advise him what steps would be the best to take to make use of that £1,000,000 grant for the objects for which it was made—assistance of the very six products mentioned by me. [Time limit.]

I wish to add a few remarks to those I have made. Dealing with the deterioration of catchment areas and matters connected with that, the commission made a very strong point with regard to the matter of veld burning, which is vitally bound up with this question. One recommendation I press on the Minister’s attention. While I am in with thorough agreement with the hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl), the commission pointed out that veld burning is due to the necessity—supposed necessity—of getting grass for grazing. There should be legislation prohibiting the use of certain mountain catchment areas for grazing purposes. If you cannot check mountain burning, at any rate you cart take away one of the chief motives for doing it—that is the inducement' to put the land in a condition for grazing. What steps are being taken to carry into effect the recommendations of the commission on this point? Again, what is being done for the development of our knowledge and the obtaining of underground supplies of water, following on the discovery by Dr. Marensky of supposed artesian lakes in the north-west districts. Does the Government contemplate making a survey of the underground water supplies in the Union? We have a large amount of valuable metereological data, a portion of which was produced in that splendid work, “Rainfall Normals,” by Mr. Lewis, Director of Irrigation. Mr. Lewis points out that a large amount of other valuable data could be made accessible to the public but for the fact that the department has not the money to cover the cost of publication. The director of the British metereological survey comments that South Africa publishes little or no metereological information, and suggests that investigation should be made by the Union outside South Africa in connection with other countries bordering on the Antarctic continent. May I suggest one of the lessons we might derive from the time we have passed through is the necessity for having something in the nature of a skeleton organization, one might call it a general staff, to deal specifically with the problems arising from the drought, such as the supply of food for men and animals and transportation. It seems to me that a book like the commission’s report ought to be the Bible of the farmers, and that if steps could be taken to have it made cheaply available that would be a very good thing, and if its lessons are acted upon, the drought that we have passed through will not have been an unmixed evil to this country.

I was about to describe—

When business was suspended I was about to describe very briefly the work that is undertaken by the Empire Marketing Board in the interests of the producers of the dominions, and I should say that the report of that board upon its year’s work serves to show the many-sided usefulness of that body. It deals with tropical and subtropical research for the growing of products suitable for the consumer in Great Britain. It provides for low-temperature research. I am aware that we are doing low temperature on a small scale in this country. It provides for the better transport of products over long distances, for entomology, pasture investigations, animal breeding, research into fruit growing and a fruit intelligence service, a very important side of" the fruit grower’s equipment which enables him to know what market he has got to contend against, and keeps him Well and promptly advised of every development in the export market abroad. We have the question of orderly marketing, the encouragement of cooperative marketing, the export of pedigree livestock and visits to Great Britain by representatives of overseas producers. What could be more desirable than that we should at this moment arrange for the best man we can select in this country to go and advise our citrus producers as to the state of affairs in Great Britain in connection with Californian export, because that, as I shall show presently, is a very serious menace and one upon which the producers in this country have not been kept sufficiently informed? In regard to publicity, an important side of the work, a wide range is covered, from studies of the diet of the British consumer, which include observations in regard to the increased consumption of fruit throughout the United Kingdom, the publicity programme includes newspaper and poster advertisements, exhibitions, empire shopping weeks, window dressing and competitions and lectures, the whole of that devoted to the one object of promoting the marketing of goods from the dominions and, in short, giving us a better market for the products we grow in the far flung portions of the empire. Everything is done to capture the imagination of the shopping public in Great Britain, and I am glad to see from to-day’s cable news that even Mrs. Amery, at the Ladies’ Imperial Club luncheon recently, exhorted the women to get the spirit of romance into their shopping, so that they may increasingly buy empire goods. I have not yet seen any sort of information from the Minister’s department on this very important subject of the Empire Marketing Board. The whole of his reports, the propaganda of his office, is lacking in information which would encourage and stimulate a responsive effort in this country, in harmony with that great effort which is being made on our behalf in Great Britain. The poster propaganda is not made use of sufficiently to keep our producers in touch with what is being done for them in Great Britain. I have a poster which I have seen in this country that emanates from the Empire Marketing Board. It was shown to me by a friend of mine the other day, and as it is a somewhat attractive thing, I am sure hon. members would like to see it. [Produced.] The Cubist effect of this poster certainly brings home its message: “Buy Empire Produce!” That is only one design. There are innumerable designs by the Empire Marketing Board to capture the imagination of the shopping public in England, and encourage them to buy our goods. It is, perhaps, not a beautiful effort, but it is very attractive, and it is an arresting poster which serves to capture the notice and attention of those who are on shopping bent. The report of that board contains a great many matters that would prove encouraging, that would stimulate progress, and that would enable the producer in this country to feel that he had an enormous constituency of friends in the countries overseas, waiting to help him in his laborious task of earning a living in this country. The Empire Marketing Board says that for every penny that the board is spending to enlist the sympathy of the home buyer, it is prepared to spend more than a penny in helping the empire producer, whether at home or overseas, to grow more and better produce. Let me quote again—

There I have a bone to pick with the Minister. We know how desperate the situation of the citrus grower is at present in consequence of the threatened competition from California. Those who read the cable news in the “Cape Times” of May 12th, will have seen how our market is being threatened overseas by the superior product from California. What do we find in the Minister’s annual report in regard to this very question of quality and the question of the grading of fruit? We are told by the cables that the reason why we cannot compete with the Californian product is that our product is not sufficiently well selected, and that our producer is groping in the darkness. It says here—

Our own trade commissioner condemns the grading of our fruit, and says it has been very badly graded. He has referred to it in very scathing terms in the report which the Land Bank has published, but we find a most flattering reference in the Minister’s own report on the subject of fruit inspection. The Minister says in his report—

I would ask the Minister to note that. What does the Land Bank’s report, as emanating from the same official, the chief fruit inspector for the same year, say? The report says—

How does the Minister reconcile these two conflicting reports purporting to come from the same official in regard to the same citrus season? [Time limit.]

I had not said all I wished to say in regard to this question of scab when I was interrupted by the time limit the evening before last. What I do want the Minister to clear up is why the official who was responsible for passing these sheep clean was exonerated from all blame. I am putting this question because I have been asked to by farmers over whose land the sheep were driven, and who are unable to understand how the Minister came to treat this matter so lightly. There are two outstanding facts in connection with this movement which must convince any thinking man that there was not only neglect, but also inefficiency on the part of this officer. The first is the fact, which the Minister admitted in reply to a question I put to him, that when the sheep were inspected by an inspector in Natal, scab was immediately detected, which was found to be of three months’ duration. It is impossible to explain that fact away. In view of that one is rather interested to know why the Minister simply transferred the official in question to another district, which was no punishment at all. I would like the Minister to explain exactly why this man was not dismissed. The people concerned, through whose districts the sheep travelled, requested that the man who was palpably negligent should be dismissed from the service, and I would like the Minister to explain why he took such a lenient view of this case in view of the grave neglect which was very apparent from the beginning to the end. There is another matter I wish to ask the Minister about, and that is this loan to the Oudtshoorn Ostrich Feather Co-operative Society. That was a loan which was granted some considerable time ago. The amount authorized was £115,000, of which £108,017 has already been advanced, and I want to know from the Minister whether that amount is being repaid, and, if not, what prospects there are of recovering it, because, it seems, although the amount has been overdue for a considerable time, as far as the Auditor General’s report throws any light on the subject, nothing has been paid in reduction, or very little. The amount paid is infinitesimal. I notice in the Auditor-General’s report that an extension was asked for in 1926, when the amount fell due, and that was granted to the 31st December, 1926. A further extension was asked for and granted to April, 1927, and then another one to the 31st March, 1928. Possibly the amount has been repaid; I do not know. The Minister shakes his head. If it has not been repaid, perhaps the Minister will explain why, and what the prospects are of recovering the money. Then I see in regard to the interest apparently not a shilling has been paid by way of interest since this loan was granted. The amount outstanding to the 30th June, according to the Auditor-General’s report, is £5,660 for interest alone. Of course, a considerable amount of interest has been accruing since. I want to know whether the interest has been paid up and, if not, what the prospects are of its recovery. Are we to understand this loan and interest are to be written off as a bad debt, and, if not, what are the prospects of recovering the money?

Seeing that the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) asked for information in connection with the Ostrich Feather Co-operative Society in Oudtshoorn, I shall be glad if the Minister of Agriculture will give us information about the sugar mill at Umfolozi. I find that the Government granted the sugar planters there a loan of £168,000 in 1923. After the floods and the damage the loan was increased, and up to, and including, 1927, including seasonal loans, they received a total of £353,000. I may just say that the Land Bank was not prepared to grant the loan, but only did so on the Government guaranteeing the amount. Now I should like the Minister to say whether the sugar planters pay interest on the amount, and what chance there is of the full amount being repaid.

President Coolidge, of America, stated that the ideal form of government was one which imposed the minimum of interference with the freedom of the subject. That is a sentiment with which I am in entire accord, and I was pleased to hear the Minister give expression to the same thought when last he spoke upon this subject. In this country we are suffering from an overdose of government. We have boards, inspectors, officers and directors controlling us, and it is almost impossible to move in any direction without being up against one or other of these conditions or regulations. I am surprised to hear hon. members on both sides of the House ask the Minister to make still further appointments, all of which must necessarily be a charge on the industry concerned—you cannot get away from that. It is surprising also that a sympathetic Minister like ours should hand farmers over to the tender mercies of an extremist like the Minister of Labour. We know that last year the Minister of Labour tried to bring many of our country districts under the new industrial laws—such as the Wages Act-—which was actually proclaimed over a large portion of the Cape Province; and had it not been for the intervention of the Minister of Justice, it would still have been there. This year the Minister of Labour has gone a step further in making it an offence for two or more farmers to co-operate in regard to machinery. We have heard a lot about co-operation, and doubtless voluntary co-operation is an essential thing, but when we try to bring it under statutory control, it becomes a much more serious matter.

The hon. member should discuss that on the vote, Minister of Labour.

All laws are compulsory.

Yes, but we do not want unnecessary interference with the freedom of individual enterprise. While I quite admit that there are occasions where it is desirable to introduce superior types of animals, we ought to have regard as to whether they are going to thrive on the natural grass of the country or not. It is easy to dispose of prime beef—we never have any difficulty in getting a good market for that, but we do have difficulty in disposing of second grade stuff. (Time limit.]

I was referring to the grading of our citrus fruit and drawing attention to the contradictory and widely divergent reports from Government sources on the same subject. The report of the Secretary for Agriculture quotes the chief fruit inspector as referring to the steady improvement in fruit packing. On the other hand, the Land Bank says the chief fruit inspector refers to the primitive packing, uneven quality of the fruit and the inability of the fruit growers to profit by instruction. Then the Trade Commissioner in London says there have been dry navel oranges in some of the best marks, and many of the seedlings have had thick skins and contain little but pips and rag. California, on the other hand, offers an article which is thoroughly standardized and consistent in quality. The chief fruit inspector suggests in the Land Bank report that a higher minimum weight should be demanded. Why the Secretary for Agriculture’s report on grading is so re-assuring as almost to make the danger of competition from California appear of no importance. Had the Minister been guided by the information issued by the Empire Marketing Board, the opinion now emphasized by the Trade Commissioner would have reached the exporters in 1926, for the Empire Board report showed that we are in danger of having our markets taken away by California unless we have better quality and better packing. The most disappointing feature of the Empire Marketing Board’s report is the fact that out of the many grants made to different parts of the empire not a single penny has been secured for the Union of South Africa. For instance, a large sum was granted for a special mission to Australia to investigate trade matters between the Commonwealth and Great Britain. Why should we not have secured some of these grants? I appreciate the Minister sending the Secretary for Agriculture to the Imperial Research Conference, but there has been an absolute want of active, energetic co-operation in our attitude towards the Empire Marketing Board. I wish the Minister had given some credit to Sir Arnold Theiler, for the fact that Onderstepoort has now been made the central veterinary research station for the empire. Sir Arnold is largely responsible for this having come about. I think the Minister rather over-emphasized the importance of Onderstepoort, for there are veterinary stations on a much bigger scale in India. If we examine the Minister’s operations in regard to the very products which the Empire Marketing Board is willing to advertise, we must come to the conclusion that his policy has been so sluggish as almost to amount to discouragement. In regard to the dairy industry, I thoroughly support the Minister’s proposal. I differ somewhat from the view expressed by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). The time has arrived when no confident progress can be made in dairying unless satisfactory export conditions are assured. Our first concern should be to link up with the Empire Marketing Board to popularize our products in the United Kingdom. I am glad to see from the circulars issued by the Minister that he proposes two definite steps forward in the development of our dairy industry. I wish to give wholehearted praise to the painstaking report which the Board of Trade and Industries has made upon the industry. Their principal recommendations are those upon which the Minister is now consulting us. The first one is the proposal to establish a dairy control board. The Minister proposes to establish a board or council to co-ordinate as far as possible the primary production, manufacture and marketing of dairy produce including organization and supply, supervision of exports, the equalization of local oversea prices, the stabilization of the domestic market, and the promotion of the general welfare of the industry. [Time limit.]

It is a well-known fact that environment has a very important influence on the minds and demeanour of people. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), we know, has had a long association with natives and native administration, and we know that there is no person more suspicious than the native. That long association of the hon. member has materially affected his mind. The position the hon. member has taken in this House is not even envied by his own party.

I hope you are not supported by your own Government in the attitude you have adopted, if they have any self-respect.

I have never been afraid of sound criticism, but I will try to analyze the criticism the hon. member has brought forward. In the first place, he took America as an example and quoted the exports of that country which is more than 100 years older than South Africa, and compared them with those of South Africa. America has got 120,000,000 people, while we in South Africa, together with the natives, have about 6,000,000. There is no comparison. The climates are different, and there are big rivers in America such as we have not got in this country.

He only referred to California.

Let me point out how bad things are under the present Government. Let us get down to facts. In 1924 we exported in round figures, 166,000,000 lbs. of wool, and in 1927 253,000,000. Is it not a remarkable improvement in four years? The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is laughing.

I am laughing at your taking to yourself credit for the reproduction of sheep.

Meat exported in 1924 amounted to 8,500,000 lbs. in round figures, and in 1927 13,700,000 lbs. We exported 27,000,000 eggs in 1924 and in 1927 39,000,000. In 1924 we exported 143,000,000 lbs. of maize, and in 1927 451,000,000 lbs. In 1924 we exported 154,000 boxes of fresh fruit and this year 2,489,000 boxes of fresh fruit. It is a remarkable difference and shows that the country has advanced in these four years. According to the hon. member for Illovo we are absolutely at logger heads with the Imperial Marketing Board. I have pointed out that we have just arranged that Onderstepoort shall be a research station and that the Imperial Marketing Board is going to contribute towards it. Besides that, Mr. Huxley, with the dominions secretary, Mr. Amery, visited, this country, and Mr. Huxley went all over the Union to the different boards and explained everything. The Imperial Marketing Board is not going simply to give money away as you ask it. The money is mostly for research and such like things. When the agricultural conference was held in England, the Secretary for Agriculture came in close contact with the members of the Imperial Marketing Board. The hon. member has asked why we cannot arrange with the Imperial Marketing Board for the export of fruit. The Imperial Marketing Board is prepared to meet one of the members of our fruit exchange. Hon. members should accept the invitation and go there and see that their products are dealt with properly. The whole question of advertising has been arranged with the Department of Agriculture, and we were properly consulted with regard to the advertisement that the hon. member has shown. According to his arguments we are doing nothing and the Imperial Marketing Board is working entirely by itself. The hon. member has also brought up the report of the Land Bank and the report of the Department of Agriculture—both by the same official. He says that in one report the official reports in a certain way and in the other report he reports in another way. Has the hon. member looked through the reports, that he refers to see whether one is not the report of the Secretary for Agriculture for the year 1926 and the other the report for the year 1927? I think if the hon. gentleman will look well, he will find that that is the case.

The Minister will see that the report here is for 1927.

The report might be published that year, but what is the period to which it refers?

The one is for the year ending 30th June, 1927, and the other is for the period ending 30th December, 1927.

Well, that is a difference of six months.

They are both for the same year.

The hon. member himself admits that they are not for the same period. With reference to that report and our fruit, does the hon. member suggest now that we must reject all our fruit?

No, I do not.

You must give us time. We have not been farming in South Africa as long as people in California or America. We have not been farming for hundreds of years, and it is only within the last 20 years that we have practically started to export fruit from this country.

How can you explain the conflict in the reports?

I have told the hon. member that it is impossible for us to build up our fruit trade in a little over 20 years, in such a way that we can compete with California. We are raising the standard of our fruit and the intention of the department is to export absolutely our best fruit and that is the reason that our fruit is graded at the coast. If we want to have our fruit graded the same as in California, not a single orange practically, and no apples or other products will be sent out of the country. We are doing everything in our power to improve our fruit and advise the farmers in what way that can be done, and I am certain that it will not be another 25 years before we shall be able to compete with those other countries. The hon. member has also raised the question of poultry and has been asking questions over the position of that industry. I do not know whether he is interested in the poultry industry, whether he represents any poultry people, but I have received a letter from the secretary of the Poultry Association in which he stated that the board has prompted no questions which have been asked in the House, and says further: “Should there be any occasion for this, you will be advised thereof and all such questions will be put by members who are vice-presidents of the association.” So those people who are representing the Poultry Association are quite prepared to trust me, that, if there has been any difficulty, or any difference those questions will be settled properly, and I have already communicated to them that as soon as Parliament breaks up, the Secretary for Agriculture will meet them if there is any question which might cause the slightest difference, and that we shall be prepared to put that question into proper order. Why raise that question every moment here while the Poultry Association, which is elected by the poultry people, are not raising the question?

Why did the council of the Poultry Association resign?

Why have they accepted again?

They resigned. Can you tell me why they resigned?

The hon. member has pointed out about fruit growing that we are not doing enough. Let me tell him that we have near Nelspruit a new station, where we are going to grow different kinds of tropical fruit so that we shall be in a position to advise farmers in that direction. But the hon. member has made out that we are doing practically nothing for the farmers. Let me say what this Government has accomplished lately with reference to our shipments, in so far as concerns the freights that used to be paid by farmers for the export of their maize, wool and fruit. The fruit farmer, according to the new contract which this Government has arranged, will be saving next year about £30,000, while the sheep farmer will be saving on his freights about £50,000, so that in all these directions this Government has tried to meet the farmers, as far as possible, but those things, it seems to me, are not recognized by the Opposition. Those, however, are facts which the people will take notice of. The hon. member has also quoted that I have now appointed over 150 National officials. I am extremely glad, and it says a lot for the National officials, who have been attempting to improve the position of agriculture in the Union in the last four years, that they are Nationalists. It shows that I have not done too badly by appointing Nationalists. I get letters and resolutions from farming associations in Natal and all over the Union, saying how satisfied they are with the Agricultural Department as arranged at present. I am certain there is not a single member in this House either on that side or wherever he is, who has any complaint to make about an official of the Department of Agriculture. Whenever they come to the department, they are treated with every courtesy, and they are given every information which they want. Why then come in and try and make pinpricks, try and show that things are wrong here and thing's are wrong there? If those things can be proved, then I welcome the criticism, but to come with criticism without any foundation—well, I really do not think that that does any party any good, because these people see what is being done. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close)—I am sorry he is not here—spoke again this evening about soil erosion, and he is so anxious about it that he said the commission reported that we ought to appoint a special officer for that purpose. I told him the other night that I had gone into the position and had found it better through the extension division, and the agricultural schools that the farmers should be advised, and told what they should do. They can do more work than one official specially appointed for that purpose, and also the Irrigation Commission. And then the hon. member has been speaking about what is now being done with our flora. Everything that we possibly can do we are doing, but these things that have been neglected for the last 20 years we cannot do them in two or three years. We have now a station at Fauresmith, we have another at Worcester and we have another place at Pretoria, where we are going in for different kinds of grasses, and we are advising the farmers. The officials in my department are always going round advising people what kind of grasses to plant on their farms.

He also brought up the question of the Metereological Department. These people are busy, but it is impossible in a few years to find out things that will take 30, 50 or 100 years’ time. You cannot expect them to do wonders. Some hon. members seem to think we have a kind of super-being who can do these things at once. That is an impossibility and we cannot do it. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) has again pressed the point about the sheep inspector, Oosthuizen, why he was exonerated. Let me once again point out that I sent the chief inspector from Bloemfontein, who made a thorough inquiry into the matter, and came to the conclusion that sometimes scab is slumbering; it may be below the surface and you cannot notice it. It is possible that when these sheep started trekking it started irritating, and that was why scab was discovered as soon as they arrived in Natal. That is the report I have from my chief officer, and I believe that officer. Although they recommended that Oosthuizen was not guilty, I said, “You will be transferred to another area.” Does the hon. gentleman suggest I should have dismissed him?

Is that a punishment?

A man can make a mistake. If it will satisfy the hon. member, I will admit he made a mistake. Has the hon. member never made a mistake in his life? I will go so far, if that will meet the criticism of the hon. gentleman, and I will say he overlooked It and for that reason I have transferred him to another area.

They trekked 100 miles.

If we did not know those sheep had scab, could we help it if they trekked 100 or 1,000 miles?

With three months’ scab on them.

I have admitted that he may have made a mistake, but was it possible for me and the chief officers of my department to stop those sheep if we did not know they had scab? He made a mistake, and I may point out he is one of the officers appointed by the previous Government.

I do not care a fig about that.

I cannot say anything further to the hon. member. I think he means it well. I think he is trying to help me. Let me say Natal has improved wonderfully in regard to scab, and I must congratulate Natal and I am glad hon. members are helping me in that direction.

†*The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) asked the other night why there was a difference in salary between scab inspectors and cattle dipping inspectors. I did not then reply, and therefore want to do so now. Cattle inspectors are officials appointed for special duty for a short time when east-coast fever is prevalent, and they cannot be compared with officials who are appointed on a more fixed basis. The hon. member said that they also do the work of sheep inspectors. Yes, if they are appointed in a certain district, we cannot expect them to attend to six dips and remain idle for the rest of their time; they must earn their pay. How many people are there not who work for 4s. 6d. a day, and the dipping inspectors get 11s. 6d. a day. If they are not satisfied I can get hundreds in their place who are working on the roads, and will be very glad to accept the post. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) referred to the prices of sheep. He said that we must not fix the prices. We are acting according to our experience of the last four years. We fixed the prices in 1924, and said that the farmers might not buy any sheep above the fixed price, with the £300. In that way we prevented speculators outmanœuvring us, and the people got their sheep.

What sort of sheep?

Good sheep, not indeed thoroughbred, but good sheep to go on with. We cannot expect a farmer with £300 to buy stud sheep. I have a letter here from a farmer in the Stellenbosch district, and he offers ewes, good sheep, for £1 each, ewes with two to six teeth.

Short wool?

Some sheep have short wool, three to five months; it is not shearing time yet, most people shear in January. The Natal people may possibly be able to shear, as they grow three inches in six months. The people have to buy the sheep themselves, and can thus see to their getting good sheep. I am not, however, going to raise the price, and it will therefore be better for the people to wait a little. There are many people in the Free State and Transvaal who are not only prepared to sell sheep, but are also to respond to the appeal of the churches, and they are giving sheep, etc., to assist the people. Am I then to go and raise the price? I cannot do it. If there is a man who particularly wants to buy thoroughbred sheep, let him apply to the Land Bank. I will see Mr. Herold, and we can then possibly assist in special cases. The hon. members for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) and Hopetown (Dr. Stals) advocated a girls’ hostel at Glen. There is a faculty at Stellenbosch where girls can go, but there are only eleven; and there is an agricultural faculty at Pretoria for girls, but here there are only a few. Can we then, before the girls use those places more, decide to erect more buildings? I must say that the ladies eagerly avail themselves of the short courses, and they are given at Glen. When I see that it is necessary to increase the short courses, I will make arrangements to increase them, and then later on we can see what is necessary in the other direction. Nor do I think that at present circumstances permit of the erection of an agricultural school for girls. The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) spoke frankly, and said that he was not a believer in those levies with regard to stock. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) said it was the best policy that could be followed. I sent a circular to all members, and unless I find that the country is prepared to go in for the levy I shall not propose it. If the hon. member for Illovo therefore wishes a levy on the cattle farmers, then he must first convert hon. members like the hon. member for Aliwal. The hon. member also said that I supported certain laws which were injurious to the Union. We are trying to improve certain laws, but if he objects to certain Bills of the Minister of Labour, let him discuss them on that Minister’s vote. I am very glad that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) every time he gets up says that we must keep politics out of agriculture. If hon. members make constructive criticism, then it is in their interests just as much as in the interests of this party to raise it. Let them then indicate where I have failed in my duty, or an official has made a mistake, because we are always prepared to continue learning. I am learning daily, and possibly I can even teach the hon. member for Illovo something, because there are no people who have not something good in them. Let us, however, leave trifles alone and stop criticism which is only intended to delay the vote longer than is actually necessary.

I am sorry I am unable to congratulate the Minister either on the manner or the matter of his reply to the charges I brought against him, and seeing that he had more than a fortnight to prepare his reply, one would have thought he would have done so in a more serious manner, but he followed the lines of the Old Bailey lawyer and attacked the opposing attorney when he had a bad case. He accused me of stating that his subordinates or officers at Onderstepoort were out to steal other people’s presriptions. I made no such charge.

What did you say then?

The Minister not only said so, but hissed it across the floor of this Chamber not fewer than five times. Either I am standing here as a responsible member of Parliament, and saying things which are absolutely untrue, or the Minister is guilty of a terminological inexactitude—both cannot be speaking the truth. The Minister also stated that my charges were absolutely without foundation. If the Minister will undertake to reply in detail, I will undertake to prove the charges I have made. The first is, time and money are wasted searching for cures which others have already discovered and proved. The second is, anyone who has discovered a cure for a disease is deliberately blocked in his efforts to put it on the market unless he discloses the secret to the Minister’s department.

Your own law.

It is not the law. The Minister evidently (does not know his own regulations. I will quote the Minister’s letter to show it is not the law. The third is, well-established cures are officially discredited.

But I told the hon. member the other day that the regulation was drawn up by my predecessor.

It is not the regulations I object to, but the wrong interpretation placed on them. The Minister must not waste my time, as I have only ten minutes, and he can speak for an hour if he likes. The fourth is, official permission is promised to be given provided the makers will disclose the contents, although in no instance, so far as I can discover, where the chemical contents have been disclosed or discovered, has the continued sale been permitted; and lastly, the promises made by the Minister in this House are repudiated by his department in practice. I will deal with the first one first. A cure for gall sickness has been discovered about which there is no possible shadow of a doubt, because it has been proved and utilized by the leading breeders of South Africa. I have here some hundreds of testimonials from the leading breeders in this country, stretching from the Belgian Congo to the coast of Zululand. Many of these are professional men who have declared that this cure is efficacious. I do not think I will take up the time of the committee in reading them, but the principal veterinary officer of Basutoland may be quoted. He says, in writing to Col. Harber, “You can rely on me in support of the remedy.” I will also quote a letter coming from probably the biggest dealer in pedigree stock in South Africa, Mr. Abbot, who says that he has noted the debate which has been going on in the House, and can speak from his own experience of several hundreds of cattle on which they have tried this cure, and “the department must know nothing about it.” There is no doubt whatever that this is an efficacious cure, yet the department is still seeking for a cure for gall sickness. Why this waste of time, why this waste of money? The same thing applies to anthrax, which I have already dealt with. In reply to a question I put to him last year, the Minister stated that the exact composition of patent remedies for stock diseases is not demanded, provided the vendor proves the efficacy of the medicine. The efficacy has been widely established, yet the department is doing the very opposite, and is still demanding the chemical composition. This shows that the Minister is not controlling his department, but that the department is controlling him. The department informed the vendor of one of these remedies that it would not object to its continued sale provided he forwarded a statement of its composition satisfactory to the department.

That is exactly what I said the other night.

Yes, but it is in conflict with the Minister’s own statement in this House. I do not think I will take up the time of the House any further at present. [Hear, hear !] My friends opposite have evidently already had more than they want. If I had more time I could give them even more amazing disclosures. I have established the fact that there are a number of cures available for animal diseases, but they cannot be purchased owing to the action of the department in blocking their sales. It is “up to” the Minister, of course, to test by every fair means the cures under conditions which are fair to the maker and to the public, but not to deliberately try to ruin a man who has a satisfactory cure for a disease simply because there are members of the Minister’s department who are anxious to get hold of the details of his discovery.

The Minister of Agriculture has seen fit this evening to say that I am a man who is influenced by his environment, and he suggested that I had grown up surrounded by natives. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) may laugh. I am surprised at a member of the cloth

What has that to do with it?

Indulging in such bitterness in the House. The Minister spoke to me in terms of insult, and the hon. member sits there backing him up. He ought to be ashamed of himself. The Minister has only been out-matched in this House by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux), who, recently, indulged in the language of the gutter in this House, and who deserved the reprobation—and got it—of every right-thinking man in South Africa. The Minister said that I grew up in the environment of natives. Let me tell him that my upbringing has not produced such results as his has.

I did not say you grew up there.

What did you say?

I said you were connected with native recruiting and native administration for a long time. I have it here in writing

You said a great deal more than that.

You mentioned natives as though my mind had been lowered by them. My connection with the Native Department will bear examination by anyone, and I have not a single action of any kind to be ashamed of in connection with my native administration. The Minister, as far as I can remember his past, was a field-cornet’s clerk in the Transvaal, a class of official who enjoyed, at that time, a bad pre-eminence for treating the natives in a manner which was not fitting.

When was I a field-carnet’s clerk?

Let me give the Minister due notice and other members who think like him—and I include the hon. member for Wunburg (Dr. van der Merwe)—let them be careful how they refer to me in this House in future.

I do not know what the hon. member is referring to. I was not in the House at the time when the Minister spoke. I have been laughing at something quite different. The hon. member should not be so touchy.

Don’t twist.

The hon. member must withdraw the words “don’t twist

I said it, and I withdraw it.

The Minister's stock argument has been mud-slinging. It only shows his mentality.

I think the hon. member might withdraw the word “mudslinging”.

I will withdraw it if the Minister of Finance will withdraw his use of the word to me. Recently the Minister of Finance used the same word towards me, and Mr. Speaker upheld him.

I can understand the hon. member feeling sore to a certain extent, and I have allowed him some latitude.

I have always appreciated the reasonable way in which you have carried out your duties, sir.

That is quite true.

My comments were reasonably made, but the Minister has utterly failed to show how it is possible for one official to make such conflicting reports on a subject of vital importance to citrus growers. The report of his secretary refers to the citrus reason, 1926-’27, and the report which I have referred to as being of such a conflicting nature on the very same subject in the Land Bank managing director’s report also deals with the citrus season for 1927.

There is a difference of six months.

How can there be a difference of six months when the report refers to precisely the same season—1926-’27? It is as idle for the Minister to say that, as it is for him to quote statistics for wool in order to convince me that the citrus industry is in a prosperous condition. The Minister has challenged me to bring forward any cases in which any one of the 154 officials he has appointed has not acted properly, and I am only too glad to accept his challenge. In one of the farmers’ weekly papers there appears under a caption “Dishonesty at the Dipping Tank” the description of a trial at Pietersburg, headed by a quotation from the evidence of one of the natives who was a witness against one of the Minister’s officials. The native says: “The accused belongs to the Government, so I have to pay him when he asks”. That was an official who was convicted on 32 counts of extortion and bribery.

When was he appointed?

He was appointed originally under the regime of the late Government, and his services were dispensed with when the Minister did away with the sheep control. He was re-appointed by the Minister himself and included amongst the officials who have increased the staff of his department. That the Minister himself stated in reply to a question I put in this House. Another native complainant says, when asked why he paid this money to the accused—

Another witness says—

I have here a letter from a fruit farmer in the Stellenbosch district, and he says there is not a course in horticulture at Elsenburg for English-speaking students. The course is in Afrikaans. Most of the horticulturists in that district are English-speaking, and when we take into consideration the attractive manner in which South African fruit has been received by the London markets, and how it has lured people in England to come out here and grow fruit, and that Stellenbosch district is one of our fruit-growing districts, it is grossly unfair that new settlers have no opportunity of qualifying in horticulture. I want to know where the equality of language comes in? I would like the Minister when he replies to tell the committee by whose orders this state of things exists. We have heard from the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) that South Africa has no share of the £1,000,000 grant of the Empire Marketing Board. The Minister has been in office for four years, and knows perfectly well that one of the thriving agricultural industries of South Africa is the tobacco industry. To my utter amazement, I learnt that the tobacco growers are applying to the Land Bank for a loan of £300,000 as a carry-over owing to the over-production of tobacco in the Union. Surely if the Minister was wide awake and knew his business, he would have foreseen this state of things, and would have applied for a portion of that million pounds to market South African tobacco in the United Kingdom.

What a hope !

What a hope, with all our agricultural irrigation works, such as Hartebeestepoort, and a number of settlers there growing tobacco, and the quality of South African tobacco equal to any in the world. Here is a legitimate case where a Minister with a spark of enterprise would have applied for a part of that million pounds. We hear of portions of Africa in the north getting grants, and yet this great Union is left out. The Minister should be ashamed of himself. The Minister said the atmosphere and environment of people governed their outlook. All I can say that the association of the hon. the Minister with sprinkaans has cramped his view, and made him a slow thinker and slow mover. The admonition he received from the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Deane) is well deserved for the Minister cannot stand criticism. His reply to any criticism is abuse. The Minister is not a farmer—I can claim at all events to be a successful farmer, but the Minister in all his attempts at farming has been a ghastly failure.

The hon. member must moderate his language.

I think the locust position is very unsatisfactory. We are threatened with another invasion of locusts and the way in which the money was expended on the last occasion when we had a visitation calls for comment. The Minister has a question put to him by the hon. member for Hope town Dr. Stals) a few weeks ago. [Question and answer read.] Since then we have been told by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that there has been a flight of locusts in his constituency. I am not questioning the method of destruction the Minister has adopted, but the extravagant and reckless way in which he has frittered away the money which he has appropriated through this House, for te purpose of locust destruction. I find his locust officers are drawing enormous incomes. As an example, I take out three names. There is Bezuidenhout, who was receiving a salary of £130 per month, that is if you include the gross amount received as mileage for his motor allowance; Colyn, at the rate of £121 per month, and van Wyk at the rate of £99 per month. So it goes on. How exactly these amounts are arrived at is what I would like the Minister to explain to me. I want to know whether these claims for mileage are vouched by anybody, or whether the Minister simply gives an officer a motor car and tells him to go and reel off as many miles a day as he can, and send in the account to the Treasury to be paid. In the event of another locust invasion, is the Minister going to adopt the same course again and simply allow these officers to enrich themselves at the expense of the Treasury in the way they have done in the past? There is no doubt that the Minister could obtain the services of equally efficient men, probably better men, at half the cost to the State. I venture to say that this expenditure, which now runs into a little over £1,000,000, could with efficient administration, have been reduced by at least half. The Minister should pay more regard to the interests of the taxpayers than to the interests of those who are employed in this work of locust destruction. I want to know from the Minister whether, in the event of another visitation if he has to employ a large number of officials again, he is going to allow the same liberal terms to locust officers.

We hear so often in the House that hon. members on this side are all capitalists and not farmers. There are farmers here as well, but so much is being said on this vote that it is difficult to get an opportunity of speaking. Even if it is late in the evening, I have anyhow got my turn, and I should like to bring a few things to the Minister’s notice. A great plea has been made for cheaper oil for agricultural purposes. Our experience along the Orange River, and further north, is that people put up fairly large pumps, and then get motors to run them, and they usually use wood fuel or anthracite, and they complain that the railway rates are too high. The Minister will say that I must apply to the Minister of Railways. I did so, but he is not sympathetic enough, and says that he is afraid of fraud.

I have already replied on this matter. The hon. member was not present, otherwise he would have heard it.

Unfortunately the Minister answers every now and again, and we are not always here. Because I was not here I do not know the Minister’s reply, but as I have not yet spoken, the Minister does not know what I am going to say. I want his assistance in talking to the Minister of Railways. I think fraud can be prevented by carrying only oil and other fuel for similar purposes at a cheap rate. The Minister issued regulations the year before last, that no one may export wool unless it is packed in bales of nominally 12 pounds, which, however, usually weight about 11¼ pounds. Last year many farmers found it impossible to obtain bales of 11¼ pounds. Bags were sent to me, and they weighed 10 pounds, and sometimes less. That was the experience of many farmers. If the Minister compels us to use bags of 11¼ pounds, he must also see to their being imported for our use. It will be very unpleasant and cause great expense if the wool arrives in Durban and is refused because the bags in which it is packed are not of that weight. The Minister appears very indifferent, but it is a great difficulty. Then another point. Our country is proud of its good name for wool, and it is continually being said that we must pack our good wool properly. I know of a case where it is absolutely certain that a farmer, who had packed his wool, and had put his name and number on it properly, had to learn that when his wool was sold in London, the same clip had entirely different markings. The only explanation I can give is that it took place at the port amongst the buyers, that they took off the letters and put others in heir places. If a farmer is proud of his clip and his name, then he is also anxious for the clip to be sold under his name. The Minister can possibly promulgate regulations that when bales are once properly marked, they cannot be altered while in this country, because it happened here, and not on the other side of the water.

I would like to know if the Minister can inform the committee whether he has made any representations to the railways in regard to the country grain elevators. If he will refer to the report of the managing director of the Land Bank, at page 14, he will find that that gentleman, who, by the way, knows more about the subject from the financial point of view than anybody, distinctly says that there are not sufficient elevators in the country to handle the enormous maize crop, and the general manager of railways, more or less, says the same thing in his report, that there are 35 country elevators as against 71 that were originally intended, and the result is that the number of country elevators is not sufficient to handle the crop which is necessary for the size and capacity of the port elevators. Last year, unfortunately for the country, the maize harvest was very much less than the normal. It was about 11,000,000 bags, as against 24,000,000 bags in the previous year, but if we have a sufficient harvest this year we shall be in a precarious position again in regard to the country maize elevators, and I would ask the Minister whether he has taken any steps to inform the Railway Department from the agricultural point of view of the very grave necessity there is of developing the country elevator system. It is very important, from the point of view of the Land Bank, because they are the people who really finance our maize export business to-day, and I feel if we are going to handle this business properly and make efficient use of the enormous sums of money we have spent on these grain elevators, the country elevator system must be sufficiently large and capacious to handle the business that the port elevators can put through during the season, and I would like to know if the Minister is considering that matter.

I would like to say I think the Minister of Agriculture has been subjected to a great deal of criticism this evening, and while all of us, and quite rightly so, are ready to show up the delinquencies of the department and its officials, it is only fair to give praise where praise is due, and I want to congratulate the Minister on the splendid work that the officials of his department are doing. Every effort is being made at the present time to induce the farmers to get into touch with the department, and I hope more and more use will be made of our experts, who are always ready and anxious to assist. Speaking as a very small fruit farmer, I want to say that the assistance given to the fruit industry by the Department of Entomology in the Eastern Province cannot be too highly praised or valued. Nothing is too much trouble for these officials, and I can say without fear of contradiction that through their efforts a very bright future exists for the fruit industry in those parts. Recently I had a telegram from one of my constituents who complained that bush fires were burning every night in a certain forest reserve. I handed the Minister the telegram, and within two days the Minister gave me a reply which completely exonerated the department, and I want to thank the Minister for the very prompt way in which he dealt with the matter. I wish to say a few words about water boring by the Agricultural Department, and want the Minister, during the recess, to consider the question of extending the payments for water boring for a very much longer period than at present.

Five years.

Five years is all right for the well-to-do farmer, but I am speaking of the poor farmer, and if we made it ten years more farmers would be able to go in for water boring. In connection with water boring, I want the Minister to see if something cannot be done to have a thorough geological survey made of the entire Union. I know that is going to be a big undertaking, but in view of the discovery by Dr. Merensky of the artesian basin in Namaqualand, I am sure a proper survey will be of immense value to the country and will save any amount of unnecessary expense. At the present time we have at Uitenhage the biggest artesian basin in the Union, and on one farm alone there are over 2,000,000 gallons of water flowing to the surface every 24 hours. In other parts very good supplies exist, but before water boring can be made a universal success, proper research work must be undertaken, and I hope the Minister will favourably consider this during the recess and bring something before us next session.

I should like to answer a few points raised by hon. members opposite. I am glad that at least one voice there was appreciative of the officers in my department. I must tell the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) that I very much appreciate his praising the officials of the Agricultural Department, and I am grateful that he did not hesitate to do so, although various hard words had been used. The hon. member asked whether payment for water boring could not be extended beyond five years. I may say that there are people who have had seven, eight and nine years time. The period is five years, but where there are difficulties, and the man cannot well pay, I made arrangements, and in consultation with the Minister of Finance, such a farmer gets a longer time. In the past the time was two years, and it has now been extended to five, and the charge has been reduced from £5 to £3 10s. The hon. member further asked for a good geological survey. Let me tell him that I am trying to find a good geologist, and the matter is having my attention. The hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw) asked an amusing question. Someone deleted the marks on wool bales, and now it is the Minister of Agriculture who is made the scapegoat. I have not heard such criticism for a long time. Another criticism was that the farmers had not obtained the proper wool hags, and that the light wool bags were not available. Let me point out to the hon. member that the regulations which were introduced 18 months ago were not immediately brought into force, because the lighter bags were not yet available. We postponed enforcing them to enable shopkeepers to sell their old stock, and get new ones. The hon. member is the only man who has complained about it. There has not been one wool buyer or farmer from whom I have heard a complaint about this matter. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) has again spoken about Messrs. Bezuidenhout, Colyn and others, and about the large salary they drew for killing locusts. The matter has been debated for the last two years, and I have already fully explained it. The destruction of locusts is a kind of war, and I do not know whether the hon. member has ever seen any locusts. I hope we shall not have any more, but, if they do come, I should be very pleased to pay the hon. member for Klip River the same salary as I paid Mr. Bezuidenhout, provided he does the same work that Mr. Bezuidenhout did. When he has done it, he will certainly no longer criticize the salary. The cost is partly caused by motors having to be hired when the locusts come, because it is impossible to fight them without motors. Further, the hon. member mentioned the loan in connection with ostrich feathers. The hon. member knows that that money was voted by Parliament. The money has not yet been repaid because the price of ostrich feathers has not yet risen, and they are therefore not yet sold.

The money was lent with the approval of the whole House, and the amount comes under loan funds, consequently if the hon. member wants more information he can debate it when they come up. Then the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) boasted of his being a good farmer, and what a failure I was as a farmer. I have never yet learnt anything from him. He can come and look at my farm, and I can assure him he will not find any like it. I believe he would be ashamed of his imputations if he were a capable farmer and were to see my farm. The hon. member also asked why we did not borrow from the Imperial Marketing Board to make advances to our tobacco farmers. I think the hon. member will understand that the Imperial Marketing Board does not exist merely to lend money. They only make grants for specific purposes. Can the hon. member tell me why the farmers in Rhodesia have not borrowed money from the Marketing Board? The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) spoke about the Pietersburg official who was charged and convicted. That official is not included in the 150 officials he mentioned, but among the dipping inspectors. It may happen that such an official commits an offence. I have never denied it, because even the best officials make mistakes. The other imputations he made against me I shall not reply to, because everybody knows me, and I am not going to bother myself with them. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) also dealt with the question of grain elevators, and said there were too few. The Railway Board is now considering the matter, and they have thoroughly discussed it with the agricultural unions. The board is going into the matter, but I want to point out that the original object of the elevators was to receive grain for export, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will confirm this, and they were not intended for the storage of grain. If we are going to use the elevators for storing, then Parliament will have to vote a considerably larger sum for the purpose. If hon. members want the rates to be increased, they must move to that effect. I can assure the hon. member that the Railway Board is considering the whole matter.

If the Minister considers a considerable amount of heat has, unfortunately, been brought into this discussion, he must recognize that he has himself been responsible for a good deal of that heat, because of the unguarded statements he made on Wednesday and to-day. On Wednesday he made a statement which, I think, is extremely disquieting. He said that, in his opinion, a man who loved his country must support the Government, and such a man must do his duty better than the man who had no sympathy with the Government; moreover, the man who did not sympathize with the Government was, always trying to stab the Government in the back. An hon. member says: “Hear, hear Is it parliamentary for me, Mr. Chairman, to say he should be ashamed of himself?

Why?

Because that contradicts what the Minister said himself. He justly stood up to defend the public servants in his department. What he said the other day is tantamount to saying that a large number of public servants, owing to holding views which are not the same as those of the hon. member opposite and the Minister, are not doing their duty to the country, and are prepared to stab the Minister in the back. I am surprised to hear the hon. member for Graaff Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) saying “hear, hear”. Does that mean that no one can do his duty to the country unless he holds Nationalist views? That is what it means. I have more experience of holding public office than the Minister has, and if he will inquire he will find out there were many who held entirely different views from what I held when in office, but that never influenced me in the work they had to discharge. It is an evil day when the Minister should say, and hon. members opposite support him, that the only men who love the country are those who hold the political views of the Nationalist party.

Shame !

It is a shame. I thought the Minister said that in the heat of argument in defending himself against the appointments he had been accused of making; but responsible people, including the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, support the statement that if a public servant does not subscribe to the views of the Government in power, he is likely to stab the Minister in the back.

I said nothing of the kind.

The hon. member said: “Hear, hear”. It is an unfortunate thing. One of the reasons why there is a great deal of anxiety is because the Minister has been carrying into practice in his department the sentiments to which he gave expression on Wednesday night. Might I ask the Minister whom he has appointed as registrar of co operative societies?

I told you the other night.

Is it a fact that within a couple of years the Minister has taken out of a bank in Piet Retief in the Transvaal— a man in his own district, where the Minister resided at that time—and made him registrar of co-operative societies? Does he deny that Mr. Retief, the late registrar, was a credit to that department, and responsible for doing most of the co-operative work in that department? Does the Minister tell me that there were no other reasons which made it necessary to go outside the public service and take a man into the public service? Would the Minister wonder if I ask him what were the views of this gentleman before the Minister appointed him?

A Nationalist.

He would be a Nationalist, or the Minister would not have put him there. Does the Minister wonder that brings a great deal of criticism upon him? Does he wonder that it makes others and myself ask: “Is it in the interests of the public service, or is it for political purposes that the Minister has made these changes?” Who is the chief market officer at the present time? Does the Minister deny that this officer has been only a couple of years in the service? His qualifications I do not know; he may have been an admirable reporter of the marketing arrangements in “Die Burger”, but I know that in a case of that sort, without an absolute necessity for it, taking people from outside the service, you are doing a great injustice to the public service of the country. I say more—the Minister is unjust in saying that we on this side of the House do not realize the ability of many of our public servants. Nobody has ever stood up more for our public servants than I have, but it is unfortunate that our public servants are getting the idea— which is rampant—that there is no hope for them in the public service, so long as existing conditions prevail, if they have not a Nationalist soul. If there is one thing this country has prided itself on in the past it is that public servants have realized that they are only asked to do their work, and not what their political views are. In all the changes which the Minister has made, there is one on which he has prided himself—and the Minister of the Interior has also prided himself upon it—and that is that all other things being equal, they have put people in responsible positions for their political opinions.

Hoor, hoor.

Does my hon. friend of fragile proportions mean that the Government is justified in taking in a number of people from outside the service and putting them over the heads of people who have served the country well for many years? The public service has a right to expect that Parliament shall support it no matter what the public servants’ political opinions may be. On Wednesday night the Minister mentioned the name of an important official in the sheep division. He left the service during the regime of the late Government. Does the Minister know that there is an idea that this gentleman, through an intermediary, is largely interested in a sale of rams? The Minister has re-appointed that man over the heads of a large number of other people.

Will the hon. member say that outside the House?

This is the place in which to say it.

I am only asking; I have mentioned no names; I am only asking the Minister if he has not received representations from people who are deeply interested in the wool industry calling his attention to these facts. The Minister mentioned the name on Wednesday night. He knows that several cases of this sort have been referred to. From the first day he took office he practically swept away 200 or 300 sheep inspectors and appointed other people in their stead. This was an account of the political views they held. I have always denounced that sort of thing, and shall continue to do so. If the Minister will go through the files of the Agricultural Department he will find that I gave instructions that the political views of the officers were not to be enquired into or taken into consideration. The only thing I wanted to know about them was their ability. It is because the Minister has departed from that position, and irrespective of the good things he has done, he has struck a blow at the esprit d’corps of the public service and has cast a stigma upon it by the statement he made that except if people hold political views, you cannot expect them to do justice to the Government. Formerly we never know what an official’s political opinions were. The Minister knows that the officer he has as the head of the locust destruction department was appointed by me when I knew what his political opinions were, and realized the influence he had in the Western Transvaal.

That shows your judgment.

If a man were an angel from heaven would the Minister give him an appointment if he held the views of the South African party? If he were an angel it would be impossible for him to hold any other view, unless, of course, he were a black angel, when he would hold the views of the Government, party.

I did not intend taking part in the debate, but after the dramatic speech of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), I feel compelled to rebut what he has said. I think it is very bad of the hon. member to make such accusations against this side of the House. In one breath he said that the Minister of Agriculture, when he came into office, discharged a few hundred inspectors because they held different political views from ours, and that he and his Government never made a distinction. Is the hon. member now not making a charge against himself? Has he not himself given the proof that if the Minister discharged so many inspectors because they were S.A.P. men, he made a proper differentiation. Is the hon. member not himself proving that he appointed Saps? The hon. member says that they never enquired about a man’s political views. I want to refresh his memory a little. I want to remind him that shortly after union there was a South African Government which appointed a high-placed official in the Free State, Dr. Ramsbottom as Administrator of Natal. After his appointment he completely withdrew from politics, never spoke politics, but they knew that he was a Nationalist, and when his five years was over he was told that his services were no longer required. Was another Nationalist appointed? No. How does the hon. member dare unblushingly to rise here and make such charges when they have so much to their own account. He ought to be one of the last to open his mouth. The Minister had to discharge sheep inspectors and the country to-day admits scab has been eradicated, a thing the hon. member for Fort Beaufort could not bring about. There are less sheep inspectors, but much has been attained.

There is more scab.

What does the hon. member know about scab? He just knows a little about phylloxera

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort, who is one of the extreme jingoes who are gradually dying out, is always treating us to such speeches. He makes accusations he cannot support. He made an accusation here about the appointment of an official by the Minister. He was not man enough to give the name. When the Minister challenged him to make the charge against the official outside, he remained perfectly quiet. He cannot prove it. The hon. member makes wild statements. He is considered the oldest member in the House, and we expect a better example from him than such wild statements.

I have known you longer.

As for that, I am prepared to compare my past with that of the hon. member. I am not afraid of that. I challenge the hon. member, at the next general election, which is close by, to come and fight any division in the Free State against me on that point. If the hon. member has had such a famous past let him accept the challenge.

I wish to ask the Minister whether he did not retire Mr. F. W. Green as chief clerk on the plea that his office had been abolished, and then re-constitute that office immediately afterwards. This has been stated in the press, and I purposely emphasize this because I know it is the habit of Ministers to suggest that we come by information by wrongful means—“extensive re-organization was carried out recently by the Minister of Agriculture on the plea of economy, but it is now learnt that the retrenchment of many highly placed officials has been a cloak for the advancement of others, and that posts which were stated to have been abolished have actually been revived within four months of their abolition. Mr. Brink has been promoted into the place of Mr. Green, whose position had been abolished, although Mr. Green was under the retiring age, on the ground that the office was no longer necessary. No sooner had Mr. Green left and received a comfortable pension than Mr. Brink was appointed in his place. The same process took place in the case of Major T. A. J. Place.

Major Place was senior clerk in the veterinary division. He was also retired on the plea of the abolition of office, but the post has been revived and given to Mr. te Groen, whose name doubtless sounds more sweetly in the Minister’s ears than that of Mr. Green. We can only assume that Mr. Green was got rid of because he was not te groen, in fact was not green enough.” I know Mr. te Groen. I think he is an admirable young man, courteous, and in every way a very worthy official. In bringing forward his name here, I merely wish to indicate that a definite complaint is made about his promotion. He is not to blame. He is to be envied. It is stated here that in both those cases the abolition of the office has been merely a cloak to introduce and promote other men who were solely in the opinion of the Minister, more desirable for promotion. Then there is a further case stated of the Minister having introduced to his department a man from another department to the disadvantage of men working in his own department. “Mr. P. W. A. Haupt, clerk in the Department of Lands, has been given a senior clerkship in the Department of Agriculture, while there are 10 first grade clerks in the Department of Agriculture anxiously waiting for promotion.” Those are serious complaints. That is the way to cause great dissatisfaction in the service. I do not mean to say every department should be watertight, and that no promotion should take place from outside that department. I do not think civil servants intend that. Some reference has been made to the question of sheep inspectors. I have here a document from General Enslin, the late head of the sheep division, which disproves the statement commonly made that the sheep division was largely manned by political officials. I wrote to General Enslin, who is now retired, to ask him what he had got to say in reply to a statement made by the Minister of Labour in Durban to this effect: “That the country spent £200,000 on salaries and wages of sheep inspectors, and these men were all friends of the South African party, and were like South African party missionaries paid by the Government to inspect sheep.” He went on to say—

Now General Enslin rightly pronounced that statement as an absolute untruth. He went on to say, with regard to the suggestion that there was political influence in that branch of the department—

(The present Minister of Agriculture said himself, and it is on record in Hansard, that he did not know General Enslin was a supporter of the South African party.)

… Circular instructions were issued to all inspectors that they were on no account to take part in politics, and this instruction was observed with perhaps two or three exceptions so far as I know.

That is a very frank statement by a gentleman who certainly enjoys the respect of all who know him. The Minister challenged me to refer to cases in which officials appointed under his authority upon his own selection, had done wrong. I have already referred to the case in which extortion had taken place, and I want to add to that that the Minister has definitely refused to give compensation to unfortunate natives who were robbed by this inspector under the guise of carrying out his duty. That is the point. The Minister is responsible for the acts of his servants, and in this case, to my mind, he has wrongly refused to honour that obligation and restore to these natives money unlawfully taken from them by one of his officials. There is another case, the case of Mr. D. S. Kok, who undoubtedly was appointed by the Minister. He was one of the numerous army selected from the Minister’s own constituency, or from that other district in which the Minister is domiciled, and who were referred to by the Minister as beings sent to Natal to give us some intelligence. In this case Mr. Kok robbed the natives amongst whom his duties lay of £80 by a system of extortion similar to that which I have described this evening, and he was convicted before the magistrate and given a suspended sentence on condition that this money was repaid. I brought that case to the notice of the Minister, and again he refused to honour the obligation which rests upon everyone of us as being responsible for the acts of our servants, who hold out that they are carrying out a duty imposed upon them by us. This man had a system of fines for the natives. When they did not turn up with their cattle he, imposed fines in respect of the cattle not there, and pocketed the money. Then he went a little further, he robbed the bank of £3,000.

Where did you get it all from?

You must ask the Minister that. He selected this gentleman. This gentleman dressed himself up in suitable kit. He wore a Tom Mix hat for the occasion, and he did the job very effectively. He was convicted and sentenced by the court for this robbery. He bought cattle from the natives with some of the £3,000, which he had stolen from the bank, making payments on account.

Who was that?

Mr. Kok. He was found guilty in the Supreme Court at a jury trial. He bought cattle from the natives, and doubtless under the law of the land the cattle so bought will be claimed by the bank. There we have a long chain of ill-doing on the part of this man who was posturing the whole way as an official of the Minister. He was appointed by the Minister, he was specially chosen by the Minister because of his confidence in him, and that is the way he betrays that confidence. The Minister is absolutely silent when I have appealed to him in the past as to whether he is prepared to make any compensation whatsoever to the natives who have suffered. In some cases he bought cattle from natives to the extent of over £100, and that is a devastating loss if the cattle are about to be taken by the bank as their property. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has now referred to what the Minister of Labour has done in Natal. He can raise it under that Minister’s vote. The hon. member spoke about the appointment of officials who have done certain wrong things. If I were to compare the books about the appointment of officials who have done wrong under the previous Government, which will weigh the more? I need not go further into it. Then the hon. member says that I got rid of Mr. Green as chief clerk, and shortly after appointed another official. I did not do so. The Public Service Commission supervizes the department, and where there are superfluous officials they recommend an alteration being made. They thought the chief clerk was not necessary. Mr. Brink was appointed. He has been in the Department of Public Works since 1902, and has only now, after 26 years, got his present promotion and salary. Does the hon. member object to that? All the cases are raised against Afrikaans-speaking men. It is the same with Mr. te Groen, who was appointed in 1912, and has now been promoted after 16 years. Most hon. members know him, and that he is capable. Can anything be said against his promotion? It is, moreover, the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. If I did not follow it, the hon. member would say that I was doing an injustice. If I follow it, it is not right either. Hon. members are so hopelessly bankrupt politically, that they have to resort to such measures. I am very sorry the hon. member for Fort Beaufort also lost his temper to-night. How many scab inspectors did he discharge when he came into office? Four hundred. And what about Dr. Ramsbottom and Mr. Acton, the only high official in the Agricultural Department who is a Nationalist? I will not go further into it. I assure the hon. member that the departmental officials are standing behind the Minister.

On the motion of the Minister of Finance, it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in committee on 21st May.

I beg to make a statement in the House which is rather urgent, and I wish to make it before the House adjourns to-night. I hope the House will have no objection. On May 31st next the Union Nationality and Flags Act will come into operation, and I have every reason to believe that the nation in general no less than the Government are extremely anxious that on that occasion the spirit of concord and good feeling, which so happily marked the passage of the measure should not only continue undisturbed, but should also be greatly improved. For this reason it seems to me expedient that I should more fully inform the House and the country concerning the steps to be taken and the principles to be followed by the Government in connection with the official flying of the flags, so that, if possible, no erroneous conception or unnecessary suspicion shall mar the united national rejoicings on Union Day As the principles upon which Government action is based, cannot differ from those embodied in the Act, it is first of all necessary to emphasize the fundamental conception underlying the respective use of the two Union flags. The national flag, it must be presumed, was intended by Parliament to fulfil every function and to signify to the fullest extent every aspect of national life, which free and independent nations are accustomed to associate with their national flags. It is evidently for this reason that Parliament has determined that while the national flag may be flown alone, the Union Jack, which is intended to symbolize an essential external relationship, shall not be flown officially, otherwise than in conjunction with the national flag. It must, therefore, be taken for granted that no action, which the Government may take may ever, or in any way, derogate from this distinctive and honourable position, which the national flag occupies, nor may any action in connection with it be neglected, which our national honour demands. In accordance with this conception steps have already been taken to inform other Governments concerning the existence and design of the South African national flag, while shipping companies have similarly been informed with a view to its use on ships coming within our territorial waters. The Union Jack, it must further be presumed, was intended by Parliament to fulfil two distinct and very definite functions, the first being a political one, in so far as it was meant to signify the particular relatiolnship existing between the Union and the other members of the British commonwealth of nations, and the second being a sentimental one in so far as it was meant to satisfy a traditional attachment. As far as its political function is concerned, Parliament seems to have laid down specifically the manner in which this shall be exercised, by appointing certain places, evidently selected without regard to local sentiment, where the Union Jack shall regularly be flown, namely, the Houses of Parliament, the principal Government buildings in the capitals of the Union and the provinces, the Union ports and Government offices abroad. For its use for the purpose of meeting existing sentiment, more particularly in its local aspect, Parliament seems to have provided joy conferring upon the Government special power to appoint such other places as it may deem fit, where the Union Jack shall be flown with the national flag. The Government intends to carry out the general principles thus enunciated, faithfully and in full accordance with the spirit and intention of the Act. The arrangements for the flying of the flags on Government offices abroad can present no practical difficulty, and, therefore, requires no further comment. This may also be said with regard to ports like Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London and Durban, where provision for the flying of both flags will also be made in the towns themselves, apart from the fact that they are ports of entry, and where the specific provision of the Act can, therefore, best be carried out by the display of both flags on the customs houses, which in all cases are the principal Government buildings in the harbours. In ports like Simonstown, Mossel Bay, Knysna and others, where no such additional provision will be made, the Government will consider the display of both flags as provided by the Act, on a more prominent Government building than the customs house, as circumstances may require. In connection with the specific provision of the Act for the capitals, some doubt has arisen as to whether the principal Government buildings referred to, were intended to denote collectively the one principal Government building in each of the respective centres, or whether more than one each was intended to be indicated. The Government cannot go so far as to agree to the flying of both flags on all Government buildings in any of the capitals, as the use of the word “principal” definitely excludes such an interpretation of the Act, but they are willing to adopt the more liberal of the two interpretations to which I have just referred. The principal buildings on which, in the meaning of the Act, both flags are to be displayed, will thus, naturally, exclude such buildings of merely local significance as railway stations and magistrates’ courts, but will, naturally, include buildings used for governmental purposes of national or provincial significance, on which it is customary or appropriate to fly flags. To be more specific, the buildings on which both flags will be flown, will be in Cape Town, besides the Houses of Parliament, the Supreme Court buildings, and the buildings comprising the office of the Administrator; in Pretoria, the Union Buildings, the Supreme Court buildings, and the Raadsaal containing the office of the Administrator; in Bloemfontein, the Supreme Court buildings and what is commonly known as the old Government buildings, likewise containing the Administrator’s office; and in Pietermaritzburg, the Supreme Court buildings and the buildings containing the Administrator’s office. At this last centre the magistrate’s court will also be in cluded, by special determination of the Government in accordance with the Act. In empowering the Government to determine at which other places in the Union both flags shall be flown, Parliament has evidently intended that due regard shall be had to local circumstances and sentiment. In the exercise of their discretion the Government will in this matter be guided, not by the public expression of local feeling, which in many centres may lead to counter-movements and to the unfortunate revival of sectional strife, but by their knowledge of existing conditions. In a very large number of centres the Government’s decision is a comparatively easy one, as locally there exists a practically unanimous opinion, either that the National flag alone shall be flown, or that both Union flags shall be displayed. Such centres would naturally include on the one side the Free State and large portions of the Cape Province and the Transvaal, and on the other side Natal, the eastern portions of the Cape, and most of the larger industrial and commercial centres in the Cape Province and the Transvaal. In other centres, however, sentiment is definitely divided, and if due regard shall be paid to both points of view—as the Government is in duty bound—sentiment alone cannot be the deciding factor, and the Government must, in accordance with the fundamental principles of the Act, determine that the Union Jack shall be flown only upon cause shown, apart from sentiment, by those by whom it is desired. At all centres determined by the Government for the flying of both flags, the magistrate’s court will be appointed for the purpose, as being the centre and medium of Government activity in general. Separate State services, such as the railways, police, defence, and posts and telegraphs, cannot be considered for this purpose, as in South Africa, just as in all other free and independent countries, they stand in an exclusive relationship to the national Government, and in fact are always indicated, if at all, either by the national flag alone, or by a special ensign. To determine otherwise would be a distinct derogation from the national flag, and would create a mistaken conception of our national status. I desire, in conclusion, to assure the House that in carrying out the Act according to the principles here enunciated, the Government are actuated by a sincere desire to act in the true interests of the country generally, and in full accordance with what was intended by Parliament. They fervently hope that the coming Union Day will prove to be an occasion not only for universal national rejoicing, hut also for the strengthening of that inner bond of union rooted in a common love for a common country which is the main condition of South Africa’s greatness.