I wish to make a personal explanation with regard to the debate last night, when I objected to the Minister of the Interior exceeding his forty minutes. As a result of this, the whole of the Natal members have been accused of political cowardice, and of being in collusion with me. That is not correct; they were not. I did this entirely on my own, and the reason I did it was that I considered that the forty minute rule was made to be obeyed.

What about Dunean?

During the debate two hon. members on either side were allowed to exceed forty minutes. The Prime Minister was—

The hon. member must not argue; he can only make a personal explanation.

I want to point out that it was a Natal member who moved the extension in the case of the Minister of Finance, so that I think this accusation against the Natal members is entirely uncalled for.

I ask the indulgence of the House to move—

Has the hon. member seen the Minister?

The Minister has no objection.

I have an amendment to propose to this motion.

If this motion is taken without objection, an amendment cannot be moved.

Then I must object.

I move—

seconded.

If this motion goes through in this form, the motion of my hon. friend, the member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) with regard to the payment of an additional 1s. a day to those workers at Potchefstroom during the last election, will drop, and I would suggest to the Prime Minister that it would be entirely in the interests of the country if this debate were to come on, and if an inquiry into this matter were held. There is another matter which has been raised by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) in regard to the administration of justice in the Orange Free State. I think this is also a matter which calls for a very searching inquiry. Both these matters have been raised in debate here casually, and statements have been made which should be inquired into, and I hope that the Prime Minister, if we agree to this motion standing in his name, will also agree that opportunity should be given for these matters to be raised, so that, if necessary, committees may be appointed to inquire both into the Potchefstroom case and into the case of prosecutions being withdrawn in the Orange Free State. I think there is a good deal of perturbation, to put it mildly, about these two cases. We don’t want to prevent the Government from taking fuller power over the time of the House. We know that the idea is to make a short session, and we do not want to oppose the Government having fuller command of the time of the House, although it is very early for the Government to step in. I express the hope that the, Government, even for the sake of its own reputation, will see the advisability of allowing an inquiry to be held into these two matters that I have mentioned.

One certainly realizes that the object is to shorten the session, but in an ordinary session a private member has very little opportunity of bringing matters of the utmost importance before the House, and that opportunity is being severely curtailed this year. One wants to help the Prime Minister, but one must be very careful that one does not curtail too severely the opportunities of private members of bringing matters before the House. I move, as an amendment—

I suggest that the motion should apply to Fridays, leaving Tuesdays to private members.

I second. There are a number of important motions on the paper, and in all probability if the motion is carried as it stands, these motions will fall away. I appeal to the Prime Minister to accept the amendment.

With regard to my motion, if the Prime Minister is prepared to agree to an inquiry, I am prepared to move the matter quite formally, and it need not interfere with the motion he is moving now, but if he does not accede to a select committee, then I would like to support the appeal made by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). The Prime Minister may think that this question of 1s. per day increase, brought up by me, has been fully answered. That is very far from being the case. It is a very serious matter for investigation. I should like to read to the House—

I don’t think the hon. member is entitled to discuss the matter.

I merely want to show that there is an urgent need for that investigation. I won’t read anything. I have in my possession a circular issued by and on behalf of the National party in Potchefstroom, which quite clearly shows that the 1s. per day increase was granted on the 1st February, the very day of the election.

The hon. member should not go into the matter.

The Government has been charged—

Order. The hon. member cannot discuss the charges which have been made on a matter which is not before the House at the present moment. The only question is whether the Prime Minister’s motion shall be accepted.

The motion I intend moving is one of serious importance. Otherwise the implication is that Government is burking an inquiry.

In this very short session we recognize that it is impossible for private members to have all the time ordinarily allowed to them, but a sense of grievance arises from the fact that the motion proposes to take away the 26th instant from private members. The motions were put down for that date when it had not been intimated by Government that this day would be appropriated for Government business, and an opportunity for these motions to be debated should be given. I move, as a further amendment—

seconded.

I shall be quite satisfied if the Prime Minister were to indicate that it is his intention to grant select committees to enquire into the two grave matters brought before the notice of the House by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and myself. I need not expatiate on the importance of my motion, because I have already with a full sense of responsibility made statements in regard to the conduct of the Attorney-General of the Free State which I am fully prepared to prove. I understood from the Minister of the Interior last night-—

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion before the House. He should not go into the merits of his motion.

I wish only to emphasize again the importance of the motion by drawing attention to a parallel case which arose in the House of Commons in 1924.

The hon. member cannot go into that. He must deal with the motion before the House.

It is my wish to stand entirely within the rules, but it seems germane to point out that the incidents referred to in my motion go to the very root of the ordered state of society in any civilized country. The Prime Minister’s motion, however, will entirely preclude a discussion of the matter. There is no possibility of my proposal being reached if the Prime Minister’s motion is adopted. Since the previous discussion took place information has been pouring into my hands from every side in confirmation of what I have already stated and giving proof of further cases which I am prepared to bring forward if only the Prime Minister will give us an opportunity of establishing my case. A select committee is the only proper form, as no other investigating body can give adequate protection or indemnity to witnesses.

The hon. member is again going into the merits of his motion.

I have no wish to do that.

Sit down, man.

I wish to point out that the difficulties of investigating this matter through any other channel are immense.

The hon. member is now again going into the motion which is not now before the House.

I am merely indicating the difficulty with which I am confronted if the Prime Minister’s motion is adopted; it will be against the public interest if these matters are not investigated. It is against the public interest that there should be an overriding motion which may preclude the discussion of the very grave matter I have brought to the notice of the House.

I hope the Government will give very serious consideration to what has been said by the hon. member for IIlovo (Mr. Marwick). As I understand the hon. member’s case, it is this, that his motion, which is on the paper, or will be on the paper, cannot possibly be brought before this House if the Government take Tuesdays as is proposed in the motion now before us. If this was a motion, for example, of no-confidence in the Government, naturally the Government would be morally bound to give time for its consideration. This motion is not an attack on the Government, at all; it is a motion alleging very grave irregularities in the conduct and administration of public justice. I submit that is a matter so important, going so deep to the root of our ordinary public administration, that the Government ought to stretch a point and ought to allow time for this motion to come on, particularly if, as I understand, the hon. member gives the undertaking that it will not be discussed but that he will simply move. It is an important matter, it is not a matter to be passed over in silence. The allegations are too serious, and if this motion is accepted, there will be no chance of their being ventilated.

My difficulty in voting for the motion is that the Prime Minister has given us no reason for it. We are not entitled to pass important motions like this on mere rumours. All sorts of rumours are going about that the session may end sooner than usual. We know nothing about that officially. All we know is it is competent for this session to last till the 25th of July next. If the Prime Minister has other views, I think he ought to communicate them to the House, and tell us why private members are being deprived of their opportunities. If the Prime Minister, of course, contemplates a very early prorogation of Parliament, surely it is a courtesy due to the House that we should be so informed. We do not want to embarrass him in any way, but we are certainly entitled to be given some idea of the length of this session, before consenting to pass a motion of this sort. I hope that information will be forthcoming. I think it is due to the House and due to the country.

I would also like to support the suggestion made by the right hon. the member for Standerton. Two very serious matters are involved, and perhaps if there is any difference in importance, the greater importance might be attached to the matter raised by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). There should be greater facilities for inquiry into these two matters. So serious is the matter raised by the hon. member for Illovo, that I should have thought the Prime Minister would have been only too glad to have seen that the doubts raised by the serious statements of the hon. member should not exist in the mind of the country one moment longer than necessary. I understood from the Minister of the Interior last night that he would not deal with the matters raised by the hon. member for Illovo, because the House would have ample opportunity under the hon. member’s motion. That is why we do think that particular motion should receive precedence. There is another point. Unless that inquiry is proceeded with at once, it may be too late this session, because unfortunately the Minister of Justice, who actually had charge, will probably be away from the country. The investigation ought to be put forward on its merits as quickly as possible, and should be put through now so that we may have the benefit of the views of the Minister before he leaves the country.

I am very sorry that I cannot agree to the request. It must be very clear to everybody what our position is, namely, that, as was stated at the commencement of the session in the Governor-General’s speech, we have really only met to take the necessary steps to consider the Native Bills, and when that has been done, to continue with the budget, in order thereafter to go to the country. We only have till the end of March for the financial measures. The financial business must be completed. As regards the adjournment, I hope that in no circumstances will it be necessary to have it later than the 10th or 12th April, for the work which we practically met to do we urgently need every day, and to come now and ask that time should be given for the various motions on the paper surely goes a little too far.

Do you agree to a select committee instead?

Are you afraid of a select committee?

We have no time for that, and the richest of all is that certain things are now advocated as if they had to be disposed of during the next few days or during the session. If it is as some of my friends opposite think, then I would certainly say that it could be done, but then I also say that the thing will not run away. They are not matters which arose yesterday, and either we shall come back, or the Opposition will come into power, and then time can be made to go into the matter. Do hon. members really think with regard to the motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that I am going to waste public money on an enquiry into such frivolous accusations? Every one knows that they are nothing else than the kind of grievances which are brought up every year, whether they advance certain interests or not. The things either mean something or nothing. If they mean nothing, we leave them alone; if they mean anything the time will come to institute a proper enquiry. In a few days the Minister of Finance will have to start on his proposals, and we require all the time.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander put and negatived.

Question put: That the words “Tuesday, the 26th February” and “Tuesdays and”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—57.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, H.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Mullineux, J.; Pienaar, B. J.

Noes—51.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, E.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Collins, W. R.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Kentridge, M.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R, H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: de Jager, A. L.; Hay, G. A.

I move, as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

I move, as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice— That the petition from H. Solomon, B. Cohen and A. J. Beet, Mayor, Deputy-Mayor and Acting Town Clerk of the Municipality of Kimberley, respectively, in opposition to the Rand Mines Power Supply Company Additional Water Supply (Private) Bill, presented to this House on the 7th February, 1929, be referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.

seconded.

I move—

seconded.

I move—

In moving the motion standing in my name, I should perhaps apologize for again asking the House to pass a motion that was passed 16 or 17 months ago. I may say that the reason given by the Minister of Finance for not agreeing to this relief to farmers is not adequate. The Minister says that the main reason why he did not grant this exemption last year was that farmers did not want it. I dispute that. I hope hon. members who represent farming constituencies will tell the House what farmers think on the question. Farmers in my constituency are clamouring for the exemption, and I submit that they are not the worst farmers in the Union. I think they may be considered some of the best farmers in the Union. I have been instructed by resolutions passed at a series of meetings to bring this matter before the House. I may be asked: “Why the farmer; why should he be exempt?” I would have liked to have gone the whole hog, and to try to persuade this House to abolish the income tax altogether. I see the Prime Minister smiles, but I am certain that if this House were to-day to pass a resolution abolishing the income tax it would be the best work that we have done for many a long day. I am certain it would mean an increase of population. It would have the effect of attracting capital to the country, and it would bring prosperity and relieve unemployment. The extra prosperity it would bring would result in an automatic increase of revenue from other sources. I am informed that other countries are now considering the question of abolishing the income tax. I noticed in the “Star” of the 13th September last a paragraph from Ottawa stating on good authority that Mr. Mackenzie King proposed to bring forward the abolition of income tax. Substantial reductions have been made in the tax in Canada, which has always been unpopular in that dominion. The income tax was instituted in South Africa as a war measure. “The Retail Trade Review” of Canada has pointed out that the income tax has proved a hindrance to the development of that country. There are nine taxes enforced in Canada, and all, with the exception of the income tax, are levied on things which are tangible, but the income tax is entirely dependent on the honesty or dishonesty of the public. The paper shows how comparatively few people pay income tax in Canada— 11,000, only 2,600 of whom are farmers. The system invites and encourages deception as it is based on an attempt to ferret out the private affairs of each individual payer. The paper urges that no taxpayer should be compelled to make out a number of intricate forms, which very few understand, and which require skilled accountants to unravel. That is our great grievance in South Africa. A very small percentage of our farmers can fill in the income tax papers. Leading authorities on taxation agree with the conclusion arrived at by John Stuart Mill that the fairness which belongs to the income tax in theory cannot be made to attach to it in practice. The income tax is in effect more un-just than many other taxes which, prima facie, are more objectionable. Direct taxes on income should be reserved as an extraordinary step to be adopted only in emergency. Florida is the only state of the United States which has no income tax and, as a result, it has attracted capital and settlers, the European population having trebled in the last 25 years. The Irish Free State has, as an advertisement reduced its income tax from 4s. to 3s. in the pound. In Canada, in order to avoid the payment of income tax, people are taking money out of their business and putting it into war bonds which are not taxed. What a wonderful thing it would be if we could advertise that South Africa has no income tax. I shall be told that the income tax brings in between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000 a year, and I shall be asked how I propose to make up the difference. It is not my duty, however, to suggest what shall take the place of the income tax. But this argument that income tax brings in between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000 a year does not apply to farmers’ income tax. It is not nearly such a large amount. It brought in in 1927 £112,000—that is from individual farmers. From farming companies it was £18,000. If you deduct from this amount the extra amount which it costs the Government to collect it, I think the Treasury will agree that is a very large amount, and if you deduct what people write off as losses, I do not think you would get very much out of it. It seems to me that very likely it would be under £1,000. We are all agreed we should do whatever we can in this country to make farming popular. We are agreed we should do all we can to send people to the land, and I am sure this measure of exempting farmers from income tax would help very considerably. I would like the Minister not to accept this theoretical idea. Let us look at the practical side. Other countries have done this. In Canada I find that the income derived from a farm or a ranch or an orchard conducted by the farmer himself is exempt from tax. Farmers do not object to the payment of the tax. What they object to is the trouble to which they are put in having their income tax assessed. It is not too much to say it is a continual nightmare to many farmers. If we could discover what farmers pay for legal assistance to make up their forms, I wonder whether it would not be a larger amount than what the State gets from the farmers. The House will remember that when I moved this motion last time the Minister of Finance was very sympathetic, but he said on consideration that the farmers did not want it, and he quoted to us a speech made by Maj. Hunt, the president of the Agricultural Union. A letter I have here says—

I only hope that the Minister will not listen to the nonsense that farmers do not want to be exempted. I am sure on the contrary that farmers would appreciate it very much, and I am sure the country would benefit largely by making farming more popular. I hope the Minister will take that into consideration. I beg to move the motion.

I second the motion. As a farmer with plenty of experience of income tax it is more difficult for me to speak about the matter, because it may be said that I am speaking from self interest, but if you take the farmer in general then you can say that to a certain extent he is more heavily taxed than the ordinary town dweller. I may possibly be asked to what extent the farmer is already more heavily taxed. I shall try to show what he already pays in direct taxation. When he brings his produce to the market and wants, e.g., to sell his cattle, he has, in the first instance, to pay 5 per cent, to the Government. If then he sells his cattle on the market he must again pay 5 per cent. Therefore, if the cattle farmer wants to dispose of his cattle he has to pay 10 per cent. Hon. members will surely see that this is unfair. Further charges are the auctioneer’s fees which also must be paid so that there are already three taxes before the farmer receives his money. I take the view that that is not fair to him. I am not in favour of total abolition of taxation, if the farmer has an income from other sources than actual farming. But as we already have to pay various taxes, because we must take our produce to the market, and we must use the railway to carry it, it is only fair that the farmer should be exempted from income tax. If we take the farmer’s income and deduct the cost of sale, we may say that he certainly pays more than 25 per cent, of his income. Hon. members opposite must see it. They are always boasting of being representatives of the farmers. Our object is to throw no further burden on the farmer, but to give him a chance to develop and improve his farm. Among the farmers I know there are some, although comparatively few, who have an income of £600 or more. If they have anything over it usually goes in improvements on the farm, and at the end of the year the balance has to be paid in income tax. I think if there ever was a fair proposal in this House, then it is this motion to exempt the farmer from income tax. The difficulty of preparing the forms was referred to, but this can possibly be overcome in future, but the most important point is the fact that the farmer already pays more taxes than anyone else. I noticed that recently two prominent farmers were convicted because they had not filled up their forms properly. This often happens, because the farmer is not always well acquainted with his income and expenditure. The income comes in small amounts at different times, so that he possibly forgets an amount, and that is possibly what happens in the cases mentioned. Last year the Minister promised that he would go carefully into the question of income tax for farmers. I am sorry he is not here now, but I hope that when we discuss the matter again he will then be present, and will submit a scheme to the House by which the farmer will be exempted from income tax. I hope the Minister will then be supported by the House, and if he cannot accept the motion, I hope he will make a statement that he will subsequently introduce proposals into the House by which the farmer will be exempted.

I cannot agree with the motion of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins), and the reasons he gave were not at all convincing to my mind. One of the reasons he quoted from the pamphlet was that there was a great possibility of farmers escaping, and that the collection of the income tax depended entirely on the personal honesty or dishonesty of the farmers. If it is actually a fact that the farmers can so easily avoid the payment of income tax, why are we complaining so much against it? The hon. member says that the Minister of Finance instituted an enquiry, and that he subsequently said, by virtue of a resolution of the Agricultural Union, that the farmers were not in favour of the abolition of the income tax for farmers. This proves that the farmers are divided on the subject. I have myself met farmers who are opposed to the abolition, and who consider the tax a just one, because the incidence is according to a man’s income. I have met other farmers who support abolition, but I am certain that the greatest opposition to the income tax arises because of the difficulty of completing the form. The farmer is shy of the complicated form, and from the time it reaches the farm he no longer sleeps comfortably, because the filling-in of it is such a nightmare to him. Ultimately, he has to go to the village to consult an attorney, and thereafter he is still worried for another two months because the officials may possibly find some amount or other which he has left out in ignorance. If we could act in a different way by instructing the magistrates, magistrates’ clerks, and the police to assist the farmer gratis in filling in the form, the objection would, to a great extent, fall away. If the hon. member had moved that the farmer should be entitled to deduct the interest on bonds, it would have been a practical proposal.

The farmers can already do that.

If the hon. member will move that the expenditure on all permanent improvements on the farm may tie deducted, it will also be acceptable, but I do not think the farmers will be in favour of general exemption. In this motion I see the cloven hoof of the old Unionists, namely, a land tax. If the farmers are exempted from income tax it will soon lead to an agitation among the shopkeepers, attorneys and other town dwellers, and they will then unanimously urge a land tax.

That is a bogey.

No, the bogey exists, and the hon. member is merely trying to cover it up. In connection with land tax, we must remember that, in the case of drought-stricken districts like Laingsburg, Prince Albert and the Bushmansland, and in the case of droughts a land tax will become an intolerable burden. Moreover a land tax is unjust, because it is levied on the capital of the farmer. Actually the income tax does not press so heavily because there is a preliminary exemption of £400, and with a normal family of four to five children the exemption easily mounts up to £700. It must be a fairly strong farmer who has a profit of £700 a year. According to the quotation which the mover read out, it is said that in Canada there is a great amount of evasion among the farmers, and if we examine the return of the Union Commissioner of Inland Revenue, we are astonished at the insignificant amount the farmers pay. Evasion is, however, not the reason for the small amount, but the fact that farming in South Africa is not a paying occupation. If this is so, then I cannot see the terrible pressure of the income tax on our farming population. In the district of Kenhardt, e.g., the inhabitants only pay £1,500, excluding officials and other town dwellers, and if the income tax of the officials and professional clerks is deducted, then there are only a few farmers who pay income tax.

If the effect of this motion will be to encourage the investing of capital for the development of agriculture, then there is a lot to be said for it. We have had other policies in regard to our industrial development, and we are levying taxes in order to build up our industries. On the other hand there would be something better than what has been suggested, namely, to encourage farmers where they have carried out permanent improvements on their farms, the money so expended should not be reckoned for income tax purposes. Hon. members will probably remember an amendment which I moved last year in this connection. That is what I feel will be a more effective instrument than that intended by the motion before the House. If it is intended by this motion that a farmer shall not pay income tax simply because he is a farmer, then I am entirely against it. On the contrary, if the object of the motion is to encourage the investment of capital in our agricultural industry, then I will support it. I wish to move an amendment which, I think, will be more effective in the direction I have indicated. The Minister complained last year that he had not been given sufficient time to include this proposal in his budget. The amendment I wish to move is as follows—

There are many cases where farmers are spending money upon the permanent improvement of their farms, but they are not entitled to deduct that as ordinary farm expenditure. Many farmers are spending enormous sums in connection with soil erosion, and in the Eastern Province large sums of money have been spent upon the erection of fences. By doing this the farmers are not only rendering a service to themselves, but also to the country. There are various circumstances which place the farmer in the position of being unable to reckon the amount of his expenditure on his ordinary farming operations. I am strongly in favour of the change being brought about. Several years ago I begged the Minister to exempt expenditure from income tax which is in the nature of capital expenditure, and the Minister was kind enough to allow the deduction of sums spent on boreholes to procure water for domestic supply. Seeing that the Government has already conceded that that is capital expenditure, I don’t see why any expenditure on permanent improvements should not be exempted. The man who is actually spending his profits in improving his farm should be exempted from taxation on such expenditure.

I second the amendment. Hon. members opposite seem surprised but they have not a monopoly of farming. Here we are all farmers, and I can say that I was the first to move a similar proposal to the amendment now under discussion. On my initiative last year there was a debate in the House on the subject. I am therefore glad that the matter has been raised. A few years ago the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) also proposed that the farmers should be entirely exempted, and I supported it. I think the only one against it was the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger).

And I.

The majority in any case was in favour of it, and the Minister promised to consider it favourably. It was then found that the farmers were divided on the matter of total exemption. I think in my district a large majority were in favour of it, but other prominent and progressive farmers said that the income tax was a just tax, and they did not want other sections to be in a position to say that the farmers contributed nothing towards the government of the country. I think that we must admit that there is a good deal in the argument. I have the same amendment as the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden), and wanted to introduce it, namely that improvements of a permanent nature on farms should be exempt from income tax. Our experience is that even progressive farmers never have cash on farms, and all their profits are put back for improving the farm, which is to the advantage of the whole country. I think the Government will render the farmers a service by accepting this amendment. It was said here that it is difficult to complete the form. I know what my difficulty is although I went a little higher than Standard 2. How much greater will the difficulty not be for the thousands of farmers who have not had the educational privileges which I have had. If the form can be simplified the farmers will greatly appreciate it. I also have always farmed in the old way. I count my cattle and sheep and know how matters stand. I never keep books, and the large majority of farmers do not do so. Now, however, our sons are going to farm, and if they have to fill in income tax forms every year it will teach them to keep books and to run their farming more on business lines than their parents did. There are therefore pros and cons in the matter, and I think that it would be better in future to let the income tax remain. If only the form can be simplified a little it will be a good thing. Along with the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) I am also afraid that if the income tax disappears a land tax will be imposed. I think that such a thing was already suggested under the last Government.

No.

I do not believe that I am wrong. Farmers have even told me that they would rather write out a cheque for land tax than fill up the difficult income tax form.

You are thinking of the motion of the late Mr. Merriman.

I think that there was an agitation to again introduce it under the last Government and I think the hon. member for Aliwal North (Mr. Sephton) knows about it. I would rather fill in the difficult form every year than get the tax abolished with the prospect of a land tax. I am scared of a land tax, and I think at any rate for the next 20 or 30 years no Government will venture to impose that tax. Farming in South Africa is very uncertain and after a few years of drought a farmer cannot pay any land tax. It would entirely ruin him. If, however, improvements are made on farms, not merely the fencing of farms, but also, e.g., the irrigation of land, they can be exempted. We know that thousands of tons of the best land are washed away, and that something must be done to prevent the erosion, which I also consider a permanent improvement. Then there are millions of morgen of land covered with weeds like prickly pear, jointed cactus and other rubbish. It costs the farmer thousands of pounds to clean the farm, and it will be a good thing if this can also be deducted from the tax as a permanent improvement.

I congratulate the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) on having seconded the amendment. I just rose to do so because it is the custom for an amendment coming from one side to be seconded from someone from the same side. I am however glad at the attitude of the hon. member, because it is on these economic matters on which we agree with hon. members opposite that we must stand together. They are not party matters and we must stand together in the interests of farming. The hon. member for Albert is afraid of a land tax, so am I. We have land taxation for local purposes, but I do not believe the central Government would succeed in passing a land tax through Parliament. If hon. members opposite are really against a land tax they must separate themselves from their friends on the cross-benches. It was said here that the farmer can evade the tax in filling in the form. It is however impossible to evade it, even if that charge is always laid against the farmer. I must say I am dissatisfied at the weak support of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie), he even critized the motion. I thought that he, as a representative of a farming constituency would speak more strongly in favour of it. Hon. members say that the farmers can evade the tax, but I want to instance the grain farmer. Every merchant is obliged annually to hand in a list to the magistrate of the names of persons to whom, and the amount of corn, he has sold. If then the farmer leaves out any amount he is immediately pulled up by the magistrate who says: you have left out that amount delivered to the merchant. It is therefore impossible in practice. We must get away from that idea prevailing in the towns that the farmer can evade the tax. Throughout the world the farmer is treated differently in respect of income tax from the ordinary income tax payer. I think our country is the only one where the farmer is treated the same as other tax payers. Other countries admit that farming is subject to many difficulties and all countries agree that it is necessary to encourage farming. We must adopt that method also in South Africa, that a distinction must be made between the farmer and other business or professional men. I think myself that it is impossible for the Government to introduce a Bill to exempt the farmers completely from the income tax. I think it is unpracticle, and will rouse an unsympathetic feeling towards the farmer, but I think we can freely support the motion as introduced, with the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden). As an example that something ought to be done I want to mention dams. Our farmers’ farms are usually divided into sheep and grain farming. The farmer must pay about £100 a year for every shepherd, including food and lodging, etc A large sheep farmer has therefore to spend about £300 for the various shepherds. According to the existing law he may deduct those wages in filling in the income tax form, but as soon as the farmer makes permanent improvements on his farm, for instance enclosures, and dams, and to provide adequate water for the cattle everywhere, then of course the herding by shepherds is unnecessary, but then also the deduction of the shepherds’ salaries disappears. Now we say that it would only be fair for the farmer to” be allowed to deduct an amount for such permanent improvements. I think we must leave it to the Government to make such alterations, so that the farmer shall be recompensed for hie permanent improvements. I think however that the House should pass the motion of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) with the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock.

I am glad to see the interest the House takes in farming matters, and hope it is not because members think that farmers do not pay enough income tax. In connection with this subject we must remember that the farming population only pays about £112,000 in income tax out of the total amount of between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000, which shows that there is something wrong with the great agricultural industry. I should like to know how many farmers receive and fill up forms, and how many pay income tax. I think that the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has gone completely off the rails with his motion at this stage, because some time ago he introduced the same motion, and the House practically unanimously passed it after the Minister of Finance had accepted it. We had the greatest expectation that our desire would be realised, but unfortunately the head committee of the Agricultural Union to wit, Maj. Hunt and Mr. Hopley, without consulting the farmers, said that the farmers were not in favour of their being exempted from the tax. Recently I have remarked that politics are coming into the Agricultural Union, because the native question has already been introduced. I deplore it. From the debates at the agricultural congresses, and also at the Nationalist party congress, it appears to me as if the farmers do not agree on the subject, and that many of them do not mind paying a certain tax. They feel however that the income tax form gives altogether too much trouble. Farming differs from trading, and there is expenditure which you do not have in other businesses, and which cannot be deducted from revenue for income tax purposes. If a farmer e.g., plants 5,000 orange trees, then he cannot deduct the cost of purchase, but as soon as the trees begin to yield revenue the State comes in to tax the income. We feel that our income tax is put on the wrong basis. It was introduced before Union by Mr. Merriman in the Cape, and he laid down that when a farmer’s income exceeded a certain amount he was to pay a certain sum. It was therefore not necessary to make a complicated return. At the commencement of Union the income tax was abolished, but it was not long before it was re-introduced. Then there was a shout that the farmers did not pay enough, and this led to the appointment of a commission consisting of Sir Willem van Hulsteyn, Sir Ernest Chappell, and Mr. P. W. Michau. The first two did not know much about farming, and when I had the honour of giving evidence before the commission I felt at once that they and the permanent officials were not sympathetically disposed towards the farmers. We cannot blame ourselves for not making greater attempts to make the commission understand the farmers’ standpoint. I watched the acts of the commission from place to place as far as possible, everywhere leading farmers had to be appointed to give evidence. On the other hand we found that attorneys and mayors were the first to do so. The commission issued its report and recommended that farmers should also pay on the increase of their stock—on lambs and calves—and the South African party Government acted on the recommendation. The present Government subsequently met the farmers by providing that they could chose between the stock and the cash basis, but that is far from solving the difficulty. When I consider the complicated forms, and how much money goes into the attorneys’ pockets for the completion of them, then I object to the present system. I asked the Government, which is sympathetic towards the farming population to appoint a commission to make enquiries. The Government which removes the income tax from the farmers will certainly be the most popular Government South Africa has ever had.

I only want to say a few words to support heartily the motion, and I know that I am speaking on behalf of my constituents. Their position is very difficult as regards income tax. When a farmer only has one kind of produce the difficulty is not so great, but in the Transvaal we have mixed farming, a farmer has cattle, sheep, horses, mealies, potatoes, forage, beans, fowls, sheep skins, etc. It is impossible for such a farmer to constantly keep books on all these matters. To-day someone buys one pound’s worth of something from him, and to-morrow of something else. He cannot enter it all up, and the poor fellow thereby gets into trouble. Hence the farmers feel the burden of the income tax. They are prepared to pay a tax, but want to be rid of the difficulties. It must be made easy for the farmer to exist, otherwise farming will diminish. I have even met people who said that if the farming business was meddled with they would give it up. There are people who do not like compulsory cooperation and similar things, but want to be free to do with their produce what they like. Hon. members opposite must however beware of their friends on the cross-benches.

I move as a further amendment—

The farmers are not the only community in the country. There are people who live in the towns who contribute to the wealth of South Africa, and they should be exempted too. I am sympathetic with the claims of the farmers in this respect, but I do not see why they alone should be picked out and given special treatment over other classes of the community who deserves similar treatment. In the towns, I know, costs are very much higher than in the country, and people have to pay very much more for the necessaries of life than they have to do on the farms. If any exemptions are made they should also apply to people in the towns. The Minister of Finance, according to rumour, is going to make a permanent reduction of 20 per cent, in the income tax. I want to suggest, from the Labour party point of view, that that is giving too much to the wealthy and too little to the poor—too little to the man who is hard-pressed and too much to the man who is not hard-pressed.

What lower paid man pays income tax to-day’

The smaller professional man. All lawyers are not getting £1,000 per year. I remember the hon. pleading the case for the young lawyer. That is the man I want to help with this particular proposal, and I should be glad to get the help of the hon. member. I remember when times were good the Minister of the South African party Government gave us this exemption, and I hope the present Minister of Finance will do the same.

I second the amendment.

Unfortunately the Minister of Finance is not here, but I think it will be a good thing for me to say a few words. I do not know whether the farmers will gain or lose if this amendment is passed, but, if I mistake not, the exemption which the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) wants, already exists. The exemptions amount to a total of between £500 and £600. If I am right, the Minister of Finance told the House last year that this matter would receive his serious attention, and on two occasions in September and October when I was on a platform with him, he said, I think, that in preparing the budget he would consider this matter as to how far he could go with regard to the exemption of permanent improvements on farms. I have listened attentively to the feelings of the House, and I should much have liked to learn what the permanent improvements aimed at, specifically were. A number were mentioned here, but I think there are things that go a little far. The Government is giving sympathetic consideration to the matter, but I heard, e.g., about the removal of weeds. To get rid of the jointed cactus would cost millions of pounds, and I do not think that an exemption for that is practically possible. The farmers do not wish, nor ought they to, that all the burdens should be taken from their shoulders. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) may think that these are only bogeys, but I can assure him and other hon. members that the friends of the farmers must be very careful not to give a handle to the opponents—I will not say the enemies—nor to other persons who have no interest in farming, of subsequently coming down on the farmers by now conceding unreasonable exemption. As certain as I stand here, if the exemptions go too far, there will later on be persons who will protest and will want to know why the farmers should be preferred.

We do not wish to take off all taxation.

The motion of the hon. member for Ermelo is that income tax should be completely taken off. I want to tell the farmers that if that is done they must be prepared to expect to have other taxes put in the place of that, and they must first of all decide of what nature the other tax must be which they want imposed on them. A general exemption will do the farmers no good. We know that many farmers in South Africa to-day make £10,000 a year. There are sheep farmers, for instance, although there are not so many, but certainly 100, who make £20,000 to £30,000 a year. My hon. friend shakes his head, but it is a fact. There are many sheep farmers who make £5,000 to £10,000 a year.

£5,000 to £10,000, yes.

Are these people to be exempted? Are even the people with £5,000 to be exempted from income tax, and I, poor devil, who get half of it, must pay £400 or £500 tax?

He has to pay the railage.

That sort of thing every trader and all of us have to pay. We all pay other taxes. Until recently I was a farmer. If I am perfectly honest, I must say that I am glad that I am so no longer, when I think of the form that one has to fill up every year. Undoubtedly the demands there made are so difficult that a person is kept awake at night for two or three days. We have, however, all tried to find something simpler, but have not succeeded, and so we must suffer the nuisance for a few nights. If, however, the income tax on farmers is abolished, another tax will be imposed. Which? What can it be but a land tax? We know, e.g., that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and others with him much prefer that to the system of farmers’ income tax. It will be a great burden on the farmers because there are two things which we must especially see that we attain to in South Africa, viz., (1) that the carrying capacity of farming is increased, and (2) that its powers of production are improved. If the carrying capacity and productivity of our land can be increased, then we can make something of South Africa. It is just the uncertainty of our agriculture—the great means of existence of our population— which induces us to take action. Consequently I advocate that the farmers should in the case of permanent improvements on his farm be permitted to deduct them in filling in his forms. If we do not do so then we practically prevent farmers from making improvements. This fact must be borne in mind. For this reason I want to ask the mover not to press his motion. I know he does not intend to bring another burden on to the back of the farming population, and I am glad the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said that we must regard the matter from the standpoint of the interests of our agriculture. As leader of the Government I say that we are quite prepared to consider meeting the farmers so far as permanent improvements are concerned. I hope that before the end of the present session a statement will be made as to our proposals. I am therefore prepared to support the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden).

With regard to the amendment, a similar motion was introduced last year, when a number of amendments were handed in seeking to extend the scope of the motion to people other than farmers. The object of the motion now before the House is to give relief to farmers from income tax, and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) would extend exemption to other sections of the community. That extends the scope of the original motion in a way which is not permissible. I therefore rule the amendment of the hon. member out of order.

Are we to understand that the effect of my hon. trend’s amendment is to cut out farmers from participation in the general improvement?

The purport of the amendment is to extend benefit not only to farmers, but to all other members of the community.

You may have possibly overlooked the point that whilst my hon. friend wishes to extend, he does not wish to vitiate the original motion. My hon. friend still retains farmers as part of the general community, and he improves their lot by equally advancing the limit of exemption in their case with the rest of the community. I suggest that an amendment of this character is germane to the question, because it does not cut out the farmers.

I will read the ruling which I gave last year—

If I may, with all respect, argue further—

I have given my ruling. It cannot be further argued.

May I submit for your consideration a further point? All those amendments moved on a former occasion purporting to extend the operation of the original motion confine themselves to specific portions of the community, but my hon. friend’s amendment still has reference to the farmers.

I have considered that point, and the principle appears to be exactly the same. The amendment has been ruled out of order.

Are we to understand that when a motion is moved in the House, that the scope of that motion may not be extended by an amendment?

I am afraid the hon. member is now putting a hypothetical question. Each case must stand on its merits.

I think the farmer in the country will be glad that hon. members on both sides are so anxious to protect the interests of the farmers. They are so anxious that they are quite inconsistent. When this motion was introduced last year by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) the House, by a majority, decided to pass it. To-day they have apparently changed their minds. On that occasion I charged the hon. member for Ermelo with not being serious in his motion, or that he had an ulterior purpose, and the insinuation was very much resented. I do not want to make the same insinuation again, but both sides of the House were a little hasty at that time, in passing the motion, in their anxiety to show how they were protecting the interests of the farmer. I cannot help thinking that they did it then to deprive the other side of the credit, and to show that they are the protectors of the farmers. I think that the farmers outside who have shown that they do not agree with the motion of the hon. member intended to show the country that they quite fully appreciated their duties as citizens. They said that whatever Parliament might decide they refused to be excluded as spoilt children who might not contribute to the costs of governing the country. In that way the farmers showed that they not only appreciated their duties, but that their moral sentiment was very high. I am proud of that attitude. The fact was complained of that the Minister of Finance listened to the farmers, who did not want to be exempted, but who wanted certain exemptions by which the farmer could better overcome the uncertainty of farming. It appears that the motion and the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden), to wit that permanent improvements can be regarded as farming expenses, will apparently be supported by the majority in the House. I think that the farmer actually holds the view now represented in the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock, because what will be the result if we pass the motion as moved by the hon. member for Ermelo? I believe the farmer understands what will happen then. An hon. member has already said that if the farmer is exempted from the income tax then it is quite possible that some day or other another tax will be imposed. We know how the farmers have already been singled out, as for instance in the tobacco tax, which the present Government has repealed. If the income tax is repealed, that tax will possibly be reintroduced. The estate duty presses heavily on the farmers, and relief could rather be given in that direction. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said here this afternoon that he is afraid that if we remove the income tax, that if we were afraid of a land tax, we must get rid of our friends on the cross-benches, but I want to ask him whether it was not the old Unionists, the people with whom they amalgamated, who favoured the land tax. What does the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) say? Is he not a supporter of it, and is not the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) a strong supporter of a land tax? I think that if with regard to the land tax we ought to be afraid of anything, then it is of the old Unionists who have got the mastery over hon. members. As for the Labour party, they take up a better attitude with regard to the land tax than do the Unionists. They took up the position that unimproved ground and that absent owners must be taxed. They never took up an attitude as the old Unionists did. We say that if the income tax of the farmer is removed it will possibly be the cause of other taxes being laid on the farmer, which will hit him more heavily. That is the possibility the farmers fear. A resolution was passed by hon. members opposite at their congress in Bloemfontein on the lines of this motion, and they therefore decided to include it in their programme.

No, that is not correct, read the amendment which was passed there.

If that is so, I withdraw my statement. It is further shown that there are still hon. members opposite who do not wish to expose the farmer to dangers that may arise. I think the farmer is sensible if he tries to prevent his being treated in a way which is not only unfair to other tax payers, but which has a latent danger for him. Let us think of the results of the exemption. As the Prime Minister has said, there are farmers with incomes of from £15,000 to £20,000 a year, and who, according to the motion, would be exempt. Their foremen, who possibly receive a salary of £600 will, however, have to pay. How can you allow that? No, I am glad that the farmers appreciate that there is a general administration of the country from which they also get benefits. Another danger connected with the abolition of the farmers’ income tax is that members like the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) will then advocate that the Agriculture Vote should be reduced, and that less should be spent on the eradication of scab and locusts. The wool farmers are prosperous to-day, but there remain the dairy, grain and tobacco farmers who have special interests, and need special support from the State. If the farmers are not exempted from income tax, they will be free to urge the Government to look after their interests. I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock, and express my pleasure that there has been a revolution in the House and that hon. members only want the exemption of farmers in respect of” permanent improvements.

May I move as a further amendment, Mr. Speaker, which I hope will meet with your approval—

My object is that while one feels deeply with all the difficulties farmers have to undergo in the ordinary course of their farming operations, we cannot lost sight of the fact that there are some who are making considerable incomes. I have yet to learn whether a man gets his income from farming, mining or anything else, if it is a large income, that there is any justification for his being exempted from paying income tax. In contrast with the town dweller, the farmer has considerable latitude. He has all his expenditure in connection with his operations on the farm deducted before his income is rated for income tax purposes. His net income is taxed, and that applies in any case, whether it is farming, mining or business of the ordinary sort, but when the House is feeling sympathetic towards the farmer, as I do, you have to realize that the town-dweller, especially the ordinary man in the street who is earning his salary like anybody else, if he exceeds the limit of exemption, has to pay on that and is not allowed a deduction. He is taxed on the gross amount. It must not be forgotten that the farmer also lives out of his farm and the man in the town does not. If a farmer gets £500 clear of his expenses, I do say he ought to be taxed. You, Mr. Speaker, prevented us from extending the scope, and quite rightly, but I do hope I shall be allowed to limit the scope. There are those who are getting from £10,000 to £15,000 a year from farming, and I do not see why they should be exempt from income tax, whereas their very much poorer brethren in the towns, numbering thousands, have to pay that tax.

I second the amendment. Although we cannot move to extend the limit of the motion,, I hope that this may lead the Minister of Finance to open his heart,

There is not the least doubt that the motion would be unfair to other sections of the population. The hon. member laughed when it was said that the farmers make £5,000, £10,000 and £15,000 out of wool or the sale of rams or something of that kind, but it is a fact. Those people do not want to be exempted from income tax. I am in favour of an exemption from permanent improvements. I think very few hon. members know what the position is with regard to noxious weeds. It would be very important to exempt the farmers for the eradication of weeds. There is a large stretch of land in Cradock, Somerset East, Graaff-Reinet, and almost the whole of Uitenhage, which, if the plough is not soon employed and the weeds eradicated, will become entirely valueless. Think of fencing. We now see, the whole public now sees, the benefit of it, and it is in the interests of farming that there should be an exemption from income tax in respect of fencing operations. The planting of shrubs is also extremely important, and so there are other things. We know what the spineless castus does. There are, however, ridiculous improvements, as, for instance, a fence which a farmer made 10 feet high, which was totally unnecessary. Then again I heard of someone who built silos costing £150 and £200, which he could have got for £10 or £15. I am in favour of the exemption of reasonable permanent improvements, and hope that the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) will be passed.

I am glad that the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) is receiving so much support. This shows that here and there we can vote together. I am also glad to learn that the Prime Minister is prepared to accept it. I took some trouble the year before last to discuss this very matter with my constituents at meetings, because I felt it was coming. I was always cheered when I said that I was not entirely for removing income tax from the farmers, but that I favoured the removal of it for farm improvements. When the farmers improve their farms their income increases, and the farmer as well as the State gets the benefit. We find farmers who are in favour of income tax and other farmers who are proud that their incomes are such that they are able to pay something. But they are all unanimous that improvements as mentioned in the amendment should be exempted from the tax.

I should just like to know what the Minister of Finance has to say about the amendment. There are quite a number of other things in this connection that I want to bring to the Minister’s notice and other hon. members also wish to speak. This means time, and I therefore move—

seconded.

I hope the hon. member will not press his motion. I am quite willing to accept the Prime Minister’s suggestion, and we can safely vote.

I have been at many farmers’ conferences, and I have never been at one in which they have been in favour of the exemption of farmers from payment of income tax, but they have all been in favour of abatements in terms of the amendment. I ask the hon. member for Bethlehem to withdraw his motion for adjournment, and let us come to a vote to-night and clear the decks of this subject for good.

With the leave of the House I withdraw my motion.

Of course, I prefer half a loaf to no bread. I just want to point out to the Prime Minister that the farmers pay a great deal of indirect taxation, and can, therefore, be exempted from direct taxation. On a former occasion I dealt fully with this, and do not wish to repeat myself. I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden).

The effect of the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) will be to do away with the exemption part of the motion, and if the amendment of the hon. member for Cradock be adopted, the amendment by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) will drop.

Amendment proposed by Mr. G. C. van Heerden put and agreed to and the amendment proposed by Mr. Madeley dropped.

The motion, as amended, then put and agreed to, viz.—