In preparing this budget, the Government had to be careful to carry out carefully a definite mandate from the public, and the Government was therefore not free in its choice as to what they should do or leave undone. The Government did, indeed, have the choice as to the method by which it would give effect to that mandate. Criticism here, therefore, of the budget can only be just if the Government has failed to carry out its instructions, or upon the method in which the Government has so carried out its instructions. The criticism so far has been of a two-fold nature. The first came from both sides of the House, viz., the criticism that the farmers had been selected for special assistance by this budget, or that too much assistance had been given to them. That criticism came from hon. members on both sides. Then the matter of the gold premium was criticized in respect of the share the Government was taking. It was to the effect that the Government had taken too little. I would like to deal with that now. I want to say, firstly, that the Government can only be criticized if it has neglected to carry out its instructions, and not for proposing to give assistance to farmers, or the Government can be criticized about the way it is carrying out its mandate. But before I start dealing with that, it is very necessary first of all to know what the mandate to the Government is. That mandate is contained in the basis of our co-operation. That mandate is a matter on which the members of the two great parties think alike, it is the foundation on which the two leaders made the agreement, which has been confirmed by the two parties and also by the people. It was on the basis of that agreement that the election was fought, and on which we are here to-day. The mandate was that, although all sections of the people should equally enjoy the consideration of the Government, the welfare and existence of a healthy farming population should be the subject of the special care of the Government. That is the mandate the Government got from the people. It is, therefore, the duty of the Government which came into existence in that way to execute those instructions. It is, therefore, quite unnecessary for the Government to defend the fact of special help being given to the farmers, nor do I intend to dwell long on that point. Once and for all it is the mandate of the people, and it is the mandate which the Government must now carry out. Of that the country and almost every section of the population is convinced. Certainly every member of this House ought to be convinced of it. Most certainly every member who supports the Government. We have been criticized by various hon. members who object to our selecting the farmers for special assistance. I deplore that criticism, because, to a certain extent, it puts the towns up against the country. If there was ever a serious mistake that could be made in South Africa it is for anyone to try to put the urban people in opposition to the country folk, and vice versa to make the country folk hostile towards the townspeople. We form one society; we form an economic whole, and our interests are inseparably bound up together. Just as little as the hand can say to the foot: “I do not need you,” just as little can the townsman say to the dweller in the country: “I do not need you,” or vice versa. That is why I deplore that the Government has been blamed here for carrying out those instructions of the people, and giving special assistance to the farmers, such as is proposed in the budget to-day before us. But as that criticism is being made, I just want to say a few words about the conditions of farming which the Government had to deal with, and which it had to bear in mind when it prepared the budget. As the people in the country know, what the farming conditions are, so also the Government knew them, and it had to find means to give aid to that important section of the community. The Government found that there were actually two defects from which farming was suffering today. The first was the low price obtainable for farming produce, both in this country and also elsewhere, and to that must be added the drought in our country. The Government, therefore, had in its budget to keep these few factors in mind. The first, which is a very difficult factor, is the low price of agricultural produce. As I have said, it is a world phenomenon. Farming throughout the world is, to-day, suffering, and has for some years been suffering, owing to that great difficulty. Low prices are obtained for produce, and in consequence of the low prices the incomes of the farmers have diminished. How large that reduction of income is I fear we do not sufficiently appreciate, and I want this afternoon just briefly to point out how much the farmer’s income has dropped of recent years. That, however, was the problem we had to bear in mind when the Government was considering the question of giving help to the farmers. When we look at the memorandum which the Minister of Finance has laid on the table, then we see that the index figure for 1929 was 1,000. If, then, we examine the level of prices of this year and in October, 1932, we find that the memorandum said the following—

That is the position in comparison with 1929, but there are some people who will now say that we are comparing to-day’s position with years which immediately preceded and that during 1929 and the years immediately preceding, abnormally high prices prevailed. I shall, therefore, try to compare the position of to-day with that in the years 1909 to 1913, that is a period of five years when there was no inflation. It was before the world war, and the second war of independence had long been ended. Let us put the index figure for that period at 1,000. If then we take wool we find that the price last year had dropped to 619, i.e., by 40 per cent. The farmer’s income from it was only 60 per cent. in comparison with the period 1909 to 1913. When we take mohair on the same basis then the 1913 price has dropped to 500, thus 50 per cent. of the value which it had at that time. Sheepskins have dropped to 575, hides to 501, even maize has dropped to 689. I specially mention these articles because I want the House, the country, and all who are not farmers to realise what the reason is which induced the Government to give this assistance which is actually a magnificent assistance to the fanners. I say that the income of the farmee in 1922 had dropped very much in comparison with what it was formerly. A further calculation will also show the same. The total taxable income for that year, i.e., the income on which income tax is payable, was £79,500,000, i.e., nearly £80,000,000, and of that the drink traffic had a taxable income of £1,543,000; the medical profession of £1,184,000, trade, i.e., trade and industry, £16,000,000; the mines, £8,500,000; and what was the taxable income of farming? It had only a taxable income of £1,560,000 which is almost the same amount as that of the liquor traffic. That figure ought to show—and I bring it before my hon. friends who criticised the assistance given to the farmers — that the incomes of the farmers have very much diminished. This must be borne in mind when the Government is criticised for giving assistance to the farmers under the mandate received from the people. It is also interesting for me just to point out to you what the wool position is. It is, as you know, our chief export product, our staple product. After gold there is nothing else, so far as I know, which comes second except wool. In 1924 the total yield of wool was 175,000,000 lbs. It was sold for £12.700,000. Our wool production has increased so that in 1929 the total exports amounted to 287,000,000 lbs. That produced £14,500,000. That was in 1929. In 1932 our total wool export was 373,000,000 lbs., viz., more than double that of 1924. But the total cheque on the wool export which we got was £6,500,000. Compare that with what wool produced in 1924, it was then £12,700,000 and in 1932 it was £6,500,000. That ought to convince hon. members in the House and the country who have objected to our giving much assistance to the farmers that the farmer’s position is really serious, and that the Government was justified to provide assistance by the budget. I want to draw your attention to the fact that the total wool export, if we take the interest on our farmers’ bonds at 6½ per cent. amounts to £6,800,000 in round figures, and that is not even sufficient to pay for the burden of interest on the farmers of the country. The position is serious, and the Government has therefore considered it as serious. Accordingly the Government immediately decided in its budget that we should deal with that position. One thing is certain, we do not suggest, and no one can suggest, that you can completely restore the position of the farmer so long as there is not a reasonable restoration in world prices. What you can do in the meantime can only be temporarily remedies. I do not know what scheme you propose, but until such time as the level of your prices is restored you cannot completely reinstate the position. Notwithstanding the reduced revenue the Government had at its disposal they decided that there could be no question of withdrawing the export subsidy. That subsidy is, to a certain extent, intended to increase the level of prices, and must continue. You will see that in the estimates this year £2,500,000 is provided as subsidies to increase the export price. But, as I have already said, before our prices come back, I do not say to the 1928 or 1929 basis, but at least to what they were before the world war, it cannot be expected that farming will be reinstated. Then the Government besides that export subsidy have to give further help, and that is the interest scheme now before the House. The scheme was prepared and submitted to the House. If you examine the information which is obtained from it you will see that all bonds that now carry 6 per cent. interest or more are now reduced to 5 per cent., i.e., by I per cent. If the total amount of interest-bearing bonds is taken at £113,000,000, and you add the subsidy of 1½ per cent. to the reduction of I per cent., then the relief in regard to interest to the farmers amounts to £2,600.000 up to £2,700,000. Add to that the export subsidy which is being given to the farmers then the actual assistance to them this year is over £5,000,000, i.e., in export subsidy and interest. I ask, is it unfair when you remember the position the farmer is placed in to-day? Can it be considered unfair for that help to be given to the farmers in these circumstances? I ask again, what other section of society has made such sacrifices of its income as the farmers have made? Everyone is in difficulties to-day, but the farmer is having the worst time of all. Times are not only troubled in South Africa, but it is a world phase. The farmers throughout the world are faced by that difficulty in connection with their prices. The Government has made a great attempt to give particular attention to the assistance our farmers can expect from the State, but the farmers are still suffering. None of us suggests that that is the end of the problem, and that we have by this solved the whole problem. I have already said it before and want to repeat that unless prices rise the farmers on the whole will not be able completely to recover themselves. I want to say that I am firmly convinced that no scheme that proposes to give assistance for a fixed period, or is going to reduce interest to 3½ per cent. over a period, will enable the farmers to recover before we and before the world succeeds in getting a recovery in the prices because how many of our farms are not mortgaged up to two and three times their value? If then the farmer pays 3½ per cent. on those high bonds, then it actually means that he pays seven per cent. on the real value of the bond.

Listen now, Cape Town (Gardens) !

One thing is certain, whether the mortgagee, or the creditors, or the farmer, all sections of society will still have to deal with problems. Unless prices improve more than one mortgagee will yet be compelled to reduce his mortgage capital. When a man’s investments or securities diminish in value, then there is only one thing to do and that is to write off capital. That will yet have to be done I fear unless prices rise, because the Government realizes that things are bad, and in these circumstances knows that it is extremely difficult to find the money for farming; it is going further, and giving the Land Bank an amount of £4,000,000 to take over bonds which have to be paid off. Time will prove how far this amount is adequate or otherwise. It is what the Government proposes in order to tackle this question to-day, and it is what we felt to be our mandate. I think that no one can say anything else but that the Government has tackled the matter with the object and the real desire to assist this great section of the people practically, although the farmers will not be reinstated until such time as the prices of their produce rise. Our representatives are now on the way to the World Economic Conference, one of the objects of which is to make the prices of farm produce rise. Let us hope that the World Conference will assist us to get something of that sort, otherwise I fear that the farmers will suffer for a long time yet. But, as we are concerned here with economic conditions from which the farmers throughout the world are suffering, the farmers in South Africa have, in addition, to suffer doubly owing to another factor, this drought; in fact, an extraordinary drought, and it is a pity that it came at a time when economic conditions in the world were so bad. When some hon. members say here that the farmers are getting too much assistance that they do not deserve, I want to ask those friends whether they have ever yet considered what the position of a very large section of our farmers is to-day. It is not the case in some parts, we can include in it the whole north-west of the Cape Province, almost the whole of the Free State, and the whole of the western and northern Transvaal. It is, therefore, not a drought which is restricted to a single area here and there, but which has stricken a large part of our country. I do not know whether those hon. members know the position. I have been there, and if you ask me what a farmer there could do with a £ in cash I would have to say that I do not know. Owing to the drought there is no harvest, and the small amount of stock he still has he cannot sell. If, then, he still has to pay 3½ per cent. on his bonds, I ask you what he is to pay it with. He cannot even pay I per cent. The position of the farmers in many parts is such to-day that they cannot even make a living. The Government help which I have mentioned was intended to combat the results of the ordinary world economic position, but assistance is also being given to combat the bad drought position. There are large sections of the country where the people have no income at all and cannot make a living. In other parts they have to trek with their stock, but I do not know how they ever pay for the transportation. We shall have to realize that the creditors and the State will have to give further help to keep those people going. The relief in regard to interest is not a final help in the existing position. I, therefore, deplore the criticism on the attempt in establishing the countryside. We have to do here with an extraordinary state of affairs affecting half of the population. I will now briefly add what the Government intends doing in connection with the drought problem. We are constantly giving our attention to relief measures which are calculated to fight the drought. There are already, various means of that kind, and possibly more will be invented in future. The first means is that we should continue, and continue more earnestly, with irrigation schemes. There can be no doubt when we go along the big rivers, like the Orange River and the Vaal, which are perennial, and see the irrigation schemes that we must infer that we ought to do more in that direction. The Government will go further in building small dams, and we shall have to go further in assisting in the matter of water bores. The fact has already been mentioned that we are taking steps to prevent soil erosion. There will be no one who can say that that is a trivial way of combating drought. When we go through the country and see how the surface of the earth is washed out, we learn that the Government can no longer dare to allow this evil to continue undealt with. The planting of shrubs is another means. There has been a serious disappearance of shrubs in South Africa, and the farmers will, under the guidance of the Government, have to give more attention to the cultivation of shrubs. The better marketing of farm produce is another problem to which we must give serious attention. We are giving further relief amounting to £175,000 by means of reduced railway rates. Then provision will have to be made for the purchase of stock for the farms when the rains come. In addition, we must consider the transportation of the stock. I would like to express my views now about trekking with stock. In my opinion such trekking from one part of the country is an evil that should stop.

What are we to do then?

My opinion is that lucerne, e.g., is forced on an unwilling market, and maize is exported at ridiculous prices while the farmers ought to organize to use that maize and lucerne as fodder for stock in times of drought. I say that we have not at all yet reached finality in the problems of the mandate which has been given by the country to the Government to look after the farming industry. But no one can say that the Government has not given its serious attention to that and has not granted special assistance to that section of the community. I now go further just to say a few words about the criticism in relation to the gold premium. Some hon. members say that we have taken too much of it. Others have already replied to that point, and I do not want to stop on it. Other hon. members again say that we took too little, and I would like to say a few words on this. As I have said, we constitute a pact Government which is co-operating, and which came into office with a definite mandate, one point of which is that the interests of the various sections of the people shall equally receive the consideration of the Government. The Government must look after all sections of the community, and every Government that is really a national Government would try to do so. The Government, therefore, cannot, when it gives assistance to the farmers, remain indifferent to the other sections in the country. The Government cannot merely arbitrarily take from the other section. It must see that it takes what is fair, and what it can justify. I am not going to enlarge on the distribution or the premiums. The Minister of the Interior has dealt very well with that phase of the matter, and I need not repeat what he said. He said that the gold premium was calculated at £19,250,000, he also said that the Government was taking £9,700,000 of it, leaving £9,500,000. Some hon. members now say that this £9,500,000 is the cash premium which has been left to the mines and that the Government could have taken more. Everybody can express his opinion about it, but I want to say this here, which I think has not previously been said: in what form is this £9,500,000 being left to the mines? The Government gets its £9,700,000 in cash, but the mines do not get their share in hard cash, they get approximately £5,000,000 in the form of low grade ore. The proposal is that the quality of the ore worked must be lowered to such an extent that a longer life shall be given to the mines. It is about half a pennyweight. Half a pennyewight calculated on the basis of the tonnage of ore which was worked last year, means that the yield in gold will be £5,000,000 less. They only get it in the future when the additional quartz is worked, they only get the cash when the ore is taken out, and the working of the additional quartz will again enure for the benefit of the country as a whole. It benefits the workers and the State and society in general. We held the view that it was quite right to encourage the mines to work low grade ore, and in this connection we give them an amount of approximately £5,000,000 out of the premium. I say approximately because everything is merely an estimate. Then further provision is being made for new ore development, and this is estimated at £2,000,000. The mines call this excess development. This will extend the life of the mines in the course of years. Therefore, £7,000,000 of this £9,500,000 will be taken out in the course of time by way of development of ore, and it leaves, therefore, a cash balance of £2,500,000 to the mines. The Government did not think that £2,500,000 was an unreasonable share of that £19,250,000 to give in cash to the gold mining companies for the purpose of paying dividends. On an output valued at £48,500,000 last year, their dividends were £8,380,000. This latter amount can, therefore, be increased by £2,500,000 if they want to do so, and do not use it for further development work. I do not think I need say any more about this. Just this: We believe that the assistance we are giving our farmers will also benefit other sections of the community, e.g., the secondary industries. I think that the farmers can just as little object to the assistance we are giving the secondary industries in our country, as those industries and businesses can object to the assistance given to the farmers. We are even assisting the mines. Last year we had the case of a mine which would have to close down, this would have meant that 400 white workers and 4,000 natives would have been thrown on the streets. The Department of Mines had an enquiry instituted … [Time limit. ]

I think I am right in saying that every budget has two sides, the one is a purely financial and the other is the economic side. So far as the purely financial side of this budget is concerned, of however much importance it may be in itself, I do not think that the people as a whole attach particularly great interest to it. Whether on this occasion it is pointed that there is a surplus, or if it is indicated that there is a deficit, this is a matter to which the people, at any rate, at any single moment, will give no attention. But I believe that they will forget it again within a few days. But the other side, the economic side, is the one I think the people will enquire about, and it is in that the people will take a vital interest. Actually this Government, consisting of representatives of the two great parties in the country, was formed with the definite object of tackling the economic problems of the country. It is true indeed that in relation to that matter there was considerable vagueness in the public statement. It was said that we should have a coalition Government to deal with the great and serious economic conditions and problems facing the country, but it did not go further than that. The people have always awaited a definite indication of what the problem is that was to be solved. I think from that point of view the public will learn with great interest about this budget and the question which is asked on all sides is as to how far this budget, how far the policy of the new Government, enables the various classes of the people to live better. According to the result of the answer to this question the Government will ultimately be judged. Let me say at once that on principle I have no objections to this budget, and I want to go further and say this that there is so much in this Budget with which I can heartily agree that I do not in the least go against it or criticize it in principle. I think that if a purely nationalist government, such as existed, had remained in office, then the budget which would have been introduced by it on this occasion would in the main have been the same as the one which is now before the House. In other words, I consider that this budget, which is now laid before the House, is, to a very great extent, the carrying out of what was already in the minds of the previous Government. It is true it was not formally announced, but I think that everyone in the country knew more or less on what lines the Nationalist Government, if it had remained in office, intended to fight the new economic problems, the new situations. I think, nevertheless, that there are two points on which there would have been a difference between the budget of a purely Nationalist party Government and the one at present before the House. The first is that—and in regard to that the policy of the previous Government was clearly announced, even in the speech from the Throne, that taxation must be imposed, heavy taxes must be imposed on the profits which were made during the economic prices by gold speculators and exchange speculators in connection with the gold standard. I also want to identify myself with other members who have expressed their disappointment that the policy of the previous Government was not adhered to. Another difference between what the budget would have been and the present one undoubtedly is that in connection with the gold premium there has been a kind of luck acquired by the gold mines, which is not being appropriated by the Government for the purposes of the country in general. I think that if a purely Nationalist party had remained in power, then the exchange speculator would have been justly taxed severely, and the element of luck, which is now conceded as a profit to the mines would not have been brought into account. I think if the new Government had adhered to that policy, they would have been able to make a few very important and necessary concessions in this budget in so far as the reduction of taxation to the greater and poorer section of the population is concerned. Unfortunately, as matters now are, the Government was not able to do so to a considerable extent. Speaking now about the economic problems with which the Government had immediately to deal I want first of all to draw attention to the section about which the previous speaker (the Minister of Labour) has already made mention, that is, the section of the population which is suffering severely to-day, not only in consequence of the world depression which is being felt by all sections of the people, but which is suffering jointly in consequence of the depression and the unprecedented drought. I do not think that anybody who is not personally aware and closely connected with those conditions as prevailing in a great part of the country is able to in any way imagine the tragedy, the great tragedy, which is now being played on the immeasurable flats of the karroo, and especially of the northwest. I do not think that anyone can go to a farm in the north-west, as I have recently had the opportunity of doing, without from day to day, and from farm to farm, being reminded of the valley of dead bones. Farmers in those parts have complained. Their complaint has been heard by the country, and their complaint has been by way of resolutions and otherwise, brought before the Government. I have had the opportunity of saying—and I must honestly say as I have already done—that nothing in the complaints of the farmers can be called an exaggeration. There are farmers who have not complained and who do not complain even to-day. There are some of them who do not complain, but they do not complain because they are not suffering; they only do not complain because they refuse to be overwhelmed by calamity; because they refuse in the midst of the pressure of necessity to surrender their faith, and to allow their spirit to be broken. But there is another class who also do not complain, but they do not complain because their spirit has been broken and because they have given themselves up to hopelessness. I think it is a tragedy which is now being played on the boundless flats of the karroo and the north-west, about which our country to-day is far from knowing all about. And I fear that the condition is getting even worse, as the former speaker has said, and that great areas of our country exist where no animal can live any more. But to this terrible state of affairs must be added that the cold of winter is coming and as the drought killed off thousands in the summer, so the cold will still kill tens of thousands. I fear that when winter is over there will hardly be an animal left alive on the farms in a great part of the north-west. That is the extent of the need that exists, to which the Government must give its immediate attention. I can quite understand that the Government could hardly supply all the maize to save that stock from death, and that the problem was too great to supply the needs in that way. But I believe that even to-day the Government is in a position of saving what would otherwise be lost. I would like to refer to two things which, in my opinion, should receive the serious consideration of the Government at once. In the first place it should, as soon as possible, provide on a large scale that the fodder which the farmers are still able to buy on credit at their own expense, should be carried as cheaply as possible to the stations, and from the stations to the farms. The reason for the necessity for this help is that a section of the farmers can still get credit to-day to buy maize, and they know that they cannot come to the Government to supply them with maize—but they cannot transport the maize to their farms because they have no draught animals, because these are so poor and useless that they cannot be used to transport the fodder. The Government has done a great deal and is still doing it to-day, to transport the stock by railway to areas where there is grazing. I therefore think that the Government should also see to the transport by lorries or otherwise of the fodder to the farms far away from stations, even if it is done at a loss. Another matter of very urgent, serious need is the supply of seed corn. There are many farmers who do indeed chiefly make their living out of stock, but also partly out of a little sowing. Particularly in the north-west there are small farmers who live from hand to mouth and are entirely dependent on the yield of their annual crops. The Government have been strongly urged, as in previous years, to provide those farmers with seed. I want to point out that the supply of seed corn this year is not intended as help of a permanent kind, in other words, the intention is not that where the farmer provides his own fertilizer and agricultural machinery it should be expected of the Government to supply him with seed corn and supply it annually. It is asked for this year as emergency relief, and in cases where it was also applied for last year it was done because a harvest failed, and the small farmers who live from hand to mouth were driven by need to use the corn which had been reserved for seed to make bread with and they are not able to buy seed. The Government now insists that the seed will be supplied at as reasonable prices as possible, but it can only be done through agricultural societies and co-operative societies. Let me, in the first place, say with regard to these conditions that it may be a good thing to encourage such societies, and to exercise pressure that co-operative societies should be established among the farming population right through the country, especially among the poorer classes. But I think it is wrong to make use of this opportunity when the farmers are in need to press a system on the farmers as a demand in connection with the obtaining of seed corn. I do not think it is right to sacrifice the farmers for the system in the great need, the immediate need, they are in to-day. The system surely exists for the farmers and not the farmers for the system. I must say that there are large areas in the country where it is easy enough to establish co-operative societies of that kind. It is in those, more or less, thickly populated parts of our country, but even there we know how difficult it is to establish co-operative societies. In all parts of the world it is a matter of education, of education of the farming population for years. In South Africa this is still more the case because very little has, as yet, been done in this direction even in the thickly populated parts. But the north-west, where the people live at big distances from each other and are very impoverished, that area should, so far as co-operative societies are concerned, I might also say necessarily, remain behindhand, and where, owing to difficult circumstances in which they live, they have remained behindhand, I think that it is unreasonable to punish them in that way. 1 therefore think that as the winter rains have now already partly fallen in those areas, and as it is in any case too late to form such cooperative societies now, the Government should, at any rate this year, make an exception, and assist those special needs in a special way. While speaking about the north-west I just want to say, because the matter has also been touched upon by the Minister who has just spoken, that I think the time has come to consider the north-west as the special problem this country is concerned with, and for that special problem to be treated as a special one. It is well-known that in some parts of the northwest—I am now speaking more particularly of Namaqualand—unemployment has, so to say, become chronic and there are other sections of the north-west where it was not formerly the case but where unemployment now threatens to become chronic, and this shows us that we have had to do with a special problem which must be specially faced to find a solution. The question is what the capacity of the parts is, which are stock-producing, to absorb their population which they have and the natural increase of the population. This is a serious question and I think it should be attacked and faced in a comprehensive and effective way. The capacity of parts of the country which are dependent on the stock industry is naturally restricted to its capacity to carry the population, because the veld is limited and the number of stock which it can run on the veld is necessarily also restricted, and where that is so there is only a restricted means of living for the population there. Is it not time, while we are appointing commissions in all directions, to appoint a special commission to investigate the problems of the north-west, and not only to suggest various methods which can be taken? We know, to a great extent, what the methods are, and the Minister who has just spoken gave quite a number of good hints that we can accept. But what is necessary is not only to know the solution, but to submit a practical programme to be carried out in the northwest. There are such things which can be done on a large scale by way of water supply as the construction of dams and irrigation works and the sinking of boreholes. There are, however, such tnings as necessary economy of veld which should be investigated so that the veld that has been saved will greatly assist the farmers to live through droughts. But there is another question which, in my opinion, should be faced and it is this: if the northwest or parts of the north-west are not able to carry their population, what is to be done with the surplus population there? What happens to it now? The surplus is first allowed to lapse into poor-whitism. They are allowed to dump themselves in the great towns which they fly to to make a living, and then it is tried to help the people as unemployed to make a living. Is it not much better to deal with the evil at its origin? Is it not much better to see that there should be a link between the surplus population of the northwest and the living which they have to go and look for in other sections of the country, and to put the population before they become poor whites into the position, by education or otherwise, to be duly absorbed in the rest of the population? That is the problem of the northwest and I want again here to suggest that the time has come to consider it as a special problem which must be faced and solved in a special way. I hope the Government will consider the appointment of a commission to have the matter investigated and to bring forward, not advice, but a practical, practicable and comprehensive programme. I now want to come to the position of the farming population in general, because that is another matter with which this budget deals, and it undoubtedly belongs to one of the most serious economic problems the people are faced with. The last speaker said that practically all the criticism in the House was directed to the special assistance of the farmers, and the statement that it was misplaced. He said that it was in agreement with the understanding which was previously come to. I want to lay further emphasis on that. It seems to me that some hon. members have forgotten one of the points in the agreement as to co-operation between the parties, ana it is that amongst all the classes of the population that need help, a favourable exception will be made on behalf of the farming population. If all the hon. members who have criticised and complained about it have so soon forgotten the essential points of the pact, then I only want to express the hope that they will not soon also forget more and much more than that. Reasons have been given by previous speakers which I would like to take a little further as to why the farming population are entitled to be specially favoured in the policy of this Government and any Government there may be in South Africa. There are certain facts which we must not lose sight of, the first of which is that in all economic fluctuations in me years after the world war and which may come in the economic world from time to time, the farmers are a greater prey to the fluctuations than any other class, of the population. And because they are a greater prey to the fluctuations it is necessary that they should be treated specially and favourably. They are a greater prey because, as is well-known, the farmers’ ability of accommodating themselves to new or changed circumstances is much smaller than that of any other section of the population. The middleman is able to protect himself. His interest is in the difference between the purchase and sale price, and whether the price is high or low he is always more or less able so to regulate matters that the difference between the buying and selling price shall remain. He is thus able to protect himself. The wage-earning and salary-drawing classes are organized, and because they are organized they are also able to protect themselves to a great extent in times of changes and fluctuations, but so far as the farmers are concerned it is a different thing. Its capacity for accommodating itself is, from the nature of the case, less. Take investments of its capital in land, complaints are sometimes heard about the farmers paying such high prices for their ground, but was it avoidable in any great extent? Is it not the case that the farmer when his children grow up must look about unless he himself wants to retire from farming, in order to buy land I for his son, or sons? He is compelled by circumstances to go into the market, although the price at the time may be very high, in order to assure a means of existence for his children. Often the father dies when the price of land is excessively high, and his children, or one of the children who succeeds him is forced to take over the land at those excessively high prices. It may be that farmers have been careless, but, to a great extent, that over-capitalization of land is something for which the farming population is not itself responsible. Let me go further and refer to something else, viz., that where the ordinary investor only needs a little time for his investment for the start of the return of his capital by way on interest from the yield or whatever it may be, it is often the case that a long time has to elapse before the money invested by the farmer starts to come back again. It sometimes takes years. At the start when he invests the money everything may appear rose-coloured, and prices may be nigh, and then when his money starts to come back there are economic conditions prevailing which are quite different to those on which his investment was based. Take another instance: the ordinary investor is usually able in bad times to put his capital into something else, he can turn his business into something else and take his capital where it is safer. But the farmer who has invested in improvements on his farm is not able to run away with his capital in time of need. His capital is bound, whether it is going well or badly with it. If depression comes then business men can secure themselves by retrenching in their business, and discharging people. With the farm ers the reverse is the position because when depression comes they must often try to increase their income by greater production, and if they have to produce on a large scale to be able to live, then they cannot curtail their farming, often they have to extend it. Therefore, on the whole, it is a settled thing that the capacity of the farmer in accommodating himself in times of fluctuation is much less than that of other sections of the community, for the reason that the farmers in times of depression have a greater claim to assistance than the other classes. But I do not want to base my plea only on that for special attention to be given to the farming population. I think that it is not a matter of philanthropy to the farmer, but that the farmer can demand it from the public, as a whole, as a matter of right. I say this for two reasons. The first is this, that the farmer’s need in a time of depression is the benefit of the other class of the population. What is the cause of the farmer’s needs? The low prices which are obtained for his produce, and Over-production. But if there are over-production and low prices for the necessities of life, then it benefits the consuming class of the country. The trials of the farmer are due to the low prices of produce and, to a great extent, the low prices compensate the other section of the population for the losses they suffer owing to the depression. But more than that, there is a large class of the population who undoubtedly are assisted by the Government in another way. The farmers get it openly as help to the farmers and everyone can see that the Government is helping the farmers as such, but there is another class who are in fact well assisted by the Government, where the assistance is not so obvious. Let us take the salary and wage-earning section of the population. During the depressions in previous years it was the custom for the salary and wage-earner to feel the burden of the depression, people were discharged and the labour-market was so full that salaries and wages came down with the result that the standard of living of the salary and wage-earner was brought down, but with the increasing organization of the salary and wage-earners conditions in course of time changed. To-day we find that they are so strong, owing to their trade unions, that they have dug in their salaries and wages and guaranteed them against reduction in times of need and depression, and when in those circumstances the business is curtailed a large number of the workers are inevitably thrown on the streets as unemployed. The men who are working are protected but to a great extent at the expense of the men who, owing to the curtailment of the business, are out of work. As unemployed they are thrown on the responsibility of the Government, and the contribution given to the unemployed by the Government from year to year is the amount of contribution which the country gives to assist that section of the population. [Time limit.]

Before dealing with the main theme which I wish to discuss, I want to put before the House this afternoon certain points in regard to the Government’s proposals on the subject of the gold mining tax. I want to be very brief about that because I wish to speak mainly on matters in which I, as a woman, am specially interested. But I do feel that there is one thing which this House at the moment is not taking into consideration seriously enough, and that is this. Right along the length and breadth of the Reef to-day there is a very grave anxiety that the Government through the proposals which have been put forward is helping itself to too much and that they propose taking too large a part of the gold premium from the gold industry. I think we must realize that that anxiety along the Reef, which runs from Springs, at the one end, to Randfontein, at the other end, is serious and sincere. These people there feel anxious about the position. It is not only the industry itself which feels concern, but it is the people whose very existence depends on keeping the goldmining industry going, who feel that the Government is going too far and that the Government is taking too much. We must never forget that along that Reef road runs, in a sense, the life-blood of this nation. We have seen in the depression through which we have been going, and are going, that to-day the country’s finances depend almost entirely on the Reef, and there lore I say that these people, if they are really anxious about the very existence of their industry, have the right to expect that the Government shall take notice of what they say and shall believe that what they say is sincere, and shall not look upon it as merely “the grouse of the ordinary taxpayer.” They believe that the results which will be achieved from the working out of the scheme will not be what the Government think. We know that the Government honestly believe, at heart, in lengthening the life of the gold mines, and that the Government believe that this scheme will have the results of the low-grade ore being developed, and that the life of the mines will be indefinitely continued. The Government believe that in this proposal they are providing for a share on a fifty-fifty basis, fifty per cent. for the development of the agricultural industry of this country, and the other fifty per cent. for the mines. Judging by the many letters which I have received from the Rand, I know that the general feeling there is that in the actual working out of this scheme it will not result in a fifty-fifty basis, because people feel that the Government has not taken into consideration that out of this fifty per cent. share of the mining industry all the increased working costs will have to come, and that in actual fact it will work out that the Government will get seventy per cent. and the mining industry only thirty per cent. That is their sincere belief, and I do feel that the Government should take into consideration the feelings and the beliefs of these people whose very existence depends on the continuation of the gold mines on the Reef. I do not want to go into figures here, but the Reef believes that out of the £19,500,000 gold premium, the Government will get something in the neighbourhood of £10,000,000 in simple figures. But when you work it out and take into consideration the further costs of the gold mines, then it is estimated that the gold mines will be left with an amount of just about £4,000,000. Unfortunately, there are such things as shareholders. I know that sometimes we are in the habit of pityingly and smilingly referring to the position of the shareholders. But the truth of the position is that without these shareholders the mines would not be in existence. We have to take into consideration not only our own shareholders in this country (and if you look at the shareholder lists of the various companies you will find that seventy per cent. of the shareholders in the gold mines are people residing in this country), but we have to consider too the opinion of the shareholders overseas, because from them, in a large measure, comes the capital that will, in the end, go to develop our low-grade mines; and if that capital, which of late years has been exceedingly shy, is driven away from this country, then I am afraid that we shall not be able actually to develop those low-grade mines at all. There is at present on the Rand a well-known mining engineer, Mr. Warriner, who was sent from America several months ago to investigate on behalf of American interests the possibilities of the safe investment of funds in gold mines. I see by this morning’s paper that his opinion is that the Government is taking too large a share of the gold premium, and that so far as he has been able to assess the taxation proposals, they provide no inducement to the high-grade mines to work low-grade ore. He thinks that the shareholders will receive too little, and consequently it will not be the intention of the group he represents to invest capital to any large extent in this country. These things cannot be ignored; we have to take into account the overseas shareholders. We must remember that if we take into account the exchange profit which overseas shareholders used to receive, they will receive less in dividends this year than they did last year when we were still on the gold standard —

Who says that?

—because they are depending to-day on the high-grade mines, which —on the strength of the Government’s previously announced intention not to handicap the gold-mining industry—have begun to work the low-grade ore, which before it did not pay them to mine. To-day many of these mines will not make larger profits to any appreciable extent than they did last year. As the price of the shares of these companies has risen very largely, the high-grade mines to satisfy shareholders will be forced to stop developing their low-grade ore and return to the development of their high-grade ore alone. The Government, however, may not believe that. My whole point is this—that this is very definitely the feeling along the whole of the Reef. The people there genuinely believe it, and so I ask the Government when it comes to work out the scheme and finds that anomalies do arise, that it should give the assurance that the whole position will come under review again. The anxiety on the Rand on this matter is very deep-seated and sincere. There is one point in which, as a woman, I am extremely interested. I have felt rather lonely in this House, but I am encouraged when I remember that I shall have almost the whole of the womanhood of this country behind me, almost “to a man,” if I may so put it. As a woman I may say that it was with a sense of very bitter disappointment that I saw no hint whatever in the budget of any large, comprehensive and well-thought-out scheme to deal with the very general distress that prevails right throughout the Union. It is to deal with these matters that women have struggled and strained to obtain the parliamentary vote and the right to sit in Parliament. It required great courage for this one woman to try and come here. We felt that here there was some constructive work that we could do, that women could help Parliament to achieve, and it is for that reason that I will almost plead with the Government to grapple with the distress and poverty which are so rife in South Africa. The time is long overdue for some great national effort to be made to solve this great problem. I really plead with the Government that they will regard in the same light as we women do the distress and poverty, especially of the women and children. We do not want measures merely to tide over the position from year to year; we desire the Government to adopt a national scheme. Too much money has already been spent on purely temporary panaceas. I feel that women have the right to plead with the Government to adopt preventive measures that will enable our people to keep their homes together, and to feed and clothe their children without that hopelessness and despair which, in the end, sap our national character and make of these people a burden to the State. I feel it is quite possible to make of these people material that will constitute an asset to the State. It is a dangerous thing when people reach the border line of starvation and become a danger to our white civilization. I realize the immensity of the problem, but I think there is one side of the question that men have never taken much notice of. I am not blaming them for this, for these are matters which normally they do not consider to be within their sphere, but women have studied the economic origin of these problems of poor whiteism, unemployment and distress and even of crime, and they consider that they are not only economic, but that there is an even deeper root which lies in social matters which affect the home itself. They lie in matters of hygiene and health, child life protection and child welfare, and all these matters which really deal with the very beginning of the life of the child itself. We believe that they are subjects which may not appeal to men, but they do appeal to us as women. We believe that many of the problems which otherwise might become insuperable can be dealt with in the early years of the life of the child, and that that nation which has the courage to go down to the bed-rock of these problems to attack the evils of poverty and distress from the very beginning of the life of the child even to its pre-natal days, that nation will inherit a rich heritage. True it is that sums of money are spent over these problems, but only to tide the nation over periods of difficulty, such as we are encountering to-day. But we women desire some great national effort. It is in the early stages of a child’s life when it is deciderd whether this piece of humanity or that will, in the end, constitute human material that will become an asset to the State or a burden. Letters are pouring in on me from women asking for help. One letter tells me of a woman aged 45 with 23 children, and every one of them out of employment. Another letter is from a woman with ten children and a husband in gaol. When we consider such letters as these there are several implications at which we cannot help arriving. The implication that I see most clearly to-day is this: that these people have fallen below the border line of safety, and constitute a danger to the moral life of this country, a danger to themselves, a danger to our social order, our national character, and, in the end, a danger to our white civilization itself. This is a country that has to take these things into account more than other countries, possibly because of its problems of colour. If there is one country in the world which should aim at being an Al rather than a C3 nation, it is this country. Therefore, I say we should tackle this question, and lift these people so that they may not constitute a danger to our white civilization. Men say that romance and adventure are gone from our modern world and in search of adventure they fly over Mount Everest and establish air and other records, but it would be the greatest adventure of all time to tackle this great problem. I believe that in the end all institutions and forms of government must stand or fall by the measure of social service and social justice they mete out to the community as a whole, not to one section or another, but to the community as a whole. We know from the Carnegie report on the poor white problem that 41 per cent. of our people are below the border line of safety and self help. We know that we have reached a stage when a great national effort should be made in this direction. It should not, however, be made along the old lines, for by giving relief to people in a manner which will merely tide over a period deteriorates the character of the people who are relieved, and whom we are trying to serve. I think there is no doubt that the fine old spirit of independence and self help which at one time existed amongst our people is fast passing away, and that we ought to teach these people how to keep their homes going, and to tackle this problem in the early life of the child. I can hardly go into the details of a scheme like this, but there is one point which I wish specially to make. I believe that until such time as we have set up a national bureau of social welfare, we shall not have a serious effort made to deal with this question. I would like to go even further and say that until such time as we have a department of State dealing entirely with social welfare work, and until we bring under such a department a great many of those things like unemployment and child welfare and vocational training, which are now scattered under the Department of the Interior and other departments, we shall get nowhere. We want a State department or a national bureau which will co-ordinate and press into service all the social organizations and the charitable organizations of this country, and which will keep in touch with what is done overseas, making use also of the universities for experimental work and for the training of expert investigators. I repeat that until we have such a bureau I don’t believe we shall get anywhere. It is true that we have a department to-day dealing with unemployment, and that we have the Department of the Interior dealing with child welfare and other matters of the kind to which I refer. We also have the Agricultural Department looking after the interests of the bywoner to some extent. But it is only necessary to look at the estimates to see the desirability of such a bureau as I suggest, which can speak with one voice and of ail these matters being dealt with by one department. The provision for child welfare and unemployment, for instance, is far below what it should be. I have noticed, for instance, that when financial stringency occurs, the very first vote to be cut is the child welfare vote, and we women think that that vote should be the last vote to be cut down. It is only a Government such as this which can tackle this problem, a Government elected to deal on national lines with matters of urgency. I say it is only a Government of this sort which can afford to do things which do not show results except after the lapse of years. In other words, they are not spectacular. Therefore, it is to this Government that I specially appeal to make a great national effort to deal with these matters. I do not minimize the immense work the Government is doing in trying to rehabilitate agriculture in this country, and I am glad to see that the Government is making constructive efforts to improve agriculture, and that they definitely intend doing things to improve the soil and pasturage and water conservation and to improve the land itself. The only fault I have to find with this is that the constructive work they have planned is not the major part of their work. If they are going to take huge sums of money from one industry, to put into other industries, it is not worth while doing it unless the money is to be used in schemes which are going to become permanent assets. Soil erosion and the renewing of pasturage and all those improvements should be pursued along scientific lines. In the end they do no good unless the money expended creates new wealth. But my main point is that no national effort, no effort made along national lines can possibly be complete unless it takes into account all sections of our population. The women of this country are awakening now to a sense of united patriotism and of civic duty, and the Government will be assured of their support perpetually if they pay attention to the matters about which I have been speaking, because we do realize from our own experience that these social problems really do lie at the root of many of the problems which this country has to face, and what we feel is that in the end these things press with a bitter weight upon the women and children themselves.

I want first of all to thank the House very much for the opportunity of addressing hon. members to-day. Then, secondly, I want heartily to thank the two big parties for the generositý in supporting me when I was sworn in. Then, on behalf of my constituency, I want heartily to thank the Government for the way in which the farmers are being assisted by the reduction in interest. I feel that it will assist a large section of the farming population in this time of depression, but no provision has been made for a large portion of the farming community. In consequence of the drought a large section of the maize farmers have not had a harvest at all. That section cannot pay one per cent. interest this year. They practically have no money to buy clothes and food, and what chance is there of paying interest? If provision is not made for them then I feel several of those farmers will be driven into the ranks of the unemployed. They will have to work on the roads, go to the diggings, or lose themselves in the great cities. These are things we must keep in view and I think that the Government, although it cannot do anything itself, should use all its interest with the Land Bank and the commercial banks, as well as the mortgagees, to get them to meet such farmers and to add to the capital which is payable between this and August next. Unemployment is a matter I feel very strongly about. At Ventersdorp we have 120 people on the roads. There have been applications from between 300 and 400, approximately 350. They receive information that there will be work and some of them come 30 miles on foot; on arriving at the magistrate’s office they are told that there is no work for them and they are sent back. I feel that greater provision should be made to get work for those people, because otherwise I do not know what will become of them. They are without work and if we do not give them a livelihood they will be entirely ruined. I feel the work on the roads is temporary, and that it will take our ruined farmers nowhere. They work there because there is no other salvation for them, and I think we ought to arrange to get them back on to the land. I hope that in drafting the next budget something may be done to find a solution with regard to those who are now working on the roads. They get about £5 a month. The work can be done by cheaper labour, say, at £2 instead of £5. The Government will then save about £3 on each individual. This amounts to £36 a year, or £72 for two years. If then we can get a loan in the next budget to take those farmers back to their farms it can be done without its costing the State anything in view of this saving. The road will be made by cheaper labour, and the saving to the Government per individual will be £360 for ten years. That is the gain to the Government on each individual. If the Government arranges subsequently to borrow the money, then those persons get £360. Suppose half of those persons are not a success then I feel that if even half of those who get the money make a success, then it amounts to £180. That will be an asset to the country. If we take the man who has to work on the roads because he is forced to by the depresion and the drought, he loses his self-respect. I feel that this budget is, to a certain extent, an emergency budget. I feel that the Government should look to the results of the World Economic Conference in London and if that is a success let ns try to help those people. I feel that we ought probably to help these unemployed people or the people who are working on the roads or on the diggings. In order to help them with four or eight cattle we must see that there is no other way out. I feel that with a national Government in power to-day we can raise a big loan. We should remember the immorality that is taking place there. The husband leaves his home and remains away fourteen days or three weeks. He lives in a tent and possibly has to cook his own food. It is three weeks or more before he gets home, and what sort of food does he get during that time. We must think of those people and find the means to save them. I say that at present there are 350 unemployed in the Ventersdorp district, most of whom are working on the road. If means cannot be found to provide for those people being relieved from paying interest from now until August next year, I am certain that that stream of unemployed will increase to 600. Then I feel that there is a need on the countryside in the way of nurses. When the towns are far off it costs a great deal, and much trouble always to get the doctor quickly. I feel that we are obliged to put nurses in the countryside villages in the same way as we to-day appoint district surgeons. We feel very thankful for the way in which the Government has taken off the joint and several liability in the credit associations, but I feel that this has not assisted us sufficiently. Suppose a person has bought 100 sheep at an average price of £1 5s. it amounts to £125, the same value in present currency is £40 to £50. If we do not meet these people and reduce their burdens they will lose hope. My view is that we should provide that there should be a revaluation in the case of those people. I feel that if the Government does not do it we will lose more. The man will feel: I possess £40 and owe £120. What is the result? The man’s spirit is broken, and he is compelled to say to the Government: “Take your stock”, and he goes away. How many of those people will not become unemployed? The result is that the Government has to take back its cattle and stock. I know of various people who left the stock in bad weather on the farm and walked to the villages. I am very proud and pleased at the attempt of the Government to assist our young men who are unemployed. I feel that something must be done for the boys between 16 and 21 and in my opinion the Government could do nothing better than send them to a training camp to learn discipline. We all need discipline. Teach it to the boys. The first thing you learn there is that you must respect seniors, secondly, you work, and, thirdly, the boys are taught to organize in one direction. Young lads, as we know, know precious little to-day of organization. I hope the Government will go further and take on a few thousand instead of 1,500 lads. Then I feel that it has been said that only farmers are being assisted. I say a section of the farmers are being assisted. There are many farmers who do not owe a penny and no provision is made for them. And rightly, too. You hear no farmer complaining about others being assisted, and I am very disappointed that people in this House object to farmers being assisted, especially as coalition has come about. It is a pity that the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) is not in his place. He said that the maize and wheat farmers were not making a profit. Yes, of course not, on account of the depression, because no kind of agriculture pays now. It is strange that the hon. member for Roodepoort, a military man, can say such a thing. Has he never thought of what might happen if the same thing happened as in 1914? What will be the result then if we ruin the farmers—where, will humanity and the military get food? We must take a broader view and not merely think of the present. The position is that we, as maize farmers, are hurt at being so much belittled. Let me say that there was a time in the past when we got £1 and £1 5s. for our maize, but were prohibited from exporting it. What did not our maize farmers get at that time? As they have themselves said, the maize farmers suffered millions and millions of loss. They have possibly to-day merely the benefit of £1,000,000, but then the country still owes them millions. The great thing is that we feel that we ought to promote the interests of the community here, we must not try to play off one section of the population against the other. We are here to-day to look after the general interest, and if a man only lives for and thinks of the present then it is deplorable. In my opinion we must find out where the yoke presses most, and there we must give relief.

At this comparatively late stage in the debate, there is no occasion for me, as a representative of a town constituency, to recapitulate or to add to the criticisms which have already been made of this budget, as insufficiently providing for the relief of urban distress and of unemployment in the towns. Most hon. members do realize that the plight of the farmers is desperate enough to justify the preference which has been given to them in the Government’s proposals, and notwithstanding the legitimate disappointments to which the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) gave forceful expression, representatives of town constituencies do recognize that “essential inter-dependence of rural and urban interests,” to which the hon. the Minister of the Interior referred on Friday. And they take consolation from the knowledge that any measure of success in the rehabilitation of agriculture must at long last provide some check to the disturbing migration of workless from the farms to the towns, which has now become so acute. Hon. members from the towns can likewise only hope that a really healthy extension of mining activity, together with the land reclamation proposals which are contemplated to be carried out, chiefly by the unemployed, and together with the other measures which are to be undertaken by the Department of Public Works, will considerably ameliorate the distress in our urban areas, the acuteness of which I doubt if the Government has sufficiently realized. In connection with the land reclamation proposals set out in the white paper, which was issued last week, there is one point on which I should like the hon. Minister, who will be replying to this debate, to give the House a definite assurance. It concerns the native reserves where (and especially in the districts of Glen Grey and Herschel, and in all the native areas of Natal), truly appalling conditions exist as regards soil erosion. The creation of desert conditions in these areas can only mean the destruction of a valuable national economic asset of vital importance, no less to the interests of the Europeans than to those of the natives. And the deterioration of these reserves, which even under good conditions are not adequate for native needs, has already accentuated the alarming increase in the drift of landless and workless natives to the towns. I would therefore appeal urgently to the Minister concerned that quick steps be taken to ensure that these native reserves are from the start brought fully into the operation of the proposed anti-soilerosion scheme. In the words of section 103 of last year’s report of the Native Economic Commission—

I trust that prompt action on this budget by the hon. the Minister of Native Affairs will show that the valuable report of the Native Economic Commission is not about to go the way of so many other reports into the limbo of forgotten and disregarded recommendations. The problem of those Europeans who have already drifted to the towns and are without work has yet to be systematically tackled. I hope that the Government will lose no time in submitting proposals on the lines so convincingly set out by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) in his speech in this House on the 21st February last, and that these proposals will include the early putting into effect of a comprehensive scheme of unemployment insurance. I hope too that of the £750,000 which is intended for unemployment relief, something will be put aside to make provision for training in industry of adults who have drifted into the towns, and likewise that something will now be done to improve the facilities already existing for the vocational training of juveniles. For to rely only on palliatives, whether in the form of relief works or a reduction of interest or doles or any other form, cannot permanently ease the situation Such action can, on the other hand, not fail to increase what the Carnegie Commission found to be “a shameless deadening dependence on the Government and private agencies for assistance.” No, Mr. Speaker, more courageous and more far-sighted planning than anything which has so far been submitted to this House will be necessary, both as regards agriculture and unemployment, if lasting progress is to result. For the greater part of these budget proposals are but palliatives, drastic and powerful and well justified perhaps, but none the less palliatives. Their value can only be temporary. Their grant, indiscriminately as in the present case, may easily prove a dangerous precedent for the future, unless a general commission is set up as soon as possible to enquire into the workings and the economics of agriculture generally in this country, such as has been advocated in the present debate by the hon. members for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) and Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock). It is, I think, generally recognized, however, that this year there has been no time to set up any such commission, as immediate and ample relief has been necessary if the farmers are to be saved. The abiding merit of the present budget, howevr, is that, although so many of its recommendations are in the nature of palliatives, it does, nevertheless, contain the germ of a truly national policy in regard to farming; and it does provide the beginnings of permanent machinery to deal with certain problems that are always with us and that will for years to come need the continuous attention of trained experts. According to the white paper, a special committee has already been set up by the Department of Agriculture.—

The composition, the programme and the scope of the special committee (whose powers will, I trust, as time goes on, be still further enlarged), mark this as the one really constructive feature of the Government’s policy. May this committee become a permanent one, and may it prove the forerunner of similar permanent bodies of experts to deal with unemployment and social welfare. For, if enduring progress is to be made in all these fields, it can only come, not as the result of special debates, nor as the result of sporadic Cabinet action, but as the result of trained investigations by non-political experts. If I may be allowed to quote the words of the right hon. member for Standerton (the Minister of Justice), spoken in England three years ago in this connection, where he said—

As I have already said, the special committee which has now been set up may well become the model of such additional organs of the modern, democratic state to which the right hon. gentleman referred. In the view of competent observers the time is ripe for setting up similar permanent boards or committees to deal with unemployment and social welfare generally. The Carnegie commission which recently investigated the South African poor white problem deplored our “lack of a unified social policy for the country as a whole.” Professor Coulter, the distinguished American sociologist attached to that commission, speaking in 1930 to the University of Stellenbosch, urged the establishment in this country of a Government bureau of social welfare as had been recommended in section 124 of the Carnegie commission’s findings and recommendations. He pointed out that approximately half of the states of the American Union now had departments of social service and that these had been a tremendous impetus towards the unification of American social life. There was also, he said—

In order that such a bureau of social welfare should be able to carry out continuous and detailed scientific research there will be needed a thoroughly well equipped department of social studies at one of our own South African universities, for it is in such a department that skilled social workers can be trained and, as the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. Reitz) has this afternoon pointed out, it is in this sphere that women even more so than men can play a very important part, and it is in this department that these scientific researches must be carried out. In the long run South Africa’s problems cannot be solved by ad hoc commissions, supervised by distinguished foreign sociologists. They can only properly be dealt with by South Africans, specially trained and intimately familiar with the local setting and history of the problems involved. The sooner, sir, we start training for future South African leadership in matters of social welfare the better. Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully urge on the Government that during the coming recess they give serious and immediate consideration to formulating and putting into effect next year a definite, far-reaching and co-ordinated plan for tackling the root causes of unemployment, apart from merely granting interim relief, and for setting up some sort of bureau of social welfare under one of the existing departments of state. I am sure most hon. members recognize that having regard to the very short time this Government have been in office, they have produced proposals in regard to farming which, whatever their defects, and whatever their limitations, and whatever the difficulty of carrying them into effect, are, at any rate, characterized by honesty and by a rare courage which could not have been possible to a purely party administration. But, sir, hon. members must also recognize that it was the urgent need of tackling unemployment generally, no less than rural distress, that made the people of the Union give to this national Government so emphatic a mandate. And if these beginnings of a national policy to which I have referred are not followed up next year by a more comprehensive and well-balanced scheme to deal with unemployment, then the faith of the electorate in the Government’s ability to fulfil its pledges, may be so seriously shaken as to imperil alike the continuance and the justification of this coalition—this coalition, which the great majority of hon. members are pledged to help prove itself the biggest forward step ever taken in South Africa’s political history.

If only to get rid of a feeling of verdancy, it is necessary for me to say a few words on the budget. I feel that members do not exactly render much service to their constituencies by making long speeches here, but nevertheless it is necessary to make myself heard. I shall try to remember the warning in the story about rich American funerals. When the millionaire’s brother came to identify the corpse he noticed gold teeth in the open mouth. “No,” said he, “my brother had no gold teeth.” “You fool,” somebody present said to him, “if you had kept silent you would have had a first-class funeral some day.” If I have nothing to say then I shall try not to come and say it in this House. If I have anything to say, I will try to say it even if I have to tie up my legs when they want to give way under me. Allow me also to be in the fashion to express my thanks to the Government for the assistance they have given the farmers. It was necessary to give that help to the farmers, but I believe it was necessary to help them still more. In the first place, I think we shall not omit the necessity of pointing out to the farmers that the first opportunity that offers should be used by them for paying off the large debts they have to their account. That is necessary for them to do, otherwise it cannot be considered as productive. The past has taught us that although debt can be productive it can also be unproductive, and I think that the Government has itself learnt a good lesson in this respect in connection with its debt on the railways. I do not think we should neglect to point out to the farmers that in the future they should be careful to try and reduce their debts with the assistance they get. Perhaps we can assist the farmers indirectly better than directly. There are very big problems that we have to tackle if we are not to bequeath a legacy which will make the world worse than it was when we came into it. One of the things is weeds. It is one of the things that we cannot calculate the great damage it does to the farmers. I think the provincial councils and the Government should do something to solve that problem. Another big problem we have is the drought question. We cannot leave any scheme untried to tackle this question, and not to leave it as a legacy to the future. The Schwartz scheme has been referred to. I do not know whether it is acceptable but in any case we must give serious attention to the question. I feel that we should allow as little water as possible to run away to the sea. We must use the water. In this respect I think even if the irrigation schemes have not been such a great success as we expected so far as settlements are concerned, still it is necessary for us to dam up our big rivers with small schemes. I think that in this respect we should be rendering our country a great service if we start as soon as possible on a large scale with those schemes, and on a larger scale than in the past. I think that it is time for us to appreciate the seriousness of the position in that respect. Our farmers already realize that the problem is very serious seeing the crust of the ground is always drying up more owing to the water constantly disappearing. Another point I feel in connection with my constituency is one in connection with the alluvial diggings. The speech recently made in Kimberley by the Minister of Alines caused a great stir amongst the diggers. I was, however, glad to receive a telegram from the Minister’s secretary in which he explained the position, viz., that the Government was willing to deproclaim land when it found that the existing ground was worked out. I think that in the future we should not attend so much to the restriction of the alluvial diggings, but should especially limit the number of diggers. We find that wherever land is proclaimed to-day people flock there from all parts of the country, they are adventurers, holidaymakers, farmers, etc. One hears of farmers who suddenly have nothing to do on their farms, and then go and dig for a hit. They merely take the cream off the new ground and when they have finished they go away and leave the crumbs to the poor professional digger and the casual diggers must not only be warned to keep away but must not be allowed to go there. There are of course people who ought not to go to the diggings at all. I think that the digger has passed through a very bad time during the depression and ought to be considered a little. He deserves the consideration of the Government. Although there are many failures on the diggings, especially of people who do not understand the work and are out of place there, and against whom steps should be taken for their removal, there are yet many people who live all their lives on the diggings, and make a good living. If we can just help them a little they will once again contribute a good share to the revenue of the Treasury. We must help them by not allowing other people to go there, as soon as a new area is proclaimed, people who come from all over the country and take away the cream. As diggers we understand that it is necessary to control the diamond market. That our diggers quite understand, but we can make it very easy in this respect for the diggers if we would just remember them a little in connection with the matter.

I will devote my speech this afternoon to an examination of the new mining taxation proposals of the Government. I need hardly say that the views I am going to express are my personal views entirely. We have had it from the Minister of Finance that, including the amount expected from the new taxation, the Government is levying an amount of £13.9 millions from the gold mines this year, of which £1.9 millions are earmarked for loan funds, and the balance is allocated to general revenue. I will, in the first place, examine whether the estimate of £13.9 millions is a correct one. Judging by the way the monthly figures from the mines have been going, we may expect for the whole year, as compared with the year 1932, a drop in grade of about 7½ per cent., an increase in tonnage of about 5 per cent., and a rise in costs of about 2½ per cent. The net result will he that for the whole of the Transvaal we may expect a tonnage milled of 38.3 million tons, that the yield will be 11¼ million ounces, and that the net profit will be £27,000,000. By net profit I mean the amount divisible between the Government and the shareholders. Last year the Government took £4.2 millions, and the shareholders got £9,000,000, or a total of £13.2 millions between them. For 1933 it may be expected that, as I have said, this total will be increased to £27,000,000, an additional £13.8 millions. Of these £27,000,000, the Government proposes to take £13.9 millions, leaving the shareholders £13.1 millions, that is to say, the Government is to get £13.9 millions where it got £4.2 millions before, and the shareholders £13.1 millions, where they got £9,000,000. Put in other words, the Government share of the profits will increase by 230 per cent., while the shareholders’ portion will increase by 46.1 per cent. I have calculated the figures for the Rand mines myself, and find that the Government has greatly under-estimated the yield from its taxes. I find that the taxation in force in 1932, that is, the 20 per cent. income tax and the share of profit from the leased mines, would have yielded a total for 1933 of £8.9 millions, made up of £4.9 millions income tax and £4,000,000 loan fund money from leased mines. The yield from the new tax, I estimate at £6.7 millions, so that the total yield from all sources would be £15.6 millions, or £1.7 millions more than the Government estimates. I have no figures to show what the yield of the new tax from outside mines, such as the Barberton district and elsewhere, would be, but it seems to me fairly certain that the Government estimate is nearly £2,000,000 under the mark. My first point against the new tax, therefore, is that it is going to yield more than the Government estimates by nearly £2,000,000. It will leave the mines with about £11.4 millions out of the £27,000,000 profit, instead of the £13.1 millions I mentioned before. My point is that the Government has under-estimated the yield of the combined taxes it is levying on the gold mines. There can be no relief once the taxation measure is passed by Parliament. Whatever the amount that it yields may be, it will be collected, and the mines will have to put up with what is left. It is one of the defects of this complicated scheme of taxation that its results are difficult to estimate. I now come to the fifty-fifty legend. I call it a legend for reasons that perhaps already have appeared. We are told that the Government is taking half of the premium, as being a fair basis, leaving the shareholders the other half. Even my hon. friends, the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Justice, seem to have been led astray, apparently imagining that the premium is all extra profit, and that therefore the fifty-fifty division is a fair one. It is quite true that the premium on 11¼ million ounces of gold at 120s. is £19.7 millions, and that in asking for £9.7 millions of this, the Government would be taking the smaller half; but the £19. 7 millions is not the increase in the profit of the mines. I have already indicated that the net profit may be put at £27,000,000, an increase of £13.8 millions over 1932, not £19.7 millions. The mines have reduced their grade. If they had kept their grade of 1932, the increase in profit would have been approximately equal to the premium; but they have not. The lowering of the grade will mean a reduction of £5.9 millions in the profits, and the premium of £19.7 millions has restored this to an increase of £13.8 millions. The extra profit will be £13.8 millions, and if a fifty-fifty basis is ordinarily looked upon as quite a fair division of the spoils, it should have been divided by two, and it should be 6.9 millions and not 9.7 millions.

Where is the extra cost coming from?

†Sir ROBERT KOTZÉ: It is more nearly on a seventy-thirty basis instead of being on a fifty-fifty basis, on the Government’s own estimate. If my estimate of the increased yield is correct the Government will take 83 per cent., leaving shareholders with 17 per cent., instead of it being a fifty-fifty basis.

You make me laugh.

Well, I hope I have disposed of the fifty-fifty legend. I will now deal with the incidence of the taxation on different classes of mines; with the low-grade and the high-grade mines. The white paper gives two examples dealing with these mines. No. 1 mine, which incidentally appears to be the Modderfontein Deep Level Mine, pays an excess profits duty of £182,500. It will yield, in addition, an income tax of 4s. in the £ or another £214,000, or a total of £396,560, leaving the shareholders £673,440. Now I would like to point out that under this estimate, in example No. 1, it is assumed that £50,000 is spent in approved capital expenditure. The peculiarity about the Modder Deep Levels is, it would find it extremely difficult to spend that on developing low-grade ore; it has not the low-grade ore to develop, or very little, and if this £50,000 be eliminated, the Government will get an additional £40,000 out of the share of the profit. Finally, the shareholders will be left with £633,440, which one may look at a little closer. What does this mean? It means that when we are off the gold standard the shareholders are getting this amount. If we remained on the gold standard, taking the figures in the white paper, the shareholders would have got the £622,500—less income tax, or £498,000. They get an increase of 127 per cent. The overseas shareholder expects £141 for £100 in South Africa, when it is on the gold standard. Today, under this scheme, the overseas shareholder is to get £127 for his £141 before. That is, that he is 14 per cent. worse off than if we had remained on the gold standard. He has to console himself with two points; one is, that the Government taxation in future—next year— may be lighter, and he may get relief then; and the life of the mine may be extended to some extent. In the case of the Modder Deep Levels, there is no great hope of much extension. The immediate effect is, that the overseas shareholder is to get less dividend than if we had remained on the gold standard. I will take example No. 2. Here it would appear that the shareholder, after paying the Government its share of £209,000 and the Minister of Finance his income tax of 4s. in the £, will have to pay £354,000 out of £722,000, so that altogether he would have paid 49 per cent. of his profit to the Government. The balance of some £370,000 is available for dividend; and there would be no balance at all if we had remained on the gold standard; and to have mined ore of this grade there would have been a loss. The shareholder is better off than he was before. Mine No. 2 cannot compare with the case of the Modder Deep Level. We find that the Government is taking off the profits of the E.R.P.M., a low grade mine par excellence, 49 per cent. of the profits, all taxation included. In the case of No. I Mine, a high grade mine, it is taking only 38 per cent. of the profits. Now it is all very well to say that in these cases the tax is mainly taken on the premium and not on the profits, but I ask the House, should a low grade mine pay a higher percentage of their profits than a higher grade mine? Take the case of the wool farmer. Supprose the price of wool has gone up, and he makes a profit instead of a loss this year? One farmer makes, say. £100 profit; and his neighbour now makes £1,000 profit instead of £500, because we are off gold. Would the wool farmers consider it just to ask a payment to be made of £49 on the one farmer’s £100, while you tax the rich farmer only 38 per cent. on his £1.000? Surely not. I appeal to the justice of the House to say whether that would be considered fair. It is unjust, and it is also unwise. Now I want to ask again why the low grade mine should be compelled to pay a share of its excess profits at all to the State. Is the position of a low grade mine any different from a mine which is mining copper, asbestos, or any other mineral which has to be sent overseas? These mines benefit to the extent of the premium exactly as the low grade mine does. They get it from the exchange. But they arc not taxed. Why should the low grade mine be taxed? It is in the same position as the fruit farmer or the wool farmer who sell their products abroad, yet they arc not taxed. Why are they not taxed? Why do we tax these gold mines in the first instance? We tax them because the country needs it. The mines, it is said, can afford to pay, they should be made to pay and they would willingly pay. Why do we not tax the wool and the fruit farmer, the asbestos mine and the copper mine? Because it would be unwise and unfair to make them pay. They have been struggling up to the present, but at last they are able to lift their heads above water. The Government leaves the asbestos mines and the fruit farmer alone, but the unfortunate low grade gold mine no sooner gets its head above water than the Government pushes it right down again. I appeal to the House that it is not acting fairly or wisely to the low grade mines. I come next to the mining of low grade ore and the effect which this scheme would have upon it. There are perhaps four or five of these mines, rather less I should think, because most would fall under the 80 per cent. scale, but I admit these mines will benefit very substantially by the premium and that not even the repressive measures in this scheme will entirely extinguish the benefit which they will derive from the premium. Their lives will be much extended and they will benefit very greatly but the Government comes along and takes a large share of their profits. Now I turn to the other mines, under example No. 1, for instance, which are to pay 80 per cent. of the excess profits after making the allowance. What happens there? I may say that these mines constitute about 75 per cent. of the production of the Witwatersrand and they are very seriously affected. In the first place, I have already shown that mine No. 1 is going to pay its overseas shareholders £127 for every £141 they would have got if we had remained on the gold standard. The only remedy for restoring the balance is to mine a higher grade ore. The mining of low gradeore is absolutely fatal in such a case and must be abandoned. The second point is that owing to the peculiar operations of this scale that has been devised by the Government the mining of low grade ore is discouraged by any of the mines that have to pay the 80 per cent. scale. Calculations show that where on the average the pay level would have dropped by a full one dwt. but for this taxation scheme, it now has to stop at about four-tenths of a dwt. The calculation is an intricate one and I feel it would be useless to try and explain it to the House. But there is the result. If costs are 20s. it will not pay to mill ore with a recovery of less than 23s. 6d. on this scheme and the 3s. 6d. represents six-tenths of a dwt. with gold at 120s. per ounce. This is an extremely important point. If the pay limit could have been dropped one dwt. the milling tonnage of the Rand would be doubled, but with the new taxation this increase of 100 per cent. will be reduced by more than half. We cannot mine so much low grade ore as we would otherwise have done. Next I wish to examine the method of this tax and I want to point out that it is a most clumsy and complicated scheme. It takes two and a half pages of this white paper to explain it, added to which are three examples and it takes days before even an expert like myself can understand it, and I do not thoroughly understand it yet. It is quite true that a scheme like this in the end presents no difficulties to experts. We have experts, mathematicians and engineers on the Witwatersrand quite capable of making these calculations and of understanding the significance of the various points, but I might also point out that these experts and engineers are also available for applying their brains as to how to get round it. They will do so, not illegally, but there are pitfalls in this which will become clear. I wish to mention some of the weak points in this scheme. I will refer first to No. 2 of paragraph 5 on the first page. [Paragraph read.] There is confusion there. The 0.6 dwts., it is quite true, is one-tenth of the average grade or revenue, but in the formula it will be seen that it is 10 per cent. of the profits which is spoken of and not 10 per cent. of the revenue. Therefore this allowance of 10 per cent. should have been 30 per cent. in order to cover it. The reasoning is faulty—it should be three times as much. The allowance is too small.

It may not be enough, but why say three times?

Next I turn to the same paragraph, sub-clause (5) paragraph (b) where reference is made to allowances which have to be made. All expenditure incurred to be allowed for in accordance with plans approved of by the Minister of Finance, and so on. That is the paragraph I am referring to. That is a bad principle. People do not want to know what they are going to be allowed by the Minister, they want to know in advance what is going to be allowed. They want to know that this is going to be allowed and that is not going to be allowed and they don’t want to be told at the end of the year, when there may be a law suit. It is a very bad principle to be constantly supervised by an individual, whether it be the Minister or an official, no matter how competent he may be. It is much better to delete such clauses from any law. I now want to refer to the proviso about expenditure from current revenue. If it is to be taken out of current revenue only and not out of capital, it certainly does not encourage capital, and I submit we should encourage capital to flow in. This is doing just the reverse.

We are dealing with revenue and not with capital.

Then I want to refer to sub-clause (e) where it deals with an amount equivalent to 1s. for every ton milled. The allowance is in respect of the ton milled, and in clause 8, on page 3, there is a long account of the advantages of using the ton as a basis. I can only say that this is the first time that I have heard a ton alluded to in this way. It is the very worst basis that you can take in anything of this kind—it is all wrong to take a ton as the basis, and there is not one of our laws or leases, where sliding scales are provided for, where the ton is referred to. That has been purposely avoided. Now let us look at paragraph (8). It says the ton milled by any mine indicates the amount of employment provided by it, and the amount of money circulated by its operations. I need only mention the case of the Sub Nigel to disprove this. The amount of money circulated has nothing to do with it. The costs of that mine are not the same per ton milled as they are of any other mine, in fact, the costs of the Sub Nigel, per ton milled, are exactly double those of the average mine. The ton on the Sub Nigel is for the purpose of gauging money spent twice as large as that of other mines because it spends twice as much money per ton milled as other mines do. And then it goes on—

This is an entirely fallacious idea. It is not a true index. Supposing it costs 100s. per ton to mine and mill a particular kind of rock and that you make 10s. profit on that. There your income is 110s. and to make that income you spend 100s. The 10s. is a very poor profit on the 100s. On the other hand, if your costs are 20s. and you make a 10s. profit on that 20s., then that is a very fine profit, but the value per ton has nothing to do with it. It is the ratio of profit to the total revenue which is the true index of the relative richness of a mine. The ton is not a suitable basis at all, and I suggest that the ton should be abandoned as a basis entirely, and that some other method should be applied. It could be eliminated and something else substituted for it. Finally, on the same page there is paragraph 9 which calls for half-yearly returns—returns of this complicated nature. What is the use of piling on the agony? It means a tremendous amount of work for everyone concerned, not only for the mines, but also for the treasury. It is true the money will be forthcoming, and there will be payments twice a year, but I doubt very much if the additional advantage to the state will be worth that. I submit that this might be left out, and the ordinary yearly statements maintained. Finally, before I abandon the reference to this white paper, I would refer to example No. 3, in which I find two mistakes. I regret to see them there. The first is in line (a) in the middle of the page where it refers to the Government’s share of assessed profits. This mine referred to is the New State Areas. It is the only one which pays such a high percentage of profit as is indicated here. This calculation shows an amount of £480,000 is payable to the Government out of £748,343, amounting to 64 per cent. of the £748,000. Under the sliding scale it would be about 67 per cent. It is a miscalculation on the part of the compiler of this table in regard to the payment under the sliding scale. Then item (b) in the next line “income tax 4s. in the £”. This should have been calculated not on the £748,000, but on the £748,000 less the £480,000, that is to say, on the difference between the two, and that would have amounted to very much less than what is given here. That is the second error which I find there. The various points which I have indicated in my speech constitute a very serious discouragement to the influx of new capital into South Africa. New capital is coming to South Africa at present for mines, and it is not an encouragement to find that new capital is going to be so harshly taxed. It is not an encouragement that there is going to be differentiation between low grade mines and high grade mines such as I have indicated if the new mines are opened up. That is not an encouragement to capital at all and to the expansion that we hope for with increased employment. I want to emphasize that point particularly. Now I don’t want to confine myself to destructive criticism, I also want to make some constructive criticism, and I want to make a suggestion to the Government. My first suggestion is that they should not lay such a heavy tax on the mines this year. What is the position? We do not propose to balance our budget for this year only, the Government also wants to wipe out with one fell swoop the whole of the accumulated deficit of nearly £6,000,000. It would be wiser to have laid a lighter burden on the mines, a burden which would have so applied to the rich mines and to the poor mines that there would have been no injustice as between the one and the other, and it would have been a burden which the mines would have willingly shouldered, and if the amount had been laid down at something like two millions less than the estimate that could easily have been dons. My suggestion is this that as regards balancing the budget, it would be wiser not to budget for the extinction of the full £6,000.000 accumulated deficit, but to extinguish £4,000,000 and leave the balance to be carried forward to next year. There is, of course, a danger in that if we returned to the gold standard the premium might disappear. There is, however, not the slightest indication that we are going to return to the gold standard, or to adopt a gold coinage except on a much depreciated basis. In that case the premium is permanent. To all intents and purposes, the Government is perfectly certain to recover in subsequent years without any risk whatever the £2,000,000 of the accumulated deficit which, under my proposal, it would not extinguish this year. My second constructive point is that Government should adopt a very much simpler scale of taxation and impose a special profits tax of between 10 and 15 per cent.—I think nearer 15 than 10 per cent.—on the profits of all the mines. That special tax would be collected in the same way as the income tax is, and should count as costs in calculating the profits of the leased mines. It might not be easy to regulate in all cases, but if we count this special tax as costs the leased mines would get the necessary relief under the sliding scale. This special tax would produce the amount I have indicated, and would so distribute the burden that nobody would feel it very much. In addition to this as far as allowances are concerned, I would make one simple allowance, permitting the costs of excess development to be reckoned as costs. This would be a slight form of relief which would be very welcome to the mines. The scheme would work admirably, and there would be no temptation for the mines to evade it by manipulation. We do not want manipulation. We do not want a mine to calculate whether it will pay it better to work its high or its low grade ore. [Time limit.]

I am sorry that this afternoon on the occasion of my maiden speech I must draw a dark picture of the conditions in my constituency. I do not now want to go into the causes of those conditions, I only want to say this. In consequence of the depression which not only our country has been suffering from since 1929, but the whole world the farmer is obliged to sell a great part of his produce below the cost of production. The result is that the farmer who has not passed a bond finds himself in the position of practically having to live on his capital. If we bear this in mind we will understand what the position of the farmer is who has passed a bond, and has to pay interest on it, although he has to live on his capital. His position is much worse than that of the farmer who has not passed a bond. The drought which has come particularly this year, and has also very severely affected my constituency, has made the position much worse. In the speeches of hon. members, amongst others, the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan), the condition of things in their areas has been described, and it may perhaps be said that the position in those parts is just as bad as in Brits. But I want to point out that there are additional factors which make the condition in Brits much worse than in other parts. We find that those factors already came into operation in 1926 when the former Minister of Labour took some of the poorest class of people from all parts of the Union, the Transvaal, the Free State and the Cape Province, to camps in my constituency. We had about 600 families of those poor people. Moreover, there were 400 families on the settlements, and although their condition is not so bad, they also are poor as well. There are, therefore, about 1,000 families who are in the worst position, and, therefore, I want to ask the Minister when he is granting relief, to bear this fact in mind, and to remember that Brits is not only in a very poor state but that in many respects he has to do with a poor white constituency. For other reasons Brits is a very difficult constituency. As I have said, we find the people in the camps there, the settlers, and the old farming population. The last-named were there before the dam was built, and the poor people were brought into the constituency from the Union. These different elements are the reason that there are conflicting interests in the constituency which make the position still more difficult. I would like briefly to sketch the position of the three groups. The first group is the settler, and I want to assure the Government, and especially the Nationalist Government which was in power before the present Coalition Government, that those settlers are very thankful to the Govenment for what has been done to relieve their position. The interest has been reduced to such an extent that the burden which fell on the settlers is now much lighter and I can assurs you that they greatly appreciate it. There is, however, one little point which I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister concerned. I am sorry that at the moment he is not in his place, but I think it is a matter which I should bring to the notice of the House. There is a section of the settlers who have exercised the option of purchase of the ground and who have, therefore, become owners of the ground. Now the law requires that they may not be more than three instalments in arrear, and if they are, then the title is automatically cancelled. The position has, however, of recent years become so serious that they cannot fulfil that stipulation. I know of cases where many settlers have had no harvest for three years, and hon. members can imagine that it was absolutely impossible for them to pay their instalments. Accordingly, I want to urge the Government so to amend the Act that those people can keep their ground. It will not assist the Government if the people are put off the ground; they will merely be put on the relief works, and therefore be on the Government’s hands, while at present it is still possible for them to make a slender livelihood. I therefore think the Government should try, owing to the extraordinary circumstances, to enable the people to keep their land. When I come to the conditions of farmers, I want at once timeously to warn the Government that the drought has caused such a serious state of affairs that we must expect a large number of the farmers of Brits to have to go to the relief works. Harvest time is over and there are no prospects. I have received many letters urging that the Government should take steps to save the people from hunger, and as I wish the Government to meet the people I would like to discuss a few points in connection with the matter. I hope the Government will give its attention to the matter to see whether that concession cannot be immediately granted. In the first place, there is the Buffelspoort irrigation scheme. The Government has already given its attention to that, and I understand from the department that it has been practically approved and that there merely remains for the money to be made available. In connection with this I want to quote a letter describing the condition of those farmers who have always hitherto tried to get through. They have always yet succeeded in managing for themselves, but they are now obliged to come to the Government. The letter is from the Irrigation Board, and hon. members will be able to infer from it what the condition is. (Letter read.) I have further letters from the same neighbourhood, but I will not read them because they are all to the same effect. I hope the Government will see its way to make the necessary money available even under this budget. I can assure you that the farmers very much appreciate the new assistance under the budget. The reduction of the interest will undoubtedly contribute to help many farmers to keep their heads above water. I just want, in connection with that concession, to mention one point for the consideration of the Government. According to the statement of the Minister of Finance, the Land Bank will be entitled to decide whether instalments on loans from the Land Bank can be postponed. I want to suggest that the law should be so drafted that the Land Bank will be obliged to give an extension for at least two years. I do not suggest this because I want to make out that the Land Bank has been unfair in the past, but when we are concerned with matters of this kind it will be advisable for the farmers to understand pre cisely what the position is. At present the farmers are constantly receiving letters from the Land Bank notifying them instalments are due, but unfortunately the people are not ac quainted with things, and regard the notifications of the Land Bank as threats. I know of various cases where farmers have gone so far as to sell some of their necessary agricultural materials, even their trek oxen, in order to pay off that capital. I feel it is a calamity to-day to put the farmers into that position. I therefore feel that the Government should instruct the Land Bank not to call upon the farmers to repay capital for at least two years. This is not a new principle I am advocating. In the present budget this principle is already accepted where the Government promised to take over bonds if farmers are pressed and cannot pay. The principle that the farmers cannot pay today is therefore already accepted by the Government. But in addition the principle has already been adopted in the Land Settlement Act as well. The amendment of that Act lays down that the settler must repay the capital in the course of 40 years. It does not matter whether it is paid in the thirty-ninth year so long as it is paid within 40 years. He is, therefore, not asked to pay certain instalments off the capital each year. As I have said it is not, therefore, a new principle I am advocating. I therefore feel that the Government can ask the Land Bank to give the farmers time for two years and not to ask them to reduce the capital. There is another point I would like to bring to the Government’s notice in connection with the grant of assistance to unemployed, and farmers who are in difficult circumstances. Although it is a thing which more properly comes under the provincial councils, I nevertheless think it can be brought to the notice of the Government. I refer to a road over Breedsnek which is being made in my constituency. The road is very necessary and will serve about 200 people. People have already on various occasions applied for the road to the provincial administration, but every time hitherto they have received the reply that there is no money. I hope the Government will give the provincial council the money which is so urgently required for the building of the road. The people badly need! that road. The roads that exist are hopeless, and the people practically cannot get to the market. It is so difficult to get to the market and the roads are so bad that the produce of the farmer is not fresh when it gets to the market with the result that it realizes very poor prices. The people in those parts of the Transvaal must be assisted and therefore I shall be very glad if the Government can give the provincial council the money.

I must point out to the hon. member that matters in relation to the provincial councils cannot now be debated.

I only refer to them in passing. Now we come to the condition of the tenant farmers. I want to point out that those people have no ground yet, and I shall be glad if the Government would try in the near future to provide for them so that they can obtain ground. The difficulty is that we have no additional available ground to-day. The ground that is available is of such a kind that it can no longer be distributed because the settlers will not be ablé to exist on it. The Government must therefore see whether it is not possible, by means of irrigation works, to make more land suitable for agriculture. The Government must, therefore, go in for more irrigation works. I was very glad to hear from the Minister of Labour this afternoon that a sum of money had been earmarked for this purpose. I think, however, the amount is too small. It is a sum of £532,000, and of that only £333,000 will be used for Government works. The amount is therefore too small. I want to refer to one scheme, the Prieska scheme, where 12,000 morgen of land can be put under water if the Government will only tackle the work. The Government must do it to-day so long as it is able to do so. In a few years the gold premium will possibly disappear and then we shall no longer be able to do so. It is not only for people who are without land to-day, that it is necessary to do it, but we must also bear in mind the fact that those people have children. In my constituency there are 600 farmers without land. Those people have children. The question is, therefore, not only what is to become of those people, but of their children. The children of the people are the future generation, and if they do not get land it will mean that they will go to the towns and practically be a burden on the Government. I feel therefore that the Government should go out of its way to-day and make an attempt to vote more money for irrigation works. Then I only want to add a few words about the budget. I consider this budget exhibits a very sound basis. I feel convinced that the taxation the Government intends to raise on the gold premium is quite fair. As for me, I am satisfied. The extremists in the House, however, are not satisfied. On the one hand, there are the representatives of the mines who say the tax is too great and on the other those who say it is too little. A compromise has, however, been arrived at, and we cannot satisfy the extremists. The Government has, therefore, chosen the happy mean and that is in the circumstances the best way. I want to quote here from the speech of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock), inter alia, to the effect that that money ought all to be left in the hands of the mines. He said that if the £20,000,000 was left to the mines for development and that money had gone into the pockets of the miners, then in the end it would mean an amount of £120,000,000. In other words, he suggests that the whole premium should be given to the mines for the purpose of developing low-grade ore. He says the Government should then force the mines to use the money for that purpose, but he does not say how the Government can force the mines.

Sitting suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

At the adjournment I was pointing out that the criticism of the two extreme sections in the House regarding the taxation of the gold mines had convinced me that the Government had selected the happy mean. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) represents the one extreme section, and he suggested that the Government should leave to the gold mines the £20,000,000 approximately which would be available in consequence of the gold premium in order to enable them to develop low-grade ore. On the other hand, we have the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal), who strongly emphasized that the Government was taking too little of the premium with the object of making it available for the rest of the population. In my opinion those two hon. members both started from wrong points of view. The standpoint of the hon. member for Turffontein was mainly based on the view that the gold mines belonged to the shareholders. That is not the case. The other section of the public can also claim the general advantages that the mines offer. Take, on the other hand, the view of the hon. member for Piquetberg, we shall see that his point of view is mainly based on two considerations. The first is that most of the mining shares belong to overseas holders, and that the gold premium, or the greatest part of it, belongs to the inhabitants of our country. I may make a quotation from his speech to prove that that is his attitude. He says—

That is entirely wrong. According to the figures 1 have it appears that the greatest part of the shares do not belong to overseas shareholders but are actually held in our country. I want to quote a few interesting figures to prove this. In 1931 the profits of the mines were £11,537,000, of this there was paid out in dividends £7,411,000, or 62 per cent. to shareholders in the Union. There was paid out to overseas shareholders, £1,870,000 to shareholders in England, and £2,256,000 to shareholders elsewhere, chiefly in France and America. The figures, therefore, prove that the hon. member was wrong in saying that the largest part of the shares belong to foreign shareholders. He also stated that the largest part of the inland shares belonged to people like the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) and Sir Abe Bailey. I have the statistics here of five of the biggest mines, and it appears from them that out of the 31,571 shareholders there were 24,655 persons who held less than 100 shares. The figures therefore clearly show that a considerable number of the shares belong to small shareholders, and not to the big shareholders, as the hon. member suggested. The question arises whether those extreme views that we heard here are in the interests of the people represented by the hon. member. I feel convinced that that is not the case. As the Minister of Labour said, that extreme attitude contributes to cause a conflict between the towns and the country. In the present circumstances it is especially a thing which it is very unsound to do. I think we ought to do everything in our power not only to get cooperation between political parties but also between all sections of the people, i.e., between the towns and the country. If we do not do so we shall destroy the object of coalition. If the towns and the country are forced into opposition towards each other the political fights of the past will only arise in a different form, and every sensible hon. member will agree with me that that is a thing which in the present circumstances we ought to try and avoid. Another point about which I want to speak briefly is unemployment. It has been said that the Government has not made a sufficiently large sum available for preventing unemployment. I think that criticism a little unjust. It proceeds from the view that the money which has been made available only amounts to £750,000. That is incorrect because we find that £532,000 is made available under the head of irrigation which will mainly he used for stopping unemployment. Then we find that £412,000 is proposed for afforestation, and this money also serves chiefly for combating unemployment. Then provision is made for £200,000 for housing. I assume that the largest part of this also is being used to reduce unemployment. The total of these amounts is about £2,000,000 which we consider as a direct contribution which is available to stop unemployment. In this I am not including the amount which is used by the railways to give work to people and apart from that the method of taxing the gold premium is calculated to give employment for a large number of people. Í think that the Government has indeed very thoroughly taken measures to stop unemployment, because, apart from the amounts which have directly been made available, unemployment will also be reduced by the policy in regard to the mines. I therefore want, to say that the Government has not neglected its duty, although it will possibly be desirable to vote more money. But we must bear in mind that the Government cannot make more available than is possible. Before I sit down I want to deal with a further point. Much criticism has unfortunately been made by hon. members from the towns on the assistance the Government is giving to the farmers. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) in particular stated that the Government was spoonfeeding the farmers. I can only say that the hon. member is apparently totally unaware of conditions on the countryside. A friend of mine who visited various districts in the Free State only a few weeks ago has described conditions to me which many hon. members would not be able to understand. He says that when one gets on to the farms the cattle come to you and bellow. They come to ask for food. I think that the hon. members who criticize in that way do not know the actual position. The hon. member pointed out that according to the trust companies 60 per cent. of the farmers were still meeting their obligations, and that they therefore could apparently still pay. But the hon. member forgets that the farmers are practically paying with their blood; they sell their necessities in order to fulfil their obligations. This is a matter which is more of an honour to the farmers than a reproach. I would like to ask the hon. member whether he, as an attorney, charges less for his services than what he demanded before the depression. His income has certainly not diminished.

He is protected by law.

Yes, he is protected by law. His income has therefore remained practically the same. Further, he should bear in mind the capital which is invested in his business. He has practically no cost of production, but all his income is practically pure profit. If he were to earn £100 a month and had to pay £110 in expenses we should very soon hear about it in this House. I feel that hon. members who talk like him do not understand the position of the farmers. I just want to repeat that I hope that those urban representatives will understand that they are not rendering the country any service by the attitude they are taking up.

This is a wonderful South Africa of ours! A few months ago we were up to the ears in debt, and there appeared no hope of the country being saved from financial disaster, when suddenly, with a turn of the hand, everything was altered, and we have become rich. How many countries are there in the wide world which can carry forward a reasonably good surplus? This, of course, is all the result of the premium on gold, and that that premium should be taxed, and heavily taxed, is equitable. But I don’t wish to discuss this question intimately. The hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) told us to-day that he, as an expert, was not quite clear about the new mining taxation, and I hesitate to rush in where experts fear to tread. Speaking merely as an observer—I hope I may say as a fairly intelligent observer—I should like to utter a warning, and that is that we must not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. The theory is that the rich man should be taxed for the sake of the poor. That is a theory with which I, as a medical man, can have no quarrel, for that is, how we frame our charges (or it is alleged that we do). We give cheap treatment to the poor. But practice does not always go hand in hand with theory, and this is one of the cases where I think theory has outrun practice. It would be alright if you could guarantee a return of 6 per cent. or 8 per cent. to anybody who puts money into mining ventures, but we cannot guarantee that. The average interest on Rand ventures is proved to be about 3 per cent. If a man makes more, is it wise to take away a great portion of his profits? If the public get a plum, is it wise to take away that plum in taxation? That sort of thing does not savour as much of taxation as of confiscation. I shall not dwell further on this subject, but I shall dwell for a moment on what has been said by other speakers. I am not very much exercized that the overseas man should be discouraged from investment in mining enterprises, but I am afraid he will be discouraged from investing in other enterprises. I have heard it said that a boom on the share market meant the acquisition of a few hundred thousand pounds more, by a few millionaires who already have more than they know what to do with. Confidence has increased as a result of the achievements of our gold mines, but I am afraid as the result of this taxation our reputation abroad may suffer, and confidence may be shaken and investors may divert their money to the Argentine, Brazil and other countries, rather than South Africa. The fact particularly that the rich mines are highly taxed may be an encouragement to the public to gamble: and, after all, it must be the object of the State to encourage its inhabitants to thrift, and to invest their money in sound ventures. As a result of the passing of this budget, and the putting into effect of this taxation, I am afraid people will be tempted to sell their solid investments, and purchase instead shares in speculative ventures which may never come to fruition. The object of the budget is to tax the rich man on behalf of the poor man, but the very opposite may result, and you may find that the small man is hit. You may have a boom in Johannes burg. I have seen a few booms, and I do not want to see more; the aftermath is terrible. In passing, may I say that I am delighted that the unfortunate farmer is to be assisted in his terrible—more than terrible—plight and I hope the plans of the Government to assist him will come to fruition. These plans have been made in all honesty of purpose to give relief to a class which deserves it, and I hope we will have, as a result, a happy farming population within a measurable distance of time. I see no evidence in the budget of the realization of the necessity for making provision for certain social measures, and when this country passes through a period of depression, I think we should consider what can be done in the way of social measures. There is one very important grant, known as the maintenance grant for children, and for the information of those hon. members who are not familiar with the working of these maintenance grants, I will explain that they are made in the case of children who are taken to an institution. The child is taken away from its mother and committed to an orphanage, the State paying the orphanage £2 per month for the maintenance of that child. If that sum were not paid, the orphanage could not take the child. Still better is what is known as a mother’s pension. A mother’s pension is a grant which is made to a woman who is left a widow and who has children. In the old days we would have taken those children away and put them in an orphanage, and the mother might go into service as a nurse, and look after our children. The newer view realizes that the mother is the person best able to look after her own children; and instead of sending them to an orphanage and having the mother earn her living, we pension the mother to keep them at home. That payment is made after enquiries have been made as to her suitability, and if it is found that she is suitable, she is paid to look after them. The highest sum put down for this was something like £151,000, but last year this sum was reduced to £124,000. The higher sum was barely adequate three or four years ago. I know formerly we need hardly turn away any mother nor refuse admittance of any child to an orphanage. But now, under present conditions, a very much larger sum would be needed. It would require at least £200,000; and instead of that it has been cut down to £124,000. That was the figure last year, and I am sorry to see that only the same figure appears in this year’s estimates. Ask the people who run any child institution in Johannesburg, Durban or any of the large cities, and they will tell you the distress at present is lamentable. We know of cases where a mother has taken to an immoral life because she says she must feed her children. A very small sum will put that right. If that is not done, the results are tragic. You have mothers driven into a state of destitution and driven to do all sorts of things, like illicit liquor selling, and the like, and you have the children driven into the gutter. A sum of £200,000 would probably meet our difficulty. Our expenditure on these estimates is £34,000,000, and I ask for £200,000, which is a mere flea bite in comparison; and I plead for every consideration from the Minister. The child life societies generally are doing the most admirable work. If it were not done by them, it would have to be done by the State, by paid officials. They do it free of charge. A very small grant is made. The local society for some years received only £100 towards the administration of maintenance grants. (I omitted to say that the grants are administered by the societies in the large centres.) They do all the investigation work, they pay out the cheques, and they act generally for the Government. The secretary of the Cape Town society tells me that the cost of these services for the Government is estimated at something like £200 a year, and that is a conservative estimate, but the grant received is only £100, now cut down by 12½ per cent. That is extremely unwise. Poor whiteism is one of our greatest problems. You cannot cure it after it has come about, you can only cure it by prevention. We have the National Council of Child Welfare. This is a body recognized by the Government, which was established to co-ordinate the child welfare movement throughout the Union. It does work of incalculable service to the community. It educates the public and the public needs educating in these matters. Trained women lecturers are sent all over the country to teach the mothers, and to develop a child welfare and hygienic sense. The Government grant, I am almost ashamed to say, is £200 per annum. Surely that is inadequate? Some day we shall have to have a department of social welfare, but that is a long way off, and if we develop and strengthen existing services, the need for a new and expensive department can be put off almost indefinitely. Then we have bodies in the large centres known as juvenile affairs boards. Throughout the ages, the school child has been cared for, and in recent years the infant has been cared for. The infant was recognized as a separate entity in England 60 or 70 years ago, as a result of the propaganda done by Charles Dickens, but it is only ten years ago that the need of the child leaving school was recognized. The juvenile affairs board was established to deal with the needs of the school leaver. These boards all over the country do the most admirable work. I know, because for four years, I have been chairman of the board in Johannesburg. The boards start with a small nucleus of paid people, and then there are a large number of men and women who give their services voluntarily. These boards have not one brass farthing of their own. I called on the Cape Town board this morning, to make quite sure of this. I said, “What would you do if you wished to spend a shilling?” The reply was, “We should have to write Pretoria, and await a reply”. Surely that is wrong? Surely it would not empty our exchequer if we allowed the large boards £100 a year and the small ones a lesser sum. Then there is the whole question of juveniles in urban areas. We have a large number of juveniles, male and female, earning their own livelihood, on a pittance, of course, and living under the most miserable conditions. Some years ago the juvenile affairs boards made a move for the establishment of hostels in the larger urban areas for these juveniles, and to our very pleasant surprise the Government of the day approved of the principle and offered to make a grant, but it was so ridiculously low that we could not accept it. In Johannes. I burg, we should have had to raise an additional £3,000 or £4,000 yearly. It is wrong. If you wish to avoid crime and delinquency, provide hostels for these children in urban areas. The whole question of hostels needs investigation. As things are now, for a very mild offence a boy has to go to a reformatory, and there he easily becomes a criminal. I shall never believe that a young child can be a criminal. He can commit a misdemeanour, but to believe him a criminal is not credible. But the boy who goes to a reformatory merely for a mis-demeanour, very often comes out after a year or two as a criminal. There arc hostels for these boys, two of them in Johannesburg, and they are very successful. A very large number of the boys have made good. I do submit that the reformatories should have a change of name. Boys from reformatories are stigmatized for life. At present the reformatories are under the Department of Prisons and they are run something like prisons. I plead that they be transferred to the Department of Education, and that could be done by a stroke of j somebody’s pen. Then there is the question of juvenile reform, and there is the question of probation officers. These probation officers do very good work in advising and guiding the child who comes from a reformatory, but they can do no preventive work. They tried to do it at one time and they were rapped over the knuckles because they were told they were officials of the Department of Prisons. May I refer to the whole question of public health? The Department of Public Health is grossly under-staffed. Above all the most crying need is the appointment of a woman medical officer of health whose sole duty it would be to deal with maternal mortality. Our maternal mortality rate is high, and a great deal could be done. The statistics we have only tell you the number who die in consequence of child birth; they tell you nothing about invalidity and about the thousands of mothers who are crippled for life from preventive causes. Then the whole question of hospitals is an anomalous position. Some are under Union, others under province. It is all wrong, they should all be under Union and managed from common headquarters. Now there is another peculiarity and that is that mental hospitals are under the Union, not under Public Health, but under the Department of the Interior; in consequence we find that very often the policy in regard to mental hospitals is dictated rather by considerations of economy than of health. It has been most difficult for some years to secure admittance for a patient into a mental hospital unless he was very bad and had become a menace to the general community. Then, of course, it was too late, whereas you can do a great deal for a person in an early stage of mental disease. We all know that there has been a depression, but some things are too expensive to run economically and public health is one of these. I should like to refer these matters to the attention of the newly-appointed provincial commission and ask that they give careful consideration to the various points, particularly to that of the complete reorganization of the Department of Public Health.

If it is not presumptuous on the part of a new member, I should like to commend the Government on the announcement which the Minister of the Interior made on Friday last. It had special significance for Natal. Coalitionists in that province were taunted that the Government would not carry out its undertakings in regard to a provincial commission. It is gratifying to find so early that our confidence has not been misplaced and more so that a broad view has been taken in the personnel and terms of reference. I believe an historical step has been taken towards rectification of a most fruitful source of past dissension, the system of over centralization with its deterrent effect on development of local government and undue concentration of power in the central Goverment. The Prime Minister some weeks ago expressed misgivings as regards Natal, he had every reason to do so, and we believe there was ample justification for our attitude. The balanced majority have, however, not sought to isolate themselves in this nation of which we are as proud, and as jealous for its preservation as any section, but have accepted the gesture of the Prime Minister as a happy augury for the future and will do all that is in our power to assist him to build a true structure of national unity. One in which no man shall be asked to forget or forswear the debt to his forefathers, but in which the already strong national consciousness, not confined to one common origin, will enable every individual to share on terms of equality participation in the citizenship of South Africa. Provincial matters are more concerned with domestic affairs, and a benign central authority does well not to make its presence too severely felt. For these reasons I welcome the manner in which the Government has thus far carried out its promise and I believe that it will with equal promptitude afford such relief to the pains of provincial domesticity as the commission may in due course indicate as the remedy. It is also gratifying to find that the Government welcomes criticism, that is surely an advance on old methods of parliamentary procedure when a member was dogged with the conception that his duty was to score points against his opponents. The varied criticisms may be mutually destructive but will afford a guide to those at the head of affairs since they have been proffered in a spirit of sincerity and helpfulness. Not unnaturally I find myself in close agreement with most of the criticism that has been levelled by urban representatives, but I do not feel that if the Government still adheres to its policy it is not my duty to vote against them. That I consider should be reserved for an occasion when I would be prepared to join in a majority vote, and that meantime I would be abusing the new order of things by adopting any such course. I can find no fault with regard to the proposals disposing of profits arising from the gold premium. In the absence of experience in the practical application, it seems to me the Government have equitably apportioned a windfall arising from national policy on lines that clearly establish the undeniable rights of the State, but does not discourage the mining industry to make greater efforts. It is well to remember that extremely generous provision has been made for development, and in ratio to the public spirit shown by the mines in enlarging the active sphere of the industry, so will their further contributions to national revenue be reduced. The country would probably be prepared to face the consequences of the benefit to the State having been over-calculated, if it resulted from increased activity in the industry. I believe the Government would do well to pay need to the suggestion of the hon. member for Roodepoort, and be slow to exercise restraint on expansion through the agency of Government officials. The application of the revenue which it is anticipated will be forthcoming—which we should remember may be very temporary in character —fills me with apprehension. It is undesirable that we should unduly emphasize the line of demarcation between the rural and urban communities. I believe that under the worst circumstances the poverty, distress and need of relief can never in rural areas compare with the despairing conditions of some of our town dwellers. I do not overlook that budgetary provision has been made to meet unemployment conditions, but there are a large number to whom such provisions mean positively nothing, whilst as to the rest, represent a departure from a civilized standard of living. We need a general stimulus, and I consider that the broad lines of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) would give better results. The lightening of the burden of indirect taxation would benefit not only the income tax payer, but also be of material assistance to those who count their income in shillings rather than in pounds. An alternative would be to apply the fortuitous revenues to loan redemption. Such treatment permanently lightens public debt charges with a consequential beneficial effect on the annual budget; and is a corrective to the fast growing tendency on the part of all authorities to burden posterity with what in many cases are to-day’s obligations. If the Government remains bound to the view that the true remedy for our ills lies in sectional relief, then I must say that their proposals have no settled principles or degree of certainty, and violate principles it is unwise to ignore. It is proposed to relieve a particular class of farmer, without regard to his necessity; and may, therefore, entirely miss many who may be in no less need of aid. The relief is, I understand, in some, cases to be at the direct expense of the creditor, that is, the one who does not reduce his interest to 5 per cent.—he is to be taxed the full amount of the surplus over 5 per cent. It might not have been so difficult to agree to a step that would have enforced universal reduction of interest—I do not suggest that it would be just —but we have already advanced so far on the lines of control of private enterprise and prices, that the proposal would cease to shock the most conservative. But to single out simply one class of lender has not the merit of a general principle that a special pleader might make some case for. The Government would do well to consider whether this proposal may not strike a devastating blow at the future prospects of farm finance. It is certainly likely to discourage the lending of money on the security of farm mortgages, and divert it to other channels. It is obvious that the price of money is coming down, but this measure of unscientific control is likely to adversely affect farming interests in the long run, and I believe that the largesse which the Government has temporarily at its disposal would be disposed of with better results for the community as a whole by reduction of indirect taxation. Whilst recognizing that budgetary provision has been made for unemployment, I do plead that the Government will when this House next assembles, place before us measures that will deal with it more comprehensively. Apart from the abnormal unemployment due to the present depression, we must recognize that there is the factor of normal unemployment. Neither aspect can be ignored, and our plans must not contemplate short periods of depression, but deal with this symptom of civilization as a permanent condition resulting from scientific advancement, and the increase in leisure inequitably distributed with disastrous results. Both the abnormal and the normal features must be catered for if the dictates of common humanity, let alone self interest, are to be heeded. I would prefer that this coalition Government should mark its term of office by the advancement it makes in these problems that have so seriously disturbed the economic relationships between citizen and citizen. I trust that they will use the recess fruitfully in this direction. The initiative properly lies with the Government, and it is to be hoped that they will not neglect it. If such should be the case, I am confident there are members of this House who will be prepared to force the pace and assume the initiative.

Notwithstanding my position on these cross-benches, I yield to no-one in my admiration of the spirit of coalition. I am one of those who looked forward with confidence to the first-fruits of the marriage between the two parties. I expected to find in this budget something that we should be glad to accept, but I am bound to say that I am grievously disappointed at what has been the outcome of the first large coalition measure. Representing, as I do, an urban constituency, occupied and in terested chiefly in industrial and commercial pursuits, I look in vain for any measure of relief for my constituents. I can imagine them last Wednesday looking with anxiety for relief from the very unfortunate and unhappy times they are passing through. Being intensely human, I can imagine them looking first for the results of the Irish sweep, and, failing to find relief there, looking hopefully at the budget and finding very little relief in that direction. A member of the Ministry has said that he views with dismay the possibility of a cleavage between town and country. In actual practice the relations between town and country have always been close and always must be so. Our interests are so interwoven that it would be stupid if any other attitude were adopted. A very practical instance of the sympathy existing between town and country can be shown. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) drew attention to the fact that a great many of the bonds held on farm properties are in the hands of trust companies, building societies and other organizations and institutions. I would go further, and remind the House that a great many of the shares of these institutions are held by small investors. During the past few years there have been unfortunately many applications for extension of time in which to pay, and in almost every case those small investors who depend for their livelihood upon their bond interest have cheerfully agreed to extensions of time being given, and have raised money through their bankers for which they have had to pay. They have shown a tangible and real proof of their desire to help the farming community, and I think without any doubt one can say that throughout this long time of depression the actual treatment meted out to the farming community by townsfolk who have been bondholders of farming property has been very far from that vampirelike procedure which has been pointed out; but on the contrary, that treatment has been kind, considerate and sympathetic, and that treatment has not merited the stigma of “bloodsucking vampires” and the like. There is no doubt that many tales that have been told in this House, such as by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Booth) are harrowing tales which I do not think for one moment have been overpainted. These people have suffered very heavily, and it is the real desire of every member of the urban communities to assist and to help them to the uttermost degree; but the urban communities resent indiscriminate relief being given to people who are honestly not in need of it, for it is ridiculous to suggest that everybody who has a bond is in such need. After all, for purposes of development and of expansion, there is no more sane method than raising money on property, provided the value of that property bears a certain relationship to the amount borrowed on it. Those who borrow money for development work, and are at present not in need of assistance, should not be helped. There are and must be obvious repercussions from this particular method, because already during the present times of trouble and depression when mortgages have been intermittently paid, a prejudice has been created against lending money on farming property. It is a definite fact that, where money is available for investment, it is handed over with the stipulation that it should not be invested in bonded property. Farmers who are looking for capital to help them along in farming ventures will find it extremely difficult in future to borrow money if there is no alteration made in these proposals. It seems to me an extraordinary state of affairs to state, as has been stated in this House, that the only people who have suffered are the farming community, and that the townsfolk in the mass have not suffered at all. The Minister of Labour has made a comparison between income tax paid by commerce and industry and the income tax paid by the farming community, but he has failed to tell you that in his figures relating to commerce are included all sorts and conditions of things which in any shape or form can be connected with commerce in any way whatever. The analogy is not a fair one. The commercial and industrial community has gone through a very bad time indeed—as bad comparatively as a large portion of the agricultural community. An aspect of the matter which has been overlooked is this: owing to the late financial policy of the late Government, industry was cut off from its markets, and they were times of the greatest stress for industrial concerns, when a great many of them, of which I have practical knowledge, had to go to the banks in order to tide them over their difficulties. To-day, when there is a possibility of a slight improvement, many industrial concerns are still crippled through the interest they have to pay on the amount they have borrowed to tide them over these difficulties, and they make no suggestion that they should not pay their interest; but they should like to take advantage of the possibility of buying raw material at a lower figure, and cannot do so because they have not the necessary money. They are totally unable to extricate themselves from the position in which they are, and it will take a great deal of improvement in business conditions before they will be able to get out of the mire and take their part in the development of this country, and give that employment which they should in normal circumstances. Industry is entitled to the sympathy of this House, the Government having embarked upon the policy which it did some years ago. Industry fulfils an enormous function in the employment of labour, and industry to-day is equally crippled with the farming community. The dweller in the urban districts has not been helped directly, but he can find comfort in this, that where industry expands and the greatest possible expansion is allowed for, it must mean the absorption of a great number of the unemployed; and in this connection I can refer particularly to the man who has been engaged in clerical and similar occupations and through no fault of his own finds himself in an extremely difficult position and forced to take on work which is not his usual work. He finds himself forced to go and do pick and shovel work, and his only hope of escape from an occupation rapidly making him lose his self-respect is some development throughout the country which will enable an absorption of men such as he, and that can only be brought about through the development of mining. He finds, however, that not only is there no help for him but the Government is robbing him of any chance he had through any such mining development. There is no doubt that the figures put before the House by the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé), are right and proper figures and can not be controverted. It was a great pity and I deplore it very much that some petty prejudice prevented the hon. member from going on with a dissertation which was of immense interest to the House. He was putting before the House figures and facts which are indisputable. He took the trouble this afternoon to have an analysis made by an actuary of three different mines and these cases worked out at a percentage of profit actually taken under this scheme of 69 per cent., 70 per cent. and 71 per cent. Those figures are absolutely correct. It is use less attempting to make the country believe that that this is to be a division on a fifty-fifty basis. There is no question that the country is taking 70 per cent., leaving the mines with only 30 per cent. Right through the country people have been hoping for mining expansion and development in order to solve the unemployment question and to give relief in every direction. They will find now, I submit, that that chance has definitely been lost under the present methods. There is no one who is going to find fault with the measures of relief applied to the farming industry, but whether they are the best ones is extremely problematical. Whether they will produce the desired effect I do not know. I think the same amount of money might have been better spent in a different manner. From the point of view of dwellers in urban areas, if some gesture had been made by the Government to show some appreciation of their position, something on the lines suggested by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson), the remission of the stamp duties that were imposed last year, a reversion to penny postage, some relief through the customs tariff on matters not affecting our industrial programme but which would take some of the burden off the taxpayers—I believe if this had been done this budget would have had a much happier and much more welcome reception than has been the case. I believe the Government will realize that the criticisms levelled at this budget have been made in the best faith and with the idea of being helpful. There is no one who has ever suggested any lack of good faith on the part of the Government, but you know what road it is that is paved with good intentions. I suggest that if the Government will bear in mind the criticisms which have been levelled on this occasion they will, when they bring in their next budget, endeavour not to legislate exclusively for the benefit of one section but they will endeavour to alleviate the burden for the whole community. In that case, instead of only one section of the community rejoicing, the whole community will rejoice and the Government will show themselves worthy of the great trust reposed in them by a very sympathetic public. I believe the Government will rise to the occasion and will prove themselves really worthy of the wonderful response the country gave them at the last election.

The hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) drew a difference between the principle of the budget and the details of its application. The principle of the budget, as I understand it, is a special tax on the gold mines on one side of the account, and special grants of assistance to the farmers on the other side. When the Minister of Finance announced the budget as a national budget, which was rendered possible by the existence of the national Government, I, and, I think, many others, together with me, assumed that there was not the least doubt that the principle of the budget would receive the whole-hearted support of members of the two parties represented in the Government. When, in addition, the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. H. Reitz), on behalf of his party, gave his support to the principle of the budget it really looked as if everything was rose-coloured, and moonlight. It was, therefore, more of an astonishment and a surprise to me and I think to many others to find that certain prominent members in the House, members who are supposed really to be at the back of the Government, attack the principle of the budget and describe it as an unjust transfer of wealth from one section of the people to the other. I think this makes it necessary that those of us who support that principle will make ourselves heard and let the Government understand that we think that in the step it has taken the Government has the full confidence and support of the great majority in the House and the country. The starting point of the budget is simply an acknowledgment of the fact that we are passing through a very abnormal time, a time of economic disturbance. Such a disturbance does not mean that the wealth of the world has diminished; it means a disturbance of the distribution of wealth, and of economic relations. Then it happens, as in this case, that one section of the people suffers severely, and that, out of those very disturbances of economic relations, unprecedented profits are made by another section. That is exactly the present position. There is no doubt that the farming population has suffered severely. The figures quoted by the Minister of Labour this afternoon as to the drop, in the value of produce surely make that clear. The hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) showed that debts incurred by the farmers at a time when the price of produce was high were necessary. They had to do so because farming cannot go on without ground. They had to buy the ground at high prices, and have to pay interest on the money to-day. They were obliged to incur that debt to keep the great industry of the country going, and to-day they have to find the interest on that money which was raised at that time. This simply cannot be done. On the other hand, we find that, by good fortune, we have in this country an industry which has not only not curtailed its profits during the depression, but more than doubled them in the depression when we quitted the gold standard. We know that their product, gold, is sold at 40 per cent. higher than in December. The rise has meant that most mines are making 400 to 500 per cent. more profits than before. When a disturbance like that comes about in our economic system, one that most people could not foresee, then we say that the State is not worthy to be called an organized State if it does not say that it should assist to bring about more equality. It is a disaster which has been suffered by that section of the population, a calamity which is equivalent to a drought, a washaway or an earthquake. If such a thing happens to a section of the population then we do not say that that section of the population must manage as best they can, we give help. The position of the farmers is that a calamity has befallen them in consequence of the disturbance that has come in our economic position, and it is a calamity which is not confined to our country, but which has in most countries of the world created a position which necessitated intervention by the Government to assist the farming population by trying to restore more equality. We see that the Government are doing this in America. I read the other day that in Japan there was a proposal before the Parliament to take over a part of the debt of the farmers. In South Africa we are fortunate enough to have the gold-mining industry which, when other businesses in the country are being ruined, and are suffering severely owing to the depression, are making unprecedented profits. The position is that even now, after the taxation on the gold mines was announced, gold shares still stand at a level which means that most of them are double the price that they were last. December. If, in addition to that, we find that people in our country lie awake at night because they do not know what will become of their wives and children, and we find that at the same time there is an industry which merely through circumstances and without any intervention on their part, doubles the wealth of its shareholders, is it such a terrible thing if the Government says that it should contribute something to make the burden lighter for those who have been suf fering severely in this time? South Africa would not be worthy of being called an organized State if it did not do something in that direction, if nothing were done for the suffering section of the population. If the Government simply said it could do nothing, then we should be facing a future when our children after two generations would all be socialists. I am not a socialist, but we surely feel that the capitalistic system cannot be exploited in such a way as to cause one section to be impoverished and exploited while another section lives in luxury. In these abnormal conditions the Government should say that even if it has on the one hand to take from the gold mines it surely must rescue the industry which is being ruined, viz., farming. The actual amount which is being taken I do not want to say anything about, other, hon. members have already dealt with it. The Government says that it wants to take a reasonable sum. Further, the Government takes up the attitude that it wants to tax the mines in a way that will encourage them to continue working low-grade ore so that the life of the industry can be extended for the benefit of the whole country and of the industry itself, and in order that it may assist us in this critical time to give work to more labourers. Provided those principles are maintained I think the Minister of Mines is prepared to receive representations from the mines as to the actual incidence of the tax. This is an entirely fair attitude, and I am, therefore, going on to another side of the matter, viz., the help which is being given to the farmers. As to the amount involved in it I do not want to speak. The first point I want to mention is the application of the scheme of the Government in order to reduce the interest on bonds of farmers. It is a step in the right direction. I, as well as other hon. members, discussed the Van der Horst scheme everywhere during the election, and it was much welcomed by the population. I think, with the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal), that the scheme of the Government was presumably inspired by the publication of the Van der Horst scheme. The two schemes differ on two important points. Dr. van der Horst in his scheme tried also to protect the mortgagee. That is a thing which is not in the Government scheme. The Van der Horst scheme provides for a gradual reduction of interest received by the mortgagee instead of the sudden reduction appearing in the Government scheme. In the second place, he provided that the mortgagee, who was not able to allow his money to remain on mortgage in the new circumstances, could get it back. Those are two things we should have liked to have had so far as it is possible. The way the Government scheme works out it may be detrimental to the mortgagee. The sudden reduction of interest might affect certain mortgagees, like the trust companies, who borrow money at a fixed rate of interest, and then place it out on mortgage at a high rate. The interest they get on the bonds is brought down to five per cent., but their obligations remain the same. There are people who have bonds on farm properties, and it is stipulated in the bond that it cannot be called up for a long time. It is often stipulated that the mortgagee will not call up the bond within five or ten years. The interest on those bonds is now reduced, but, nevertheless, the mortgagee cannot call up his money. These are anomalies which the Van der Horst scheme would have avoided. If, then, we once more look at the position of the farmers then that scheme gives them security in the future, and they can base their calculations on it. They not only know what their position will be this year, but for a whole period in the future. According to the Government scheme, assistance is given to them for one year and we do not know what will happen after that. It depends on circumstances, and the farmer cannot go to work with the certainty which he could have done if the Van der Horst scheme were applied. We know how uilspiel (the “fool” in the story) wanted to buy a feather bed and first tried the thing by sleeping on one feather. He then argued that as one feather made such a hard bed, how hard would not a thousand feathers be. There are possibly a few defects in this scheme which can be obviated if the Van der Horst scheme is adopted in its entirety, while a portion of it will possibly lead to difficulties. On the other hand, I must admit that it would impose a very great task on the Government, and the Minister of Finance has told us that the plan is impracticable. That is his position. We, however, feel very grateful for the big step the Government has taken in the right direction; we feel the relief that is being given is necessary and it will be much appreciated. Help to the farmers under present conditions means helping the whole country. We cannot divide the several sections in the country into watertight compartments. The position we are in to-day is such that if something is not done now in connection with the debts of the farmers, then there will be insolvencies shortly on such a scale that the solvent man will be drawn down into ruin along with the insolvent. The people who have mortgages over farm property waited because it was not worth the trouble to foreclose on the farmer’s property, but they are waiting until times improve. The market value of the farm is so low to-day that they do not touch them. But the farmer’s position is such that he says that he must work to-day without being able to make the interest, but as soon as times improve the mortgagee will come and take his farm. That will happen if something on a large scale is not done, and it will react on all sections of the population. I now come to a few points in connection with the application of the Government’s scheme, the way in which they want to distribute the money now available. I want, firstly, to express my satisfaction that it is the intention to bring farming in the municipal areas also under the scheme. This is very necessary because people there are in the same trouble as those outside municipal areas. I see from the newspaper that the Minister said that they would also come under the scheme, and I hope the statement is correct, and that the Minister will confirm it. In villages, such as Bonnievale, e.g., which consist practically entirely of small farms, the people are certainly having just as bad a time in all respects as the farmers living on the large farms. Now the following which I want to bring to the notice of the Government is possibly a small matter, but there are people who are affected by it; I refer to the position of people who have obtained loans under the Land Settlement Act of 1912. It is true that they have benefits under the Act, e.g., that they can pay off in the course of 40 years, and have obtained the land beforehand for a few years at a low rent to work it, but, nevertheless, the price of their produce has dropped just the same as that of other farmers, but they have to pay four per cent., while the Government is trying to bring down the interest on other bonds to 3½ per cent. The Government is now able to obtain money at a lower rate of interest. I trust the Minister concerned will consider the advisability of assisting those people as well, and will also give them relief by bringing down the interest to 3½ per cent., at least for the time the other farmers are geting relief. Then there is the debt of £120,000 of grain co-operative societies to the Land Bank, which the Government proposes to cancel. I understand the intention of the Minister of Agriculture is only to use the money to settle the debt which is actually owing to the Land Bank. But the co-operative societies incurred the debt in various ways. Some borrowed the money from the Land Bank, others from the commercial banks, and others again, and it is these I am thinking about more particularly, are indebted to the farmers themselves. There are co-operative societies, e.g., which have advanced the farmers 10s. on their wheat, and subsequently sold the wheat for 15s. or 17s. 6d., and the societies still hold the difference. The societies have suffered great losses in other ways, and of what use is it cancelling the debt to the Land Bank when they are left with their debts to the farmers? It is unfair that the co-operative societies who borrowed everything from the Land Bank should be assisted fully in that way and the societies who borrowed from the commercial banks should get less assistance, and that those who have shown the most selfdependence and have borrowed from each other should not be assisted at all. I want to ask the Minister to give effect as much as possible to a resolution of a conference of co-operative societies held a few weeks ago, i.e., to cover all losses of the grain co-operative societies. One would like to see the money to be obtained from the mines used for the permanent improvement of the agricultural industry, because that is surely the most important thing in the future. Our agriculture is, in many respects, in such a position that it finds it very difficult to compete with other parts of the world, and we would prefer to see the assistance being given to agriculture by way of permanent help such as irrigation works, and work which will make transportation cheaper and more efficient. To a certain extent that is actually done in this budget, but assistance should be given where the need is great. When a patient has fever then the fever must first be reduced before he can be fed. I also think that the Government has done the right thing in first of all relieving the mortgage burden. Then in connection with the railways, I would like to deal with the way in which attempts are made on the countryside by representatives of the railways to apply the Road Transportation Act. So far as I can see, the object of the railway representatives in many cases was to have as many restrictions by the Road Transportation Board as possible in order to get more revenue for the railways without enquiring at the same time whether the small increase of railway revenue would not possibly mean a large loss to the people on whom the restrictions were applied. That was, e.g., the case with the restriction on the transportation of must. I do not want to enlarge upon it, but everybody who knows the industry knows that it is very difficult for the farmers to deliver the must on time according to their turn without it going sour. But that is not borne in mind by the railway representatives. The result has, therefore, been that there is a strong agitation against the Road Transportation Act on the countryside, although that Act has certainly many good points. The railway representatives ought to try to see both sides, and not to allow a small profit to the railways to outweigh the great loss to the people on whom the restriction is laid. While the farming industry is suffering generally under great difficulties the wine industry is one which is not only suffering its share to-day of the general trouble but in addition it has to struggle against taxation and legislation which is extremely unsympathetic. This is not the time to talk about it but we can surely expect, e.g., that the people to whom I have referred should be met. I believe the principle of the budget will be heartily supported by the farming population, but the budget is also entitled to the support of the sections of the population who are possibly not directly but yet indirectly interested in the welfare of the farming population. I see from to-day’s papers that there have been meetings in Johannesburg protesting against the schemes of the Government, and as a matter of fact under the protection of one of the parties that has helped to nut this Government in office. That is a thing we all deplore. Our farmers could surely expect something better. The whole principle of the budget is one which ought to receive full support of all members in the House.

I am afraid that I shall probably be an exception to the rule in this budget debate in that I am not able to throw many bouquets to the Government responsible for introducing this budget. This budget, I venture to say, is only a farmers’ budget. And why has it become a farmers’ budget? It is to my mind a sop given to the farmers for the support they gave to the last Government. Had the previous Government not had the support of the farmers’ representatives, they would have been driven off the gold standard long before they were. The farmers had something to look forward to for their support of the last Government, and the coalition Government are handing a large sum over to the farmers for the support they gave their predecessors in office. This is borne out by the remarks made by the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Malan) to-day, when he stated that if a purely Nationalist Government had been in power the budget they would have brought in would have been the same as this budget. The budget now before the House, he said, very largely carries into effect what was in the minds of the former Government. I venture to say that the hon. member for Calvinia was quite correct when he made those remarks. I come from a constituency where there are no farmers, and the electors of Greyville are looking forward to the Government doing something for them as well as for other sections of the community. When I go back to Greyville, and they ask me what has been done for them through the budget, the only reply I shall be able to give—other members will be in the same position when they return to their constituencies—will be that the farmers are the only people who have been directly helped by the coalition Government’s budget. I can see that no good will come to any other districts in South Africa but the farming districts through the present budget. The budget gives assistance only to a section of the community when South Africa is entitled to a budget which would benefit all sections of the community. There has been a tremendous amount of criticism of the budget, particularly as it applies to the gold mines, and before it passes there will be a lot more criticism which should be helpful to the Government, and which should enable them to see that the whole country is crying out for some alleviation of the terrible plight in which it finds itself. I don’t think that the fact that the farmers have been helped prior to the introduction of this budget entitles them to receive help again. When the people of the district I come from see that a matter of £4,000,000 is going to be devoted to the assistance of the farmers, they also will look for assistance for the industrial districts. I am afraid there will be a tremendous amount of disappointment throughout the country when this session ends, and when all that members can do will be to go back to their constituencies and tell the people that the farmers are being assisted but that there is no assistance for the relief workers, and that nothing is being done for the unemployed throughout South Africa. To my mind the question of unemployment is one of the prinicipal things that should receive attention in this House. I would like to have heard a little more from hon. members, and particularly from the Natal members, in regard to the help being given to the farmers, and the sugar farmers as well. If an enquiry were made as to why farming does not pay in South Africa, as to why the farmers are always in debt, and as to whether it will ever be possible for them to compete in the world’s markets, it would go a long way to eventually bring about the salvation of agriculture in South Africa. I cannot see how it is going to help the farmers if we are continually getting them out of their financial troubles. There are other people who are deserving of some assistance. We find that the industrialists throughout the country, even the gold mines until quite recently, have been in a very terrible state, but we don’t find tremendous subsidies being given to the industrialists or to any section of the community other than the farmers. I think that if there were some enquiry into the conditions of farming, and as to why the farmers arc always in difficulties, it would go a long way towards helping the Government in future to arrive at some solution of the agricultural problem.

Why don’t you become a farmer?

I would not object to taking up farming, as farmers are the only people who are likely to get any real assistance from this Government in the future, and if we get into financial difficulty and trouble we could always have a fatherly Government to look after us to get ns out of it. But industrialists have nothing to look forward to in that direction. This premium has been taken away from the gold mines to help the farmer alone, and there is no guarantee that in the near future this premium will continue. It is merely a gamble. Another matter which may very easily unset this premium is the world monetary conference that will take place in the near future, and which may very easily decide that silver should take a very prominent part again as a means of exchange. Today there is approximately one-quarter of the world which has a silver currency, and there is nothing to prevent the conference deciding that gold take a secondary place and that some other form of exchange is used as well as gold. There is the other side of the question in regard to these vast sums of money coming from the gold mines, and that is that they could have been put to better use through other channels than through this one channel of helping the farming community. If a large portion of this money had been set aside for a national insurance scheme I venture to say it would do much more good than the way in which it has been allotted. The vast majority of the people of South Africa are crying out for some alleviation of the unemployment which is rampant in our midst, and I feel sure that the whole of our towns are looking forward to some measure of relief with regard to this, and they will be greatly disappointed when they find that no relief has come forward through the budget. There are the relief workers who were looking forward to some assistance from the Government this session, but we shall find the session finish in a matter of a few weeks, and the relief workers will be left to the end of the year without any hope of getting any relief or support whatever. So I venture to say that this budget will be received by the masses of the people of South Africa as a “thank you for nothing” budget. They will be greatly disappointed when this House rises to find that nothing has been done for the unemployed at all.

I find it is the usual thing when an hon. member rises to address this House on the first occasion, or like myself, to address it after being absent for three or four years, to do so in fear and trembling. I think that fear and trembling would be greater if one had to get back to his division on the Witwatersrand. I think, in listening to the majority of the speeches on the budget very attentively, that I am reminded of a story I heard in England when I was last there. Two men were shooting, one of whom was a farmer and the other a miner, and they decided to divide the spoils. The story goes that they shot two birds, one a pheasant and the other a crow. The farmer said “I take the pheasant and you will take the crow” or “you take the crow and I will take the pheasant”; but somehow or other, said the miner, “the crow comes to me.” That is how the budget appears to me. The farmer is likely to come out on top on every occasion. When coalition was suggested on the Witwatersrand, it was expected that the mining industry would be developed and expanded. There are many men who have been walking the streets for the past two years or so looking for work daily, and it seems to me that these men are going to be sadly disappointed. In Johannesburg there are hundreds of business men who are on the verge of bankruptcy, and who also anticipated better times in connection with the coalition government. I can heartily agree with the hon. member on my left who spoke this afternoon—that although the mining industry was going to be taxed very heavily they would be inclined to treat the matter lightly and go full speed ahead. I think I can say that after all, the mining community and residents of the Transvaal are always considered to be large-hearted people. I hope they will prove on this occasion that mining will not be retarded and it will proceed in the way anticipated. I can say in connection with the Minister of Mines that when he was appointed to the Cabinet he was considered a very strong man possibly in the interests of the mining people, hut I am afraid he has fallen to the charms of Delilah in the Minister of Finance. I hope he will forgive me making that remark. With the Minister’s great ability, there is a possibility that after hearing the debate on mining, he might be able to bring the figure from 15 millions down to 10. If he is able to do that, I can assure him that he will have conferred a great boon on the mining industry of the Witwatersrand. I just want to support what the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. Reitz) has said in connection with this budget. She referred to it as a socialistic budget. That is true, but unfortunately, up to now, there is only one class of people it is going to benefit. The people on whose behalf I am taking up the cudgels are all the people connected with the mining industry. May I express the hope that when the next budget is introduced, the phthisis miner and his dependants, especially widows and orphans, will be catered for in the same way as the farmers are catered for in this budget. I know the Minister of Mines will bear me out in this respect because he resides in Johannesburg. It is a well-known fact that the widows of many phthisis sufferers have borrowed sums of money in connection with their homes and are paying large rates of interest. What is wrong with extending to the widows of these men next year the same facilities regarding redemption of interest which the farmers are to get now? I also take up the cudgels on behalf of a large number of men who are phthisis sufferers and who have only their pensions to live on. There are hundreds of these people on the Witwatersrand to-day who have borrowed money on their houses just the same as the farmer has borrowed money on his farm. I hope that steps in that direction will be taken next year to relieve these people in the same way as the farmer is being relieved by the reduction of interest on mortgage bonds. There has been a suggestion made and it is one which has been made by myself that out of this large amount of wealth which we are supposed to have at our disposal, a contribution should be set aside in future to cover exceptional phthisis cases. I am going to suggest to the acting Minister of Finance that he starts with a substantial sum to deal with these cases, cases which no Act of Parliament will ever cover. They are there to be dealt with and many of them are cases of extreme hardship. I know of no better way of carrying out the socialistic plan we have begun than to deal with some of these very urgent and necessitous cases. There are large numbers of mechanics and other workers on the mines who have to take their annual leave when it is due. In this budget considerable relief is given to farmers by way of railway facilities and I appeal to the Minister to give railway facilities to the ordinary mine workers when they take their annual leave. Being in the position that he has to take his holiday when it is due, such a man has to pay the full railway fare for himself and his family. I am going to ask the Minister to extend excursion facilities to the ordinary mineworkers when their holidays fall due, so that we shall be socialistic in our ideas and give everyone a little bit of the large amount of money which is distributed to the farmers. In going through the Estimates I was disappointed to see the small amount set aside for the establishment of industry. In Johannesburg, where I have been a member of the city council for some years, we have set aside a sum for the establishment of industry, but since this House brought into force the Japanese treaty, there has been practically no demand for these industrial sites. In Johannesburg our university, our trades schools, our technical institutes are every year turning out hundreds of pupils trained for industry. Apparently we have no industry for these pupils to be engaged in; we have no occupations and no vocations. That is a state of affairs that the Government should remedy. I know of no better way than by the revision or complete abolition of both the Japanese and German treaties. It is well known that the stuff coming in from Japan might be called shoddy and as long as we give facilities for its importation, there is no nope of establishing industries in our country. I do not know whether the acting Minister of Justice is here, but I want to draw attention to a very serious state of affairs in the suburbs of Johannesburg, and that is the large number of drunken natives who are a disgrace to any white civilised country. The state of affairs that can be witnessed there any week-end is a blot on the administration of the country. I can assure him if that state of affairs is not remedied when this House meets again, I shall be on my feet and to use a common expression I shall give him a good “choking off.” Another thing which the Minister of the Interior should be interested in is the need which exists for a deaf and dumb institute on the Witwatersrand. It is appalling to know of the great number of children suffering in that way. These poor unfortunate children have to be sent as far away as Worcester. I hope that the Minister of the Interior will give serious attention to that so that that state of affairs may be remedied. Then I want to bring another matter to the notice of the Minister of Education. In Johannesburg we have a very fine trade school, but unfortunately, from the working man’s point of view, heavy fees have to be paid for a boy to get his training at that school. In the Transvaal we have free secondary education where the children of the wealthy classes can get the finest education that the State can give them, and it is given free, but when the child of the working man wants to get an ordinary training for two years at a trades school, his father and mother have to pay very heavily for it. That state of affairs I hope will also be remedied. Now with regard to unemployment, I believe that the Government are going to do all they possibly can. Some of the experiences that I have had in connection with unemployment have been very sad indeed, and if the Minister of Labour had seen some of the cases which I had to attend to, I am sure he would speed up the work as much as possible and that something would be done to relieve these unfortunate out-of-works. Then I want to say a few words to the Minister of Public Works. I believe that there is some slight curtailment in his vote. Now there are large numbers of mechanics out of work, and I am going to plead with the Minister to do all he possibly can to expedite his public works programme, so that he may be able to find work for many of those who are unemployed to-day.

On behalf of my constituency I would also like to bring my quota of gratitude to the Government for the way farmers have been assisted in those parts. I want to assure the Government that although in Bechuanaland we expected what we have already learned on the delivery of the budget speech we yet in those parts expect considerably more than what was held out to us in that speech. I also want to congratulate the Government on the astute way in which it kept the taxation measures as well as those for assisting the farmers such a particularly good secret that the country did not hear of it before it was announced in this House. Years ago a great English politician and statesman said that coalition could not be a good coalition unless the members of the Government coalesce. Very well, if we apply the test to the secret keeping by the Government then I say there is good coalition on the Government benches and that we may cherish great expectations for the future. I want to say my few words especially as I am a representative of a farming district in connection with farming interests. As there is a tendency to expect that the concessions to farmers do not consist particularly out of interest payments, but also out of capital payments, I think that sound business principles demand that a man should not be called upon to-day to pay off capital, but should only be called upon to fulfil his absolute immediate obligations, instead of paying off capital. A good business man does not say that he will rather pay off his capital, if he has none, than his interest. I want to make it clear that we think that when provision is being made to-day for interest payments that is as much as our farmers can expect. I cannot associate myself with the statement that farmers can be expected to-day to reduce their capital debts. I want to suggest to the Government that when our farmers are in a better position the Government should then advise them to fulfil their capital obligations. As for the assistance, I would like to point out to the Government that as provision is being made in the budget for the taking over of certain bonds by the Land Bank where the mortgagee is not prepared to allow the bond to continue at the reduced rate of interest, that there are complaints in the country that the Land Bank is very slow in assisting the farmers when they make applications. Particularly was this so in connection with the relief which was given to farmers some time ago by the Government, that many farmers were ruined, because the machinery created for the purpose was too slow when the farmers applied for assistance to give it to them before they were summoned. I hope the Government will ask the Land Bank in a friendly way to give assistance as quickly as possible when application is made for it. I am also very glad that the Government is prepared to meet the people in relation to the joint and several liability to the agricultural credit associations. It was a great grievance among the farmers that they could not assume the debts in their entirety when they always had to bear the joint liability. At the time when the Minister of Finance introduced this Bill in 1926 he himself said that he only considered it an experiment because he did not think that those credit associations would be a success. I want to point out that as the Minister is now making provision here for the abolition of the joint and several liability he himself admits that the associations have not been a success. We are, therefore, glad that the joint liability will no longer continue, but that everyone will be separately liable for his own share. We therefore look forward to still greater concessions in this connection, and I hope the Government will not wait long in giving those further concessions to members of the associations. I also especially welcome the decision of the Government to assist the farmers in making small dams. It is a thing we have long looked forward to. I hope the Government will assist the farmers in such a way that these dams will be a success. I think that we shall all be glad about this step because our flood water as in the past has been lost without it being possible to use it. But I would also like to hope that when the Government brings that system into force and carries it out practically they will give the necessary technical information to the farmers so that they will not make failures of it, but will make proper provision for the conservation of flood water. It is said again now that the Government should give attention to the Schwartz scheme, and that it should appoint a commission to investigate it. I think, however, that the Government had better continue with the scheme of making, smaller dams for farmers, which would be much better for the country than to spend money at this time on a large scheme like the Schwartz scheme. I hope the Government has learnt its lesson with the great water conservation dams, like the Hartebeestpoort dam and others, and that the Government now realises that it is not the best thing to make such big dams in South Africa to conserve water, but that it is much better to build smaller dams than to incur expenditure in connection with such a large matter as the Schwartz scheme of which we hear so much. I would also like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture for providing for the probationary lessees to help them through with small amounts for buying better breeding stock. It was said in the past that those small amounts were not adequate, and that the farmers did not get sufficient value for the money they spent in buying stock. It was said that the condition was imposed that a person had to buy ten animals for the £40 he got. He could possibly have got more than ten for the £40, but he was not allowed to do so. He could buy no more than three. I think that that was not right, and I am glad that the conditions of this availability will be more elastic so that the people will be able to get more value for the money they spend. I would also like to express our gratitude for the sum of £20,000 on the estimates for preventing stock diseases. I note specially that mention is made of the prevention of foot and mouth disease so that it cannot enter the country. I notice that more than £12.000 is being spent on police work in connection with stock diseases. I believe their duty will be to guard the frontier in the northern areas of the Union, so that the disease cannot be introduced from the Protectorate. I would like to suggest to the Minister who is entrusted with this work under the estimates, that if he wants to prevent this disease properly then he ought to consider whether we cannot get Bechuanaland incorporated into the Union. As things stand today, Bechuanaland is a hotbed of vermin as well as stock disease. If the Government sees a possibility of fighting this awful disease, one that is especially dangerous to us now that we are commencing the export of chilled beef, I want, to express the hope that the Government will seriously consider whether it is not time to have Bechunaland incorporated in the Union. I also want humbly to suggest to the Government in relation to this disease that the prevention of foot and mouth disease should not be one which the farmer exclusively is expected to fight at his own expense. We admit that the Government is spending much money and that the Minister of Agriculture is sympathetic, but there are things which the farmer has to do at his own expense for the prevention of the disease, although he is doing a national work. The farmers are fighting that disease throughout the whole Union, and I want to suggest that the Government should deal with the matter on principle just as the provincial administrations do with the eradication of vermin. It should be considered a national matter for which the treasury should pay, and the people should not be expected to do it at their own expense. The Minister of Agriculture is very sympathetic towards our farmers, and I am glad to admit that he is once more taking steps to ascertain what the actual grievances of the farmers in those parts are, and when he has learned them I believe that he will be prepared to remove them and to satisfy the farmers. I would further like to suggest to the Government that in these days when there is such a great demand for grazing for animals attention should be given to the areas I come from. The Karoo and farmers ask the Government to supply fodder for their animals because they are in such a poor state that they cannot walk by themselves, and the Government is not able to do so. I now want to suggest that in my parts, where there is still a good deal of grass, water should be obtained, because the difficulty is that although there is grass there is no water for the animals. Instead of considering whether food can be supplied to the people it will be better to put down more boreholes, and people from other parts of the Union can then be assisted in Bechuanaland and in other parts where there is still grass. In that way the difficulties of many can be solved. Then there is another matter we hear much about in this House, viz., the export of chilled beef. There is a big market overseas, and we have the necessary stock. I therefore believe that the Government will do its best to make a success of the export of chilled beef. The complaint is made, however, that the taking of the cattle to the slaughter poles where the meat is chilled leads to great trouble. The cattle are put on rail in good condition, but they have to be carried long distances in trucks and trains which are not properly equipped, or suitable, and when they arrive at the places where the chilling takes place then the transportation and the offloading are not well done and there are bruises on the animals which make a large part of the meat unsuitable for export. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether special measures cannot be taken to provide better transport to Cape Town and Johannesburg where provision is made for chilling. Then I am a little disappointed that no concessions have been made to the settlers insofar that their interest due to the Government is not lowered. I believe, however, that the Government has not finally decided and that it will yet meet those people also, because I cannot see the difference between the farmer who has passed a bond to pay for his farm and the man who has obtained land under a contract of lease on a land settlement. While the former is assisted and has only to pay 3½ per cent. interest it is in my opinion not right that settlers should still have to pay 4½ per cent. Then I want to say just a word in connection with the amounts on the loan estimates for telephone extension. I notice that £400.000 is fixed for extensions in urban areas, and only the small amount of £2,000 for telephone extensions on the countryside. When we know that that small sum could be spent in a district like Bechuanaland alone we realise that it is not right to put down such a small amount for this purpose for the whole country. I want to suggest that the Government in making pro vision for such services should give more attention to the needs of the outside districts. I see under this vote that office equipment in the towns no less a sum than £2,200 has been provided. That is for the towns where possibly an old kind of equipment which is still quite serviceable existed, while for the far-off areas no provision at all is made. These towns also might have waited a little for their modern furnishing until those country areas had first been provided with absolutely necessary lines. As we live long distances from the villages it is, e.g., a great inconvenience in case of sickness for the farmers to have to go a long way to the village, while in the towns the doctor lives quite close by; one is only to go to the telephone. I, therefore, think it is unfair not to even look after the countryside. As for the provincial commission, I also want to congratulate the Minister of the Interior on the small number of individuals he has appointed, and on the staff he has appointed, because it is a good commission, and I think they will do good work to judge by their work in the past. I am only sorry that more is not said in the terms of reference about an enquiry into the system itself. I think it is very desirable to bring about an alteration in the provincial system, by which the provincial councils will do more work and less politics.

What did you do yourself in that respect?

Yes, that is unfortunately the present system, and politics are unavoidable. As for the executive committees on one of which I sat myself until recently, I consider that the work, especially in the Cape Province and the Transvaal, has so increased that part-time members cannot do it. I also hope that the finding of the commission will show that in some provinces there is so much work that full-time executive council members ought to be appointed. Then I am sorry to see that special mandate has not been given to the commission for a revision of the provincial boundaries. I think that would be advisable, and there is provision in the constitution for such an alteration, and the commission would be able to enquire to what extent the boundaries could be altered. There are parts of the Cape Province which could conveniently and advantageously be put into other provinces, as e.g., the Transkei into Natal, and I think that it would be an advantage to the provinces concerned. I also think that part of the Cape Province could be attached to the Free State, e.g., a part like Griqualand West, which naturally and historically belongs to the Free State. I think that the provincial commission on enquiry would find that some changes of this kind would be convenient and advantageous.

What about Bechuanaland?

Yes, Bechuanaland’s position which actually belongs to the Transvaal could also be enquired into. Why have we, e.g., who live 200 miles from Pretoria to go 800 miles to Cape Town in connection with our affairs? I am sorry that the Minister has not put a thing like this in the terms of reference to the commission. I will not detain the House any longer. I just want to say this to the Government that I would like to see our officials satisfied. I would like to ask the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he will not seriously consider giving our officials on the railways, whatever their grievances may be, the opportunity of having those grievances considered. A satisfied service will give better service. The Acting Minister is himself a big business man and he will admit that a man who is satisfied does better work than the man who is not satisfied. There is, especially amongst the lower grades on the railways, the complaint, I know this from personal talks I have had with the people, that they do not have a chance of submitting their grievances to the proper person. They have usually to go to higher officials where they do not feel at home, and feel that they do not receive proper attention. I hope that the grievances of the people will be properly heard. On the motion of the Minister of Agriculture the debate was adjourned; to be resumed tomorrow.