I have to announce that, on behalf of both Houses of Parliament, Mr. President and I have accepted an offer made by Mrs. Duncan Baxter and Mrs. Armour Hall, daughters of the late hon. Mr. J. W. Jagger, M.P., of a bronze plaque of their father and a donation of £200 for the annual purchase out of interest for the Library of Parliament of books on public finance and State transport. The plaque will be placed in the corner of the library where the late Mr. Jagger worked daily for many years during sessions of both the Cape and Union Parliaments.

I desire the leave of the House to make a statement to the House in connection with the proposed Indian colonization scheme, which I promised a few days ago. Hon. members will recall that the summary of conclusions reached by the round table conference held in Cape Town in 1932 on the Indian question in South Africa contained the following paragraph—

It was the feeling of the conference that in the circumstances mentioned in the paragraph quoted, the time had arrived for the exploration of the possibilities of a scheme of colonization in which Indians both from India and from South Africa might participate, and it was hoped that the opportunities which would thus be created for the establishment in some other country than India or South Africa, of an Indian community, free to develop along the lines of its natural aspirations, would appeal to a large section of the Indian population of the Union. I wish to state that it is the desire of this Government to take effective action along the lines agreed upon by the conference, and it will apply its best efforts in that direction. The Government has considered carefully how best the proposed investigation should be initiated. It has come to the conclusion that the investigation, in which the Government of India and this Government are to co-operate, may be considerably facilitated and expedited by preliminary investigation of the ground to be covered, and it feels that such a preliminary enquiry could, as far as the Union is concerned, best be undertaken by a small departmental committee, which should, however, not be restricted in its composition to departmental officials. In the paragraph which I have quoted from the summary of conclusions, it was stated that with the investigation therein contemplated, a representative of the Indian community in South Africa would, if they should so desire, be associated. I am glad to say that the South African Indian Congress has indicated that it is the desire of the Indian community of South Africa to be so associated. The Government is anxious that that community should also be associated with the preliminary enquiry which is now proposed, since it considers that such participation would be of material assistance to the committee in its work, and the South African Indian Congress will therefore be asked to nominate a member of that body. It is further proposed that when the committee has completed its work, the conclusions arrived at by it should be transmitted to the Government of India with a view to their collation with such proposals as that Government may decide to make, as a basis of the work of the commission to be appointed jointly to conduct the final investigation, in terms of the report of the 1932 round table conference. These proposals have been discussed with the Government of India, and I am glad to say that it has expressed its concurrence therewith. The Government of India has also stated—and for this I wish specially to express the gratitude of this Government—that its agent in South Africa is being requested to place himself and his staff entirely at the disposal of Ministers here and of the committee for giving such informal help as might be in his power. It has been decided that the committee should be constituted as follows:—Mr. James Young, ex-chief magistrate, Johannesburg (chairman); Mr. G. Heaton Nicholls, M.P. for Zululand (I am very glad that the hon. member, who virtually sponsored this idea at the round table conference, is available to take part in this preliminary investigation); a representative of the South African Indian community; and Mr. P. F. Kincaid, commissioner for Immigration and Asiatic Affairs. Its terms of reference will be—

I am hopeful that the work of this committee will be such as to make a substantial contribution towards the goal adumbrated by the round table conference in this regard, which, as I have indicated, it is the sincere desire of the Government to further to the best of its ability.

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

Mr. J. C. DE WET seconded.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Mr. VAN COLLER seconded.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

This is the ordinary Bill that we pass at the end of each session to give legal effect to the recommendations of the Pensions Committee with regard to the granting of extra statutory pensions and gratuities. The schedule contains the cases which have been dealt with by the Pensions Committee, and recommended by them.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

Clauses, schedule and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment and read a third time.

I move—

This is another Bill to which we have got accustomed; another “end of the session” Bill. I myself have previously expressed an adverse opinion with regard to the bringing in of such a Bill as this.

Now, of course, that opinion is changed.

No.

Become modified. I beg your pardon.

I will tell the hon. member how I justify my present position, and that is because if a Bill of this kind is not brought in, a very large number of Bills will have to be brought in, amending this or that or the other Act on the statute book. I am sure that no hon. member wishes us to embark on the introduction of a large number of Bills this year whatever may happen in future years. I am aware that these financial adjustment Bills become a great source of perplexity to legal gentlemen, because of amendments to Acts being tucked away in a corner, as it were. In regard to the present Bill, I should like to suggest to hon. members that criticism of the various sections can best be dealt with in committee. There is no general principle in this Bill.

There are too many particular principles.

There is no general principle on which a second reading debate can take place, as far as I know. The intention of the first clause is to do away with the necessity of keeping a central register of business licences. Under the present law the licensing officer is required to transmit to the registrar of companies every licence he issues for the carrying on of business in the Transvaal. This is unnecessary, and creates an unnecessary amount of work. Any information which is required as to whether a licence has been issued can be obtained locally. The second clause is brought in to carry out an undertaking given by the Minister of Finance last year as to amending section 56 of the South Africa Act. The effect of this clause is to reduce the fine imposed upon hon. members for absence from the House beyond their period of leave, from £6 per day to £2, and to extend the period of leave of absence from 15 days to 30 days, the period a member can be absent without penalty. Then the next clause is one which relates to the part-refunds payable to local authorities under the Public Health Act. The Government came to the conclusion that the law regulating these part-refunds was such that the amount was becoming an unjustifiable drain on the Treasury. The intention is to limit the liability of the central Government to the sum of £10,000 during any one financial year. The effect of that will be, of course, to hit the larger municipalities, but it will not affect the smaller ones. I believe, as a matter of fact, there are only two local authorities which will get the maximum—Cape Town and Johannesburg. The next clause deals with the Defence Endowment Fund established under the Defense Endowment Property and Account Act, 1922. Hon. members will remember that when certain properties were taken over from the British Government by the Defence Department, a separate defence endowment fund was set up outside the exchequer. That has been criticized as a financial impropriety by the Controller and Auditor-General, and the matter has been discussed in the Public Accounts Committee, and it has been suggested there that this separate account should be discontinued.

Does that mean that the fund is going to disappear?

No, the fund will not disappear, but all payments will be put into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and payments will be made out of the exchequer.

But it cannot be used for anything else.

It should be used for defence force purposes, because it represents the result of property given for that purpose. All receipts from the st April last will be paid into the revenue account, or to loan account, as the case may be. Clause 5 provides for the Farmers’ Special Relief Act of 1931, which provided that applications had to be made before the 31st March, 1932, and certain applicants believed that applications made on the 31st March, 1932, would still be in time, but that, of course, according to the wording of the law, was not strictly correct, and the Minister agreed to the passing of a law to make provision for those cases, and to add the words: “on or” in sub-section 1, section 2. Certain debtors under this Act, owing to the existing depression, required an extension of time, and it is desirable, where possible, that the managing director buy in any immovable or movable property mortgaged. It also enables the bank to take over farmers’ property, and the managing director may sell at a reasonable price any immovable or movable property bought by him, in terms of sub-section 1, at what he considers a reasonable price. It is also desirable to remove any doubt as to the power of the managing director of the Land Bank to buy in securities for his mortgage. It is possible to buy in securities for the amount of the loan granted under this Act. A doubt has been raised whether he has that power, and it is desirable to remove these doubts. Clause 6 deals with the export subsidies. In the first place these were enacted for a period of one year, and that was extended to a period of two years, in the Financial Adjustments Act of last year. It is now considered necessary, owing to the continued low prices of all com modifies, to extend the period for another year. In the next paragraph, new paragraph F, it is intended to empower the Minister to pay a subsidy not exceding 1d. per pound on wool and mohair, in order to provide an equivalent for the 25 per cent. paid last year. The financial effect was stated by the Minister in his budget statement. The next clause deals with the disposal of the fines and bail moneys in connection with offences under the law dealing with motor vehicle regulations. The Financial Adjustments Act of 1932 made certain provisions with regard to these, and laid down that a pool should be formed, and that from the traffic fines of each province grants should be made to local authorities to aid them in their endeavours to deal with traffic control. This payment was subject to the limitation that it should not exceed the revenue obtained by the provinces from that source from 1931 to 1932. The object is to compensate provinces for the withdrawal of police, and to provide for a more adequate system of traffic control. The object of this clause is for each provincial pool to be applied as follows: That after the first of April in every year so much shall be paid back of all traffic fines recovered, as is stated in a certificate signed by the Minister of Justice, to be the amount estimated by the Minister to have been beneficially expended during the year, or to be required for future necessary expenditure in connection with traffic control. If there is a balance, it shall be paid into the Provincial Revenue Fund—as much as is not required to make up sums to be paid to local authorities, in terms of sub-section 2.

Have the local authorities any notice of this change?

That I am unable to tell the hon. member, but T will get the information.

Suppose they have not been told, what then?

They will be in a position to express any objection. Clause 8 deals with the arrangement that was made by the city of Pretoria in 1905, to supply, free of charge, 2,000 gallons of water per day to Roberts Heights, and 100,000 gallons a day to public buildings inside the municipality. This grant was given in consideration for a substantial portion of the farm Groenkloof, granted to them by the Crown Colony Government. For some time the municipality has been pressing for a grant in aid for this free supply of water, and they contend that, with the growth of Pretoria and its industries, the supply of water from the springs of Groenkloof is inadequate to meet the needs of the town and to supply this free water. As a result of this shortage, the municipality has had to embark on a new scheme, involving a capital cost of £700,000. It is considered reasonable, under the circumstances, to make some contribution, and to pay 1s. per 1,000 gallons of water supplied in terms of the ordinance from the 1st April, and the excess water supplied to be paid for at the domestic rate.

Is this in addition to the £20,000 paid to capitals?

I am told by one of the hon. members for Pretoria that it gets nothing. The payment for the supply of water to the railways and harbours administration is not intended to be affected. Clause 9 deals with the retirement of persons employed in higher education institutions in the Orange Free State. Before Union, there was no provision in any law for the retirement of these persons, and the provincial administration of the Orange Free State later on passed an ordinance to fix definite age-limits for the retirement of teachers, but the courts held, in view of the Act of Union safeguarding the rights of pre-Union officers, the provincial ordinance could not be held as operating on these pre-Union teachers, and no alteration in their service conditions could be effected. It was decided by the provincial authorities that this should be done, and it was done in a Financial Adjustments Áct, 60 years to be the age in the case of men, and 50 in the case of women, but because it was drafted in such a way as it was, it did not cover the teachers who have been employed in the Orange Free State and come over to the Union Education Department when the transfer of the schools was made to the Union. This was an omission, and the clause is intended to cure that. Clause 10 deals with Union loan certificates, and places the administration of these under the control of the Postmaster-General in the same way as the post office savings bank. These funds will not be amalgamated, but will be under the same control. Clause 11 enables loans to be made to the provincial revenue funds. The object is to meet the deficit of the Orange Free State grant. The accumulated deficit on 31st March, 1932, was £427,000. That has been met by advances made from loan funds. For 1932-’33 the estimate was £175,000, but may not amount to as much as that. For 1933-’34 the draft estimates provide for a deficit of £300,000. At the present time it is not possible to contemplate any serious increase of taxation by that provincial council. As hon. members know well, the Orange Free State is practically entirely an agricultural community, and the conditions of farming there are such that it is not possible to contemplate any serious increase in taxation. The matter will be dealt with by the commission that has been appointed and pending their recommendations as to what will be done to deal with the financial situation in the Orange Free State, and in other provinces, this clause is put in with the object of allowing the Treasury to make advances. Clause 12 deals with the diversion from loan funds of £1,900,000 which accrues to the Government from the rental of leased mines. Under the law, the proceeds from these rentals are paid, not into revenue account, but into loan account. The Minister explained in his budget speech that this year, having regard to the exceptional profits that were being realized on the mines, and the exceptional needs of the country, a sum of £1,900,000’ should be diverted from loan funds. Clause 13 deals with the writing-off of sums due by farmers on certain tenant-farmer settlements in the Pretoria district initiated some years ago, but which have not proved successful. They have been liquidated, and on the Sanddrift tenant farmers’ extension scheme, as the clause shows, a sum of £29,602 will have to be written-off, and on the Uitval scheme a sum of £10,413 18s. 6d. will have to be written-off. I think I can leave this matter to be discussed in committee. The plan of these settlements was that the Government should put a number of people on the land; they were given farming implements and livestock, and the Government took certain proceeds from the settlers. The schemes were closed down, and the assets were inadequate to meet the amounts outstanding by the sum shown in this clause. Clause 14 provides that the cost of administration of the South African Shipping Board shall be defrayed from the railways and harbours fund. The fact that the expenditure was borne by the railways administration was objected to by the Controller and Auditor-General, and that has been upheld by the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, which has made this recommendation accordingly. Clause 15 deals with the limitation of the powers of the Land Bank to make advances. At the present time, the Land Bank may not make advances in excess of £2,000 in any case, except in special cases, or less than £50. This clause is intended to repeal that limitation, and to leave the amount to be advanced to the discretion of the board. The next clause deals with another matter concerning the Land Bank. Under the present law, if a debtor pays back before the due date, the law requires that he shall be paid interest at 5 per cent. per annum on the difference. If the Land Bank rate of interest should be reduced at any time, this rate might be too high, and, therefore, it is desired to give the board power to vary this rate from time to time. Clause 17 deals with a matter mentioned by the Minister in his budget speech, that is the measures to be taken in dealing with soil erosion. This is intended to give the central board of the Land Bank power to make advances to land owners for the purpose of combating soil erosion on their holdings. The next clause is intended to give the Land Bank power to deal with the difficulty that debtors may find in meeting the instalments due on their bonds. The bonds provide for payment of interest, and also for payment of instalments of the capital. This clause is intended to empower the board to accept only the interest and to allow the instalments to be recalculated for the remaining period of the advance without formally having to alter the bond. The next clause is intended to allow the Land Bank to make provision for consolidating the debts which some of these debtors now owe by reason of not having been able to make payment of interest at the due date. This will enable them to capitalize the arrears and to add them to the amount of the bond, even if the bond so increased may exceed 60 per cent. of the Agricultural Department’s value of the land. The next clause provides that the board may make advances on behalf of the State in any scheme that the State may have for the further relief of farmers to be administered by the Land Bank. It empowers the bank to make such advances, even where they exceed 60 per cent. of the department’s valuation of the land. These advances will be subject in every way to the ordinary conditions of Land Bank loans, except that they may be in excess of 60 per cent. of the department’s valuation. To that extent, the Government will be liable in regard to the excess. When they come down to 60 per cent., they will be taken over by the Land Bank. These are all the clauses calling for explanation, and I think, as I said, it would save the time of the House if instead of having a debate now, we wait until the Bill comes into committee, which will not be to-day.

I do not think the House should adopt the second reading of this Bill without some comments being made. After all, it is expected that the House of Assembly, in order to do its duty, will have the opportunity of really considering on their merits the different measures brought before it. This Bill, the complexity of which, I was going to say, was unexampled, but I cannot say that—but, at any rate, its complexity is very great indeed—was only published and put into our hands a few hours ago. The point is this, that it is absolutely impossible for any single member in the short time that this Bill has been in our hands, to realize what is the extent, what is the effect, and what is the meaning of this Bill, and still less has it been possible to consult any of those who may be affected, and obtain their views. I submit with respect to the Government that to introduce measures of this kind in this way is not treating Parliament with respect. It is making it impossible for the House really to function. Nobody knows better than the Minister himself how impossible it is to expect even lawyers to keep proper track of the amendments to the laws that are made, when they are introduced in this form. The Minister has made a candid confession that he has taken this objection himself time after time, and the objection is still a good one. Why, then, this haste? I do not know if the Minister is willing to give an undertaking that this will never be repeated. He has not said so.

I am only a locum tenens.

The Minister is speaking for the Government, I take it. Is the Government going to perpetuate this form of legislation, or is it not? Merely on the question of form it has led in the past to very grave inconvenience. Everyone is supposed to know the law. The Minister knows quite well that lawyers and judges do not know the law, but, at any rate, they should be placed in the position of knowing where to lay their hands on the law. The form adopted in this case makes it impossible to consult what the law is, and makes it most difficult, even for those who are qualified by their professional attainments to expound the law, to be able to lay their hands on it. Why should this be done? Why this haste? The subjects dealt with in the statements made by the Minister cover the widest possible range, and I defy any member to have followed and absorbed what the Minister was saying, so as to be able to say whether his exposition was a sufficient one or an insufficient one, of each of the different clauses. I have devoted my life to the study of the statutes, and the discovery of what the law is on abstruse points, and I am absolutely incapable of forming a balanced opinion as to whether any one, still less all of the measures proposed in this Bill, represent legislation which should be put before the House. Is it really in a spirit of cynicism that the first measure proposed here is one which makes it easy for members to exempt themselves from considering the business which is put before the House, and to relieve them of the penalty which is at present imposed for absenting themselves for any length of time? Surely we should have some concern for the dignity of the House. It should be made possible for us to check the different measures placed before us, and to have the time to consult the interests which are concerned. If the House is to be treated in this way and if we are to be asked to vote blindly on matters of this kind, the dignity of Parliament must suffer and it will be recognized by the country that the legislature is deliberately not functioning in the way that it should. I can imagine no more serious stricture on the measure than that. Why this haste? It is only on the ground of haste and on the ground of the necessity of the House getting through its work quickly, that this measure can be justified. The ordinary length of a session is about 18 weeks. The last session of Parliament at the beginning of the year lasted about six weeks and if we add to that the number of weeks that we have been sitting now, which is three, you have nine weeks in all; and if, as I gather from the Prime Minister’s motion, we are to make a sort of gallop to get through the work of the House this week, we shall only have been sitting half the ordinary time. Why? I know of no reason why. I am perfectly prepared to sit here and do another month’s or two months’ work in order that we may do our duty to the country. The parliamentary allowance is not on an ungenerous scale and it seems little short of a scandal that we should be compelled to scamp our work and pass votes and adopt laws which we have not been able to consider. I wish to protest in the strongest way against the manner in which this is done.

I wish to draw attention to Clauses 16 and 18 of this Bill. I further desire to express my gratification at those two clauses, although I consider that as regards Clause 18 a greater concession might be made. Clause 16 deals with loan money which is not repaid in time; in cases where interest had to be paid hitherto at a rate of 5 per cent. on such arrears, the Land Bank will now have the right to reduce this interest to 4 or per cent., as the case may be. This is a great concession. Clause 18 deals with extension for the repayment of borrowed money. I also wish to express my gratification at this clause, but I wish to add this: the existing rule with the Land Bank is that two years after money has been lent to a certain person he has to make a beginning with the repayment of the principal; in other words, during the first two years he only pays interest and after that he repays interest and capital. It is a big concession that the Land Bank is now able to say that after two and even ten years it is not incumbent upon a man to repay interest and capital, but that he only has to pay interest. This concession is all the more important as undoubtedly the Land Bank administration is extremely sympathetic. I am of opinion that I speak on behalf of all members who had had anything to do with the Land Bank and who represent the countryside, when I express my great appreciation of the attitude which the Land Bank administration has adopted in these days of depression. The fact is, however, that this concession can be made a great deal more favourable if the example of the Land Bank is emulated. On ground i being allotted by the Land Board, repayment of capital is only asked for after five years. The difficulty is that if a person should borrow money from the Land Bank at the present moment, and he begins to develop his farm, he has in ordinary circumstances to start repaying the capital after two years. At the moment it is possible for the Land Bank to say that the position is such that it can lay down that such a person need only make a start later on with the repayment of the capital, but he has, nevertheless, to obtain permission first to get an extension for his payments.

I would suggest that the hon. member should go into the details of the clause during the committee stage.

Yes, I appreciate that, but I have finished now. I merely wish to suggest that where concessions are made in future to farmers by time being allowed for repayments of capital, such repayments should not have to start after two years from the date when the money is borrowed, but only after five years, in other words, that he would only have to pay interest during the first five years and after that interest and capital.

I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) in the protest which he has lodged against this omnibus Bill. It is quite clear that the introduction of this measure is not due to any haste—I do not think it is due to the fact that the Government is anxious that Parliament should conclude within the next few days. We know perfectly well that even if Parliament had sat four or five months these omnibus. Bills would crop up in which some most important provisions are hidden away. There have been occasions when it was impossible for the Government to suggest that there was any undue haste for legislation. They have had the ordinary lengthy sessions during which they had every opportunity of introducing Bills. The practice, however, has grown up of introducing omnibus Bills containing 14 or 15 subjects which should all have been dealt with in different measures. Last year I think the Acting Minister of Finance led the Opposition to the omnibus Bill which contained some vital principles. The object of the Bill therefore is not on the ground of haste. We have this vicious principle grown up here under which the Government is endeavouring to pass all: sorts of measures hidden in all sorts of corners at the last moment. We are now being asked to agree to principles of various kinds without having the opportunity of discussing them. The majority of this House had hoped that one of the objects of getting a national Government, was to secure a national Parliament and that the Government of the country would become the executive of Parliament instead of simply governing Parliament. We had hoped that the legislation to ‘be introduced would have been introduced in such a manner as to give Parliament the fullest opportunity of analysing it in every possible way. I had hoped that the Acting Minister of Finance would have insisted on our getting away from the wretched principle of having to pass these omnibus Bills. In regard to this clause dealing with the question of allowances to members of Parliament, I have said on previous occasions that if Parliament is to remain an institution which is to have the respect of the people of the country, it is imperative that we should not keep on curtailing the time during which Parliament is sitting. If Parliament is to function and is to retain the respect of the people then to my mind it will have to become an all-time institution, it will have to become an institution in which members will be the functionaries of the people, where they will not only have the opportunity of passing legislation but of initiating legislation too. The effect of this one clause now really is still further to reduce the power of Parliament and further to lower Parliament in the eyes of the public. I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking that he will use his influence to secure that legislation of this kind is avoided in future.

I do not know whether I shall be in order, but there is a matter which I am very anxious to bring to the notice of the Government, and I do not know whether I shall be given another opportunity of doing so. We have made special provision here to come to the assistance of farmers and I do not want to ask for more money. Yet I consider that there is one class of our people who have not been taken into consideration. There is a great difference between the various parts of the Union, and in the north-eastern parts of the Free State we have to take account of this fact. In order to indicate this, I wish to quote a few figures. In the year 1928 there were 546 farmers in the Harrismith district who were land owners, in addition to which there were 500 farmers who were tenants, who sowed on shares or hired land. We have assisted the land-owners by reducing the interest on their bonds and by paying them an interest subsidy. This will help a great deal, and we are very grateful for it. Half the farmers, however, are tenants, and unless something is done to help* them, I do not know what is going to become of them. They are the people who are the very first to look to the towns and the dorps. We must bear in mind that these people have for years had failures with their crops and that they have to pay their rent on their land. Cannot some provision be made under Clause 5, so that, if those tenants are able to give security, the Land Bank can give them an advance to enable them to pay their rent? If that cannot be done those people will have to sell their stock and we know what conditions are to-day. There is no market, and in addition the stock is in such a precarious condition that it cannot be sold. Those people also sold their wool before we had departed from the gold standard. They got very little for it and they find themselves in a very difficult position today. I am not asking that such assistance should be indiscriminately extended to anyone, but I do hope that it will be possible to assist those who are in a position to give security.

I hope the Minister will agree, either to adjourn this debate, or to go into committee some time next week.

I am quite willing to postpone the committee stage until next week.

We really have 21 small Bills to deal with in the form of one measure —the Financial Adjustments Bill. I would just like to refer to one matter to illustrate the difficulty there is of handling so many very dissimilar things in one Bill. Take, for instance, Clause 17—advances by Land Bank for the purpose of combating soil erosion. When it was asked if a preference would be given to the Land Bank, the Minister replied no, but my hon. friend on my right (Col. Stallard) and I think that under this Bill a preference will be given, for sub-section (c) says—

but sub-section (2) says—

The terms of repayment in these two Acts are different, and preference is given in them to the Land Bank.

Look at paragraph (b).

That is what is puzzling us. That means either that there is not going to be an advance, or the holder of a bond must agree to his preference being waived. I do not say I am right on this point, but we ought to go into the matter very carefully before deciding this and agreeing upon a proper interpretation of this matter. I mention this point to show the great difficulty we have in dealing properly with legislation unless we are given sufficient time in which to consider these very important points. Will the Minister agree to give us time?

Yes.

I also wish to refer to a few points. Provision is made here to give further time in respect of relief loans. I am prepared to leave the position as it is, provided the Government takes into consideration the whole question of relief loans so as to provide something of a more permanent nature. We have found that conditions render it essential that this help should be given, and we find that it is necessary now to give further help. I hope, therefore, that the Government will take into consideration the question of making this relief more permanent in its nature. In connection with Clause 16, I hope that the Minister will take into consideration the question of making the provision so that the interest of the Land Bank will in no instance exceed 5 per cent. We further have Clause 19—

These are matters which the hon. member should rather raise during the committee stage.

I think it would be as well if I were to say this now, so that the Minister will be able to consider the matter before we come to the committee stage. The basis of Clause 19 is that the Government desires to help in combating soil erosion, and to expedite measures to combat this. If the provisions are drafted in this manner, it will mean that nothing will be done. It would be much better to create a sort of quitrent.

I would like to add my objections to those which have already been raised against the incorporation of so many different points in one measure. We have, in the past, protested against this growing practice of embodying several Bills in one measure. We must take advantage of this stage to raise the point to which we object, for once a Bill of this nature has been read a second time, it is very difficult to make any change in it in committee. This multiplication of the matters dealt with in an omnibus Bill tends to lessen the control of Parliament. A financial adjustments Bill should deal with small anomalies only, and it is certainly a misnomer to call such an all embracing measure as this a Financial Adjustments Bill. I wish to bring up a matter because this will be the only opportunity I shall have to try to persuade the Government to reconsider its decision in regard to the advances to local authorities as the Government’s contribution towards their expenditure on certain matters of public health.

You will have it all over again in committee.

I cannot help that; on the eve of Parliament breaking up, we are called upon to discuss 21 clauses of a number of separate Bills in the guise of one. If the Government does this, it cannot expect to deprive members of the opportunities of speaking.

All right.

No doubt Ministers would like us all to remain silent, but this is a very important subject, and of vital importance to the city of Cape Town. I am mentioning the matter now, because if I do so there will be a chance of getting something done before the committee stage is reached, but if nothing is said on the point the Bill will go through unaltered. I do not think the Minister of Public Health should agree to this restriction of expenditure on vital matters affecting the health of the public. I suppose that the Treasury has forced this economy on the public health department. In 1919 we encouraged local authorities by helping them to deal with infectious and epidemic diseases. So far as tuberculosis and ordinary infectious diseases were concerned the State offered to re-imburse municipalities half of their expenditure, and two-thirds of their expenditure in regard to venereal and formidable epidemic diseases. The local authorities, and particularly Cape Town, as a result went in for big capital works and expenditure, to which they are now committed, and from which it is now difficult for them to withdraw. Last year, in a time of great financial stringency, but much against the will of the Minister of Public Health, the Treasury enforced a cut of 40 per cent. on this vital expenditure, and consequently Cape Town’s subsidy was reduced by £6,421. Now it is proposed, in this Financial Adjustments Bill, to withdraw that cut and leave the expenditure as it was. As far as Cape Town is concerned, however, this is an Irishman’s rise, for a maximum of £10,000 has now been fixed, so that Cape Town will be worse off than it was before under the cut. I think Johannesburg is also to a lesser extent affected under this Bill, but Cape Town is the principal sufferer. Cape Town’s expenditure last year on these matters was £44,544. This shows that Cape Town is trying to cope with these terrible evils. It expected that its refund from the Government would be £18,965, but by fixing the maximum refund at £10,000 Cape Town will be mulcted of £8,965. Cape Town is going to be hit very hard. I do not think hon. members realize how terrible the incidence of tuberculosis and venereal disease is, or they would not agree to the proposed reduction of the Government contribution towards the expense of checking and attempting to stamp out these diseases. The new cases that come to the venereal clinics in Cape Town number between three and four thousand a year, and the total attendance, including out-patients, numbers 30,000. The new cases are more than 12 per thousand of our population, with a higher number than Johannesburg, and a higher number than the seaports of Glasgow and Hull, which are under six per thousand. Last year there were more than 100 registered deaths from syphilis alone, and it is impossible to say how many unregistered deaths took place. The number of new cases of tuberculosis reported during the year was nearly 1,500, the incidence rate being very much higher than in England. In Cape Town the incidence of new cases is 5.41 per thousand and the death rate 2.98 as against the English rate of 1.05. In London the rate is 1.03. Here we have nearly three times the death rate that you have in London. There are 150 beds at the City Hospital to deal with tubercular cases, and now the Government comes along and says: “We won’t give you more than £10,000.” The result is that it will be quite impossible for the municipality to bear the whole burden of expenditure on national matters like the stamping out of these diseases. The only alternative will be for the municipality to cut down their work, and close down the wards in the City Hospital. I would suggest very seriously to the Minister that, in collaboration with the Minister of Public Health, he should leave the figure at the amount which has been approved of in years gone by, that is, an amount of £18,965. The real needs of the situation, in the opinion of those who study this problem, call for a considerable increase of expenditure, if you are going to rid the Union of these terrible diseases. I raise the matter in the hope that the Minister will reconsider his policy, in order that steps may be taken to stamp out these terrible diseases.

I wish to join in protesting against the introduction of a Bill of a far-reaching nature embodying a number of new principles at the tail end of the session. It is impossible for members to understand and fully grasp a Bill of this sort at this time. I suggest to the Minister that, if he wishes to assist us, in the future to print all the clauses it is proposed to amend or repeal and to annex them to the Bill. There are something like 25 or 30 clauses of various Acts being amended or repealed, and it is impossible at present for members to see what is actually being amended or repealed. Is it not possible, when a Bill of this sort is being introduced, for the clauses it is proposed to amend or repeal to be inserted in the margin? If this was done it would save members a tremendous amount of time in looking up the clauses in the various laws.

I wish to say a few i words in reference to the position of farmers who hire land. There are many of them in my constituency and a great deal of dissatisfaction is prevailing among them owing to the fact that it is only the farmer who has a bond on his farm who receives a concession of 1½ per cent. by means of the subsidy. Those people who have hired land feel that they pay too much and that they are really the poor farmers. I have discussed the matter with the Minister of Finance and he has explained his objections to me. I can appreciate them, but he promised me that he would consider the matter, and I wish to express the hope that before we prorogue, the farmers, who hire land, will also receive some sort of concession.

I wish to associate myself with the objections raised against the manner in which this Bill has been introduced. If a member like the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) and other advocates raise objections on account of the fact that they find it difficult to understand this kind of legislation, how much more difficult must it be for other members? I try to keep pace with the proceedings of the House, but I must admit that I cannot make head or tail of this Bill. I wish, however, to express my thanks to the Government for the clauses in connection with the Land Bank. The Land Bank is an institution which supplies a great need in South Africa. Fortunately we have a very sympathetic administration at the head of the Land Bank, and I desire to express my thanks for the manner in which they meet the farmers. Farmers do not merely have to cope with difficulties set in their way by nature, such as drought, but they are also faced with difficulties due to the collapse of their markets, and if the administration of the Land Bank had not been so considerate, farmers would have been driven off the land. I am particularly grateful that the Minister has made provision for a reduction in the rate of interest and for the consolidation of debts.

The hon. member can deal with that in committee.

We have often heard publicists say, and others who have some knowledge of public affairs, that mind can rise superior to environment. Now that idea has had a very nasty shock indeed this morning, because we find the acting Minister of Finance, after a short few weeks of the occupancy of that bench over there adopting an entirely diametrically opposite view on these matters to what he did before. Then we find the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard), significantly enough, strongly expressing views corresponding with the views expressed by the Minister when he was over there, where the hon. member (Col. Stallard) is now sitting. It is an extraordinary anatomical method of imbibing mental impressions. As I always have done—and although I have changed my seat, I have not changed my views—I protest, and I continue to do so, and more emphatically to-day than ever before, against this method of legislation. It is not only against that method, but against the time of legislation.

What did you do when you were Minister?

My hon. friend (Mr. Nel) knows more about the upper circles than I do, so I will not attempt to follow him in that association; but, as I say, this method of legislation shows the tendency of our parliamentary life. How many members have stated at different periods of their careers that there is a grave danger of the complete smash-up of the parliamentary machine? My hon. friend (Mr. Nicholls) stated that the fight in South Africa is between the last struggles of democracy and autocracy. He is quite right; and here you see that tendency reflected. The Minister, after all his former years’ asseverations on these points, calmly throws it at the House—take it or leave it—and has a composition of Bills such as I have never known before. It requires days, nay, weeks, of examination, and all these are lumped together, thrown at us, and, as one hon. member said, at the tail-end of the session, and, I want to add, at a time when we are sitting morning, afternoon and night. Why does not the Minister do the thing completely? Why did he not shove the mining taxation in this Bill, and under the cloak of a Financial Adjustments Bill get it through with little or no discussion? I see in this a dangerous, a more than autocratic, line put up on that side of the House, and I say, with the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard), the new edition of whom I welcome, that no information has been given while we are compelled to give consideration to this within a few days. I see no reason why we should not have had an ordinary session, carrying on the ordinary business of Parliament, and doing our ordinary legislative work. There has been nothing advanced against that point of view. All I can read into it is, and I hope a good many more hon. members can do so, as members of the public can, a tendency to rule by a robot majority behind the Minister, a skaapkraal [sheep corral] majority. I protest on behalf of myself, as well as the public outside, who have not had an opportunity of expressing their views. Take the protest of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander). Here is a matter of the most vital importance to South Africa, the spread of infectious diseases, including venereal diseases, which is giving this House and everybody concerned in the welfare of the State pause to think. They should demand that every opportunity should be given of considering the question in all its bearings, and here by a side-wind the acting Minister in this multiplicity of Bills decides to ask this House without proper consideration to cut down, in one instance, at all events—

And to increase in others.

That may be the effect, but we do not know that. That strengthens the protest I am making. We have no information. I am going only on the particular I point raised by my hon. friend in the instance, that of Cape Town, that there is to be a diminution, a definite legal restriction of the amount of money that they shall receive to expend upon the eradication or prevention of these dread diseases. It is a thing that should require weeks of investigation, it demands that all the local authorities interested should have an opportunity of putting their points of view. I will go further, and I say there should be no further restriction of expenditure at all. Every penny that is required for fighting these things should be freely conceded and should be regarded by those doing the actual work as being at their free disposal. I will guarantee that there is less than one per cent. of members outside the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander), who know anything at all about this question.

Oh no.

I do not know how much information the Minister of the Interior gets from a telegram. It is a very incomplete method of getting information.

We have also had long two-page letters.

That is not information, it is not enquiry and it is not investigation. I am outside the pale of dictatorship, I am merely a poor unfortunate democrat. It is only the democrats that do not get these letters. These, I presume, are letters of appeal to my dictatorial friend, the Minister of the Interior. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard), seems to think that Clause 2 was in the nature of a bribe to members. It cannot be in the nature of a bribe but it is evidence of the tendency towards dictatorial powers and action on the part of the Government. They are contemplating, mark you, with their huge majority, the absence from Parliament of members extending over a period of 30 working days. Hon. members must understand what this means. The 30 days’ absence does not mean 30 calendar days, it means actually six weeks. May I deal with this point? I have always held the view and expressed it in this House that there should be no time limitation at all upon members. It is an insinuation in the first place to say that unless you are here so many days in the session, you shall be fined so much. It is placing our conception of our legislative honour on a very low plane indeed, and is an inducement to people likely to be influenced in that way, to evade the rules. I know of nothing more damning to our reputations than that. Why should an hon. member or Parliament as a whole have held over his or our head the threat that unless you are here, just physically here, not necessarily mentally here, you will be fined £2, £3 or £6, as the case may be? The mere placing of it on the rule book is an insult to the intelligence of Parliament and of the public outside. Every man is answerable to his constituency. Unless concurrently with this you lay down another condition that a constituency by a certain number of votes and at a properly constituted meeting can demand the resignation of its member, this is pointless. In any case, a man’s attendance in Parliament is surely the business of his constituency, and will form just as good a reason as any other for his constituents to determine to exclude him from Parliament when he seeks their suffrages again. It is not fair; it is not right; it is degrading, and as a member of this House, having some regard to his personal and parliamentary honour, I object most emphatically to this limitation, to this suggestion of the Government that unless you have a certain number of attendances you will be fined, and it is writing me down very low indeed to suggest that, in order to avoid that I will come to Parliament. It is wrong. There are two points which I have had to deal with; matters of principle. Every other clause in this Bill involves a principle, and yet I am debarred first of all physically, and in the second place mentally—perhaps I should have said mentally first—and thirdly from the point of view of time, from discussing, on their merits, every other one of these 21 other Bills incorporated in this one measure. It is wrong, it is making a laughing stock of Parliament, it is removing us from our duty, and that is to examine fully, and I was going to say competently to the best of our ability, every measure on its merits. I object to this method which the Minister has so rapidly taken over from his colleagues.

There are numerous provisions in this Bill, starting with Clause 16, amendment of Clause 14, of Act No. 36 of 1921, and Clause 17, provision of advances by the Land Bank for the combating of soil erosion; Clause 18, extension of periods for which advances are made by the Land Bank, and suspension of capital redemption of advances made by the Land Bank; Clause 19, consolidation of existing advances made by the Land Bank, and Clause 20, provision of advances by the Land Bank on behalf of the Union Government. I contend that those provisions of the Bill, which is called a Financial Adjustments Bill, 1933, are of the greatest importance, and I am very pleased that the Government has introduced it. It is undoubtedly necessary that amendments should be made in regard to the legislation in connection with the Land Bank, and there should be no delay in this. I also consider that the Government, or the Minister who is in charge of this matter, should have inserted that provision in a separate Bill, a Bill for the amendment of the existing Land Bank Acts. I am not a believer in this kind of legislation. It makes it very difficult for the ordinary citizen, and for the legal practitioner who has to know the laws of the land. As has been said already, every citizen is supposed to know the laws of the land. In this Bill we have all kinds of matters. If one were to be asked what the law says of a certain matter, he has to look up his statute book, and he will see that certain provisions are made, but he forgets that a Financial Adjustments Bill is passed every year, containing provisions which are not financial provisions at all. Consequently he forgets to find out whether the question which he is looking into has not been amended in the Financial Adjustments Bill. The consequence is that that man may give entirely wrong advice which will cost him a lot of money. We are not even told here which laws are being amended. For instance, we see here “Amendment of Act No. 36 of 1909 (Transvaal)”. One has to go and look up now what that Act of the Transvaal says. In each of these clauses there is an amendment of an existing Act. I am of opinion that the Government should delete all those clauses, with the exception of the clauses dealing with Land Bank Acts. A great many farmers are very interested in Land Bank Acts and wish to know, from day to day, what those Land Bank Acts say. Let us therefore lay it down what the object of the Land Bank Acts is, and let us amend them, but do not let us do so in an omnibus Bill which nobody can understand. I am of opinion that the provisions of the Land Bank Act urgently require amendment.

I quite agree with what the hon. member has said, that the Land Bank Act is the Act in which people are most interested. We do feel that even if an individual, as an ordinary citizen of the country, does not take much interest in other laws of the land, he still has to take an interest in the Land Bank Act. That law must be amended. If that Act can come before the House and before the country in one form, it may possibly be more intelligible to the ordinary citizen of the country. I want to express my sincere thanks for the concession that is made to the farmers by the amendment of the law, but I wish to express my disappointment that greater provision is not made for all the farmers. We find that the people who are now being helped are practically only those farmers who have bonds on their farms. There are, however, a great many other farmers who hire land, there are a great many others who have not got bonds, but who have debts, and there are other debtors owing money on bonds who do not fall under the category of farmers at all. I wish to ask the Government, however, to introduce a general reduction of interest, say, to six or five per cent. It may possibly be said that this would be a very drastic reduction, but we see that it can be done in connection with bonds on farms, and it should also be possible to do so in connection with bondholders who are not farmers, without their being subsidized. We feel that there are many citizens in the country who consider to-day’ that class legislation is being introduced, and that only the farmers fall under that, and we contend that everybody should be treated alike.

I am also one who, in the past, has criticized these omnibus Bills. But I would point out that the measure now before us is considerably shorter than was the case with last year’s omnibus Bill. I regard that as a sign of grace, and an indication of encouragement for the future. I hope the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) will take a similar view. I intervene at this stage mainly to refer to a point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) and to which the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) also somewhat discursively referred. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) appealed to me as Minister of Public Health in connection with refunds to local authorities for certain public health services. I want to assure the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) and other hon. members that I am, as the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) suggested, most anxious to do all I can for public health. I am also anxious to do all I can for the other social services with which I have to deal. But I am also a member of the Government, as a whole. I, therefore, have a responsibility from the financial point of view. While I shall always do my best for social services, I cannot do so without taking into account the general financial position of the country. I shall always press for the development of our social services, bearing in mind, however, what the general demands on the Treasury are. That is the right view to take. There necessarily is a limit to the amount the State can provide for social services, and in dealing with any particular demand, one has to take into account not merely that limit, but the fact that other services are calling for attention.

The gold mines, for instance.

That is not a social service.

It is a controlling service.

My object must be to see that the money available is spent to the best advantage on the various social services. That must be the general line of approach to this question of the refunds to the local authorities. Let me indicate what the position is. In 1918, certain arrangements were made in terms of which these refunds were paid up to last year. At that time the country was faced with the necessity of building up its public health services, which were then in a somewhat rudimentary state of their development. It was essential that their development should be provided for. The State undertook to play its part in the building up of those services. Since 1918, we have advanced very considerably in this respect, and we can be grateful for the advances. We have made considerable progress. The question has since been raised whether it is not necessary to fix a limit to the State’s liability which has hitherto been on the pound for pound or corresponding basis, under which the State has no means of limiting its liability, in relation to the expenditure of local authorities. The State’s liability went up automatically as the expenditure of the local authorities went up. From a general financial point of view, that is an unsound position. It was a justifiable arrangement while we were building up and encouraging the building up of our nascent public health services. But the time has come for some change to be made. The time had to come when the considerations of sound finance had to prevail to the extent of fixing a limit on this expenditure. I want to say to the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) that I do approve of a limit. I contend there must be a limit to the State’s liability; everybody concerned with public health approves of a limit; probably the Cape Town council itself is prepared to accept the principle of a limit provided we accept their figure. Even those who are the best friends of public health are willing to accept this principle that the consideration of sound finance demands the imposition of a limit.

An HON. MEMBER [inaudible].

If the hon. member had been listening he might have heard the answer to that question. We accepted the position at the beginning that in dealing with our nascent health services, we would waive the question of limit, but, for many years, this question has been raised. It is not a new matter; it was raised in the time of the previous secretary for public health. In principle, it has been accepted as something which has had to come, and the only question was as to when it would come. What is the position? Last year under the stress of financial difficulty, it was found necessary to cut down the public health refunds. On the estimates of last year, provision was made for these refunds, on the basis of a 40 per cent. cut of the refunds for which the State was liable in terms of the then existing law. That was a very drastic cut, as hon. members recognized at the time, but the cut was made, and was approved by the House under the Financial Adjustment Bill of last year. This year, when the estimates were drawn up at the commencement of the calendar year, the same cut was re-imposed, and the estimates, as originally compiled, were based on that cut. Well, I was satisfied that that position was not a sound one and that more especially the smaller municipalities were suffering because of that. There was no indication that the larger municipalities would suffer. The smaller ones certainly were suffering. They were building up their health services, and in the early stages of that process they were suffering, and public health was suffering. Well, it was possible to persuade the Treasury to go back to some extent on the policy which had been laid down previously, and to get back some of the money which the local authorities had lost. Last year they lost £26,500. This year we have been able to get back a considerable proportion of the amount. But then we were faced with two alternatives—we might either have gone on in the same way as last year, again imposing a cut, only with a smaller percentage than last year; we might, for instance, have imposed a 25 per cent. cut on all local authorities. The other alternative was to restore the grant on the old basis, but to impose a maximum, as we are now doing. I accepted the second alternative; the result was that municipalities, including Benoni, are getting their refunds on the old basis, with the exception of Cape Town and Johannesburg, which are the two municipalities which have the largest expenditure, and have gone furthest in health expenditure.

And that is why they are being punished.

They are the best able to stand this. We have done our best to help to build up their services, and we think this principle with regard to the maximum is perfectly fair and reasonable. The municipality of Cape Town has suffered most, as the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander), has said, because it has the largest expenditure on tuberculosis. That very heavy expenditure is not entirely unconnected with their neglect in the past of the problem of housing, and if it had not been for their neglect of this problem of housing in the past, their expenditure on tuberculosis would have been less to-day. These two things are connected, and that connection cannot be ignored. We have gone as far as we could go. We have used the money, which the Treasury was able to make available, to the best of our ability, and therefore I can hold out no hope to the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) that anything further will be done as far as this year’s estimates are concerned.

I am sorry to take up the time of the House on this Bill at this stage, but I feel that a very important principle is at stake here. The principle is this, that we should always keep before us the necessity of prevention. I feel very definitely that the Minister of the Interior is wrong, when he says that there should be a limit fixed. I feel that to fix a limit, without reference to the special needs of the occasion, is not right. If there was ever a question to which the old adage of being penny wise and pound foolish applies, it is this. It seems to me that this generation is not justified in leaving any stone unturned, for the benefit of the generations that have to come afterwards. There is no question at all that tuberculosis especially is growing in this country. This is a country which at one time was absolutely free of it. Tuberculosis affects our own children, and the generations that are to come. Take a municipality like Johannesburg, which has enormous numbers of natives coming into the city. The commission that was set up by the Chamber of Mines to deal with the incidence of tuberculosis amongst the natives has found that tuberculosis is practically endemic in the native territories. The disease does not seem, to occur so much when they are in the native territories themselves, but as soon as they come to Johannesburg and work under different conditions, this disease does come up. We have them in our houses, and there is a very grave danger of the disease spreading in towns like Johannesburg. My whole point is just this, that to save money to-day simply means that we shall have to spend colossal sums later on. Preventive measures can be taken to-day, when the matter has not reached a stage where it would be beyond our power to curtail. But if we leave it like this, in the end it will reach a stage where it will be insuperable. I do appeal to the Minister not to adopt a niggardly policy towards matters that really can be prevented if they arc taken in hand in time. I appeal to him on these grounds especially.

As a new member of this House I wish to be allowed to say a few words on this Bill. We are engaged on the motion for the second reading of this Bill, which means that we are discussing the question whether the principle of the Bill should be approved of or not. The speeches made by the last two speakers could have been discussed during the committee stage of the measure, or otherwise they could have been delivered on the occasion of the introduction of legislation on the special points mentioned by those hon. members. They are points affecting principles which could, therefore, have been discussed on the occasion of the second reading of such Bills, when the principle has to be approved of. I imagine that that is the consequence of the manner in which this Bill was introduced. This is a Bill, an omnibus Bill into which quite a number of matters have been thrown together, although many of these subjects could have been dealt with each in a separate measure. Last year the hon. Minister of the Interior called this Bill a charabanc Bill. We now have another measure of the same kind, and I want to express the hope that there will be an end to the introduction of legislation of this kind. I cannot see how it can be expected of a new member, who is not a lawyer, that he shall be able to judge properly all the matters that are proposed in this Bill, and that he shall be able to vote in the right way in the House. To ascertain the right significance of all the amendments proposed in this Bill would involve a great deal of labour even for a solicitor. To an ordinary member who is not a lawyer this would be an impossible task in the time at our disposal. Does the Government expect members to come into this House simply as voting machines, and record their votes on matters of this kind in good faith? If that is what the Government expects, then it is quite wrong. Hon. members are sent here to record their votes after having secured a knowledge of the principles of the Bill during the second reading, and then again on the third reading when they will have secured knowledge of the application of the principle in the light of the clauses which are approved of during the committee stage. Are we in this particular instance being given the opportunity in any way whatever to do our duty in this connection? There is not a solitary new member, and I imagine there are very few old members, who are able to express a well-considered opinion of any of the subjects that are contained in this measure or able to give an indication of what is going to be the effect on the country if the proposed amendments are agreed to. The excuse is that we have not the time to deal with these matters separately. That is the reason why this Bill is introduced in this House, but I maintain that it is not right to expect members not to express their opinion during the second reading on the principles of the Bill. Surely, the second reading is introduced for that very purpose, and it is inequitable to say that members must wait until the committee stage. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) mentioned a point here of which hon. members of the House know nothing. The Minister of the Interior has special information but members of the House are not in possession of such information. He stated that a principle is involved in that particular clause. How are we to judge of that? Further provisions are contained in this Bill in regard to the Land Bank, apparently with the intention of inducing farming representatives in the House to vote for the second reading of the Bill and consequently for the principles thereof. I certainly shall not in future again give my vote in favour of allowing legislation of this nature to pass through the House. Had I been an old member I would have pressed my opposition to the Bill to a division. I would not have contented myself with raising my voice here, but I would have gone to a division. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) talks very glibly, sometimes so glibly that the real meaning of his speech is lost. He was quite right, however, in what he said here, as a democratic body cannot be expected to vote for legislation of this nature if it is introduced in this manner. We voted for it, but we do not know what its principles are. We do not know what the effects will be when the Bill is put into force. There are members representing rural areas who have already gone away, but who would have liked to have expressed their views on a number of the matters that are dealt with here. They are given no opportunity at all to have their views recorded in “Hansard,” so that their electors may know what their views are.

Why did they go home?

Because they are not given the opportunity to deal with those matters. They have to sit morning, afternoon and night. I cannot understand why matters have to be put through the House in that way. It is not right and we have to protest against it.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

When the House rose this morning, I made it quite clear that I cannot agree with the procedure that is proposed in regard to this Bill. The luncheon-hour has now intervened, but in spite of that I must still say that, notwithstanding the fact that I have had my lunch, I am still of the same mind. That being so, hon. members will realize that I have rooted objections to this course. I do not think that there is a single member who is of opinion that this is the right course to pursue in regard to the business of the House. If this procedure has to be applied, it should only be applied in extraordinary circumstances with a view to certain legislation being passed. If such extraordinary circumstances exist, the House is entitled to know what they are, and why they should justify such action being taken. It is argued that members are anxious to get home. Even if that is so, I still ask members whether the House is entitled to pass legislation without every opportunity being placed at their disposal for the consideration of such legislation? It is in the interest of the House itself that the fact that exception is taken to the action of the Cabinet should not be construed as displaying a spirit of opposition or of revolt. It would be a very lamentable state of affairs indeed if the House should be bound by any action of the Cabinet and if opposition to such action should be interpreted as revolt. I consider that that is not the spirit in which members of the House should do their duty. It is no more than right that the House should demand, for the sake of its own existence and in view of the powers which have been extended to it, that this way of detracting from the rights of individual members to discuss the principles of a Bill on the second reading, should not again be resorted to. If there are circumstances justifying such a course, the House should be informed of them. If it is necessary, that course may be taken, but it cannot be done in circumstances where the only reason for such a course is that members want to go home and that the necessary time cannot be given for the consideration of the proposed legislation.

I wish to add my voice to the protests that already have been lodged against this omnibus Bill of 21 clauses. I do not suppose, however, that much weight will be attached to a voice crying in this wilderness, but I wonder if I could reinforce what I have to say by quoting the words of a very eloquent speaker in this House who, just over a year ago, in dealing with another omnibus Bill, said—

It has already been quoted this morning.

I did not know that, but it is worth quoting again. One wonders how the Minister of the Interior can justify our being asked to deal with such a vast variety of subjects in one measure at the tail-end of the session. However, I wish to say a few words with regard to the Government’s contribution to local authorities’ public health expenditure. The hon. the Minister tried to make the point this morning to the effect that when the contribution was dealt with in 1928, the arrangement made was a temporary one, but the information I have from one of our local authorities is that from that time onward they have been encouraged to believe that the policy laid down by the Government would not be altered. The first indication of any change occurred last session. I know of no warning being given before that time of any change in the system of contribution towards these services. Last year the local authorities were given to understand that the reduction was only a temporary reduction for the year, and that if they submitted cheerfully to it, the original rate of contribution would be resumed when times improved. There was no indication that the Government contemplated any change in their policy. The proposal now made limits the expenditure in the case of the two larger municipalities to £10,000 per annum, and this is regarded as unfair, in the interests of public health, and unfair to the ratepayers of these municipalities. The information is put before me that the effect of this reduction will be that the services in question will be seriously interfered with in the municipality of Cape Town. I feel that the Minister is not fully acquainted with the extent of the commitments, certainly in Cape Town and possibly in Johannesburg, and I ask him whether he would not be prepared, at the conclusion of the session, to receive further representations on this subject, and to hold out some hope that, if the point is made clear that the municipalities are committed to a very heavy expenditure which they cannot cut down summarily, he might find some way of meeting them. I would like the Minister to consider this. I can only say that this proposal of his comes as a very great disappointment to the local authorities. They feel that it is almost a breach of the understanding expressed in the reply given to them last year, and I do most earnestly ask the Minister to consider whether he has before him all the information necessary to justify him in coining to the decision which he has so far expressed, yielding, as he has done, to the Treasury, and not to his own department, in deciding to cut down the refunds.

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC HEALTH [inaudible].

That does not deter me from emphasizing just what the view of the local authorities may be, or what the views of people generally may be. I am sorry the hon. gentleman finds nothing fresh in what I have said. We are not saying this for the sake of repetition, and let me say to him again that I am satisfied that the particular municipality I referred to is not agreeable to what has been done, and is not satisfied that the Minister has thoroughly grasped the point of view that they wish to place before him. I beg of him to give the assurance that he will leave himself free to receive other representations from them, and, if they can make out the case that this is an arbitrary and unjustified interference with the policy formerly adopted, that he will re-adjust the matter so that the interests of public health will not suffer.

Hon. members have put forward a very powerful and very convincing plea against the manner in which this measure has been brought forward. Members are not given an opportunity of enlightening themselves as to what is embodied in the Bill. To my mind, if the Minister will excuse my saying so, judging by the very manner in which the hon. the Minister has introduced the second reading of this measure, it appeared to me that he himself has not had the opportunity members are asking for. Clause by clause he turned over notes from estimable officers of State behind them. I do not blame the Minister. One must rather extend him sympathy because of the multifarious duties resting on his shoulders, not only from his own department but also from other departments. I want, however, to join in the protest that has been made, and without detracting from the value of the work done by the officers of State, I want to say that my difficulty is that I am not responsible either to the Minister or to the officers of State, but to my constituents, and, as a, matter of fact, it is impossible for me to go back to my constituents and say that I have had an opportunity of studying this measure and of debating this measure on its merits. I plead with this House, and with the Government, that, in future, whenever such a measure is introduced, especially a measure which embraces many subjects with important interests involved, ample time will be afforded us to digest it. This, it appears to me, is becoming a hardy annual in this House. I remember that a measure of this kind went through in 1928, which embraced, inter alia, provisions which altered the law with regard to irrigation. I happened to be involved in a matter of litigation and I was not at first aware of the provisions of that section, but if my attention had not been drawn to it in time, I would have involved my clients in serious expense. This Bill is nothing but 20 Bills rolled into one, and in each one there is a valuable principle involved. One realizes the difficulties of the Government, and one does not want to be unjust to it, but if we were to divorce all these principles from the conglomerate Bill, we would have 20 different measures which would have to go through the House, and through the processes involved in getting them on the statute book. I realize the difficulty, but I would not go so far as the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. S. P. Bekker) to say that in future one would oppose any measure that involves more than one principle; but I do say that when the Government comes forward with a measure of this kind, let it be fair to hon. members and give us a reasonable opportunity of studying it. There is another aspect of the matter, and that is that derogatory terms are applied, and those of us who are jealous of the dignity of this House deplore that various appellations should be applied to our measures, such as a “hotch-potch Bill,” which is unworthy of the dignity of/ this House; and to obviate this I would urge on the Government to divorce, as much as possible, these different principles, and have as few principles as possible in one Bill.

I feel myself in a difficulty with regard to this Bill, because I am in total disagreement with the plea the Minister put up with regard to the limitation of funds to local authorities, and I am in partial agreement with the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). What strikes me is, are we as civilized as we pretend to be in this House, because if we compare the estimates, as adopted on page 87, you will find that as far as the health of animals is concerned, we are prepared to vote an increase of £41,000 this year—to look after the health of sheep, cows and bulls —but at the same time, in an omnibus measure like this, we see we have to limit municipalities to £10,000 per annum when they have to look after the health of human beings. There is something wrong with this. We cannot be concerned more with the health of animals than with the lives of human beings. I associate myself with the plea put forward by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter). I think it is a very fatal policy to make people believe in the big centres that their interests are not fully regarded, and that we are prepared to look only after the interests of those who come from rural communities. It must be a mistake if you can put down £356,000 to look after the Veterinary Department—I refer to that department because it looks after the health of animals—and indicates an increase of £41.000 on last year, and to tell Johannesburg, Cape Town, and other large centres, where they have to deal with tuberculosis and venereal diseases, that they must be limited to £10,000 a year. I hope, before the Bill reaches the committee stage, the Minister in charge of the Bill will see at any rate that this position is taken into full consideration.

I have heard nothing during this debate that could not have been equally well said, and would have had just the same effect, in committee. I, at least, have no grievance against the Minister in that regard. I have not yet, in all my many years in Parliament, heard this thing welcomed. One and all told the same story that it is difficult to grasp and to understand, and that there is too much of it. One feature in its favour this year is that it is not so large as usual. The first point I want to refer to in this Bill is the alteration of the South Africa Act.

Will not the hon. member wait until the committee stage for that?

I am not referring to a particular clause; what I said was caused by the interruption of some hon. members. The change that has been made in this Bill with regard to hon. members is one I heartily disapprove of. I remember that many years ago the 14 days’ leave or holiday was looked upon as ample and sufficient. The present change means that hon. members may be away for six weeks of the session, which gives them an opportunity to show their contempt for Parliament. When it comes to this stage, it is right there should be some protest. I just want to say this, that if six weeks are to be allowed to every member, then a member can stay away for practically half the session. I say it is wrong, and it will not redound to the credit of Parliament. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) says we are responsible only to our constituents. I challenge him to go to his constituency and take the verdict of his constituents on the change that has been made with regard to members during this session. There was nothing which was more to the fore in the last election than the emoluments, etc., of members. I say again that this will not redound to the credit of Parliament, and if there is no other vote against it, there will be mine. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) says it is open to the suggestion that Parliament should sit permanently, as if that were an excuse for a change of this kind. There never has been any suggestion of Parliament sitting permanently. This is a change that should not have been made, that a member may absent himself without penalty for six weeks out of a session of four or five months. There are many other matters in this Bill of which I think the House will scarcely approve. This Bill is used as a means of doing almost everything, but particularly as a means of writing off bad debts. I suppose there is no department which has so much written off as irrigation. Most of us thought that the Hartebeestpoort dam was a steady undertaking, and most of us remember how many farmers were to be made happy and prosperous because of that work, but now we find a considerable writing-off amounting to thousands of pounds in respect of the very people we were led to believe would be made happy and contented, because of the provision of these irrigation works. I think we shall find that this is only the beginning of the writing-off of works of this character.

As one who knows the needs of the Johannesburg municipality in the matter of public health, I want to protest against the cheeseparing policy of the Government in public health matters. If the Minister would take the opportunity of visiting the Rand show and seeing the exhibits displayed in the interests of public health, I believe he would alter his opinion in regard to this grant. The Minister says he is doing this as a matter of finance. What would happen if we in Johannesburg or in the country generally had such outbreaks of plague or pestilence as we have had in the past? How would finance be affected then? There would be no limit to the amount of money that the Government would have to spend. I strongly protest again at this cheese-paring policy of withholding the grant to the various municipalities.

I, too, take this opportunity of voicing my protest and associating myself with the criticism which has been directed against the policy of incorporating into this omnibus Bill very wide provisions which in themselves ought to be considered and to be decided by a straight vote of for or against. I propose merely to direct my observations to the criticism of the policy of the Minister of Public Health, for whom the Minister of Finance is taking authority to limit the subsidy of £10,000 in respect of this national service of public health. The Minister of the Interior intervened in an attempt to reply to the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) and to justify his administrative action. We do know that the responsibility for public health in this country has been divided between the Union Government and the provinces. It is an unscientific division. We know that the provinces are merely responsible for hospital administration and expenses, but at the time of Union it was appreciated that the health of this country was a national service, and the national health of this country was divided between the local authorities and the Union Government. It was arranged that the combating of these infectious and contagious diseases should be shared equally and equitably between local authorities and the central Government, on the basis of £1 for every pound spent by a local authority. That arrangement was entered into and worked harmoniously, but it now works to the detriment of the larger municipalities, who assumed responsibility not for only a local service, but for a national service. It was definitely understood that such complaints as venereal disease, tuberculosis, and other infectious diseases formed a service which should not be foisted upon the local authorities to combat. These local authorities entered into this arrangement with the Union Government, and one would have assumed that the Government would, at any rate, have kept its word. The local authorities assumed responsibility for building up a system to combat this terrible evil which is more rife in this country than in many others. What has been done? In two of the largest municipalities, Cape Town and Johannesburg, they entered into the spirit of that arrangement, they accepted the overtures of the Government, and they created within the municipality an effective fence against these diseases. On the basis of the pledge given by the Union Government, they undertook certain commitments and they built up certain isolation hospitals and certain other services which have induced them to spend very’ much larger sums than they would have had to spend upon purely local services. The Minister of Public Health stated that owing to the inadequacy of the funds of his department, he was unable to meet the commitments upon the shoulders of the Union Government by reason of the happy arrangement which had been entered into between local authorities and his department. He proposed last year to reduce the allowances paid to local authorities by 40 per cent. That decision called forth protests from every municipality throughout the Union and the Minister for the Interior himself voiced the objections and sided with the local authorities, saying that it was an iniquitous arrangement for the Union Government to saddle the local authorities with those responsibilities. The Corporation of Cape Town being saddled with that responsibility means that they are mulcted in an expenditure of between £7,000 and £9,000. What would be the effect if the local authorities themselves attempted to cut down their coat to suit the cloth provided by the Minister? The Minister of the Interior knows very well that these national services, against the dread disease of tuberculosis and other diseases mean the establishment of these isolation hospitals, but now that they are established, the local authorities are told that the Union Government is going to cut down its subsidy. It was on the understanding that certain subsidies were to be paid that these isolation hospitals were established. The Minister now proposes to limit the subsidy to £10,000. If the municipalities of Cape Town and Jonannesburg had not undertaken these national services, one could have understood the Minister limiting the subsidy, but in present circumstances I think it is an iniquity for him to do so. The Minister suggested that he was faced with two alternatives. The local authorities are going to be very severely prejudiced by what the Minister is proposing. A very fine social service is going to be very seriously crippled by what the Minister proposes. Cape Town and Johannesburg have built up a very’ fine service to combat this dreaded disease, but the Minister, in effect, is giving them less subsidy than his predecessor in office suggested. He is in fact subsidizing them on an even less generous basis than 12s. in the pound. One hon. member suggested that immediately there was an outbreak of some cattle disease the Government assumed full responsibility and prepared to fight that disease. Surely, human life is of more concern to the Minister than the life of animals. I protest strongly against any reduction in this national service and I hope that the Minister of the Interior will be able to get the Minister of Finance to agree to the municipalities having the full subsidies returned to them.

As one of the few medical members of this House, I feel it my duty at least to protest against the Minister’s proposals, as I am afraid that the limitation of the subsidy may lead to a great stoppage of progress. Cape Town, and to a lesser extent Johannesburg, is chiefly affected by this cut. I appeal to the Minister to take one of three courses. In the first place to abolish the idea of limitation to a maximum of £10,000. Or, as suggested by the local authorities, if a maximum must be fixed, let it be fixed at the highest amount spent in the previous year. But I want to make still another proposal, and that is to take no steps at all in reduction for the current year. The larger cities, Cape Town and Johannesburg, based their expenditure on the assumption that the cut would be removed and the full subsidy returned to them, and surely to face them with this sudden limit is almost iniquitous. They have undertaken expenditure which cannot be curtailed at short notice, and if the Minister is determined that a reduction must be made, I would urge him to give at least one year’s notice. The financial stringency is passing away and the proposed limitation of the vote is a most reactionary measure.

We have had a very long debate over this Bill and I appreciate that hon. members do not like this form of legislation. No more do I. Hon. members may ask why I introduced it. Well, I am not entitled to make any excuses and I want to make no excuses, but I would just remind members that the time which I have been able to devote to the work of the department in which I am at present acting since I commenced to act, has been altogether inadequate. I do not want to make any excuses, I stand here responsible or the introduction of this Bill, and I am prepared to take the responsibility. I want to assure hon. members that my objections to this form of legislation remain just as strong as they were last year, and that I shall use whatever influence I have with the Government to see that this is the last measure of this kind. In future, financial adjustment Bills will be financial adjustment Bills: that is to say, they will deal with matters that are not of sufficient importance to justify the introduction of special measures, and the amendments of other statutes not of a financial nature will be made by Bills definitely amending them. Personally I think it would be desirable to do more than that, and to have consolidation measures which would incorporate in them all the amendments made in the last few years by means of financial adjustment Bills. I shall devote what time I have to bringing that about, and hope hon. members will accept that assurance. At the same time I feel that some of the arguments that have been put forward to-day have overstated the case. There are very few clauses in this Bill which could not be most effectively debated in committee, and there are very few clauses which require what the hon. member’ for Witbank (Mr. S. P. Bekker) called the second reading debate. I hope that we can adequately discuss these points in committee, anon therefore, I do not propose to deal with them just now. I might mention that if this Bill had not been introduced in its present form, we should have been faced with the necessity of introducing various amending Bills, which would occupy more time this session than most hon. members feel prepared to spare.

Why?

Member after member rose and said, “Why this haste?” Outside in the lobby, however, the question is, “When can we get away—to-day, to-morrow, Saturday or Monday?”

Some hon. members have gone already.

But you made the original announcement that we should sit only three weeks.

Evidently because the hon. member saw that announcement in a newspaper he took it to be correct.

Morning sittings are usually regarded as heralding the end of the session, and we started morning sittings this week.

If some hon. members are prepared to sit two or three weeks longer, let them do so, but the Government cannot carry on Parliament without a quorum. We have been pressed by hon. members to sit morning, noon and night in order to finish the session quickly. I do not propose to deal with the various points on the Bill, which have been raised during the course of the debate, because they can be dealt with in committee, but I wish to point out that there are one or two matters which cannot be covered by this measure. One hon. member asked why the Bill does not provide for relief to be given not merely to those farmers who have bonds on their property, but also to tenant-farmers. That is a matter which can be dealt with when the measure concerning it comes before us. Another member asked, “Why not relieve farmers who are indebted in other ways than through their mortgages?” I may point out, however, that there are certain limits to the length to which the Government can go in these matters, and the policy laid down in the budget speech is the utmost to which the Government can go during this session. I think it is inadvisable to hold out any hope that the scope of the relief for farmers, as forecasted in the budget speech, can be very far exceeded.

Motion put and a division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. Bouwer, Derbyshire, Madeley, McArthur, Dr. H. Reitz and Mr. Sutton) voted against the motion, Mr. Speaker declared the motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee on 19th June.

I move—

This Bill is not designed, as many people seem to think, as a sort of grandmotherly piece of legislation to kill cabarets and night and other clubs; on the contrary, it is a Bill designed to enable the authorities to carry out the law of the land, and more particularly it is designed to operate what I might call a rule of evidence. It is designed to assist in cleaning up an unprecedented state of affairs which has arisen, in Johannesburg more particularly. Let us be quite frank about it, this Bill is designed to deal particularly with Johannesburg. What is the position in Johannesburg? I would like to quote from the commissioner of police. He sets out the position in better terms than I can do it, and I think, considering the experience of the commissioner of police, and his personal knowledge of the facts, that the House should attach very considerable importance to his statements. The commissioner of police says that since the Embassy case last December, a large number of so-called night clubs have sprung up in Johannesburg. Hon. members will remember that last December a gambling hall called “The Embassy” was raided, and a large number of persons were prosecuted, but under a technical point they were found not guilty. I will now read the report of the commissioner of police—

Members will notice that these clubs have big memberships. The Cosmo, for instance, has a membership of 2,000, a club which has been running for about three months. I do not suppose that the older clubs, like the Rand Club, have so large a membership; yet here we have a mushroom club which in three months has a membership of 2,000. The report of the police commissioner also says—

I do not know why hon. members laugh.

There was a vision of the Rand Club which came up in my mind then.

The commissioner of police says that there is in every club a large percentage of members who are crooks, with criminal records. He continues—

I prefaced my remarks by saying that this Bill was a measure designed to assist the authorities in carrying out the existing law. It is not a Bill to create a new crime. It simply designs a rule of evidence to assist the police in carrying out the existing law. The Transvaal antigambling law is governed by No. 6 of 1889; in other words, for over 40 years it has been the law of this country. We are merely asking the House now to enable us to carry out the law of this country. The law is that it shall be unlawful to keep a gaming house in the Transvaal, and that every house shall be deemed a gambling house in which gaming appliances may be found wherein or whereon it shall appear that a bank is kept, in which, or whereon the players stake money against the money of the croupier or owner of the house, or the table, or against money supplied by any person, bank or firm or mutual association, as a fund or capital for the purpose of gambling, or wherein or whereon rouge-et-noir, roulette, faro or any other game is being played. That is as the law stands in the Transvaal, and the Cape is substantially the same.

No, look at the 1902 Act.

I have looked at the most recent Cape legal decision on the matter. However, we need not go into that at the present moment. The view which the Supreme Court has laid down is that the meaning of this law is that games of chance are only illegal if played in a place to which the public have access. A game of chance, or a gamble, if you like, is not necessarily illegal. It is only illegal if played in a place to which the public have access. Now we come to the loophole which unscrupulous people are using in order to provide for unscrupulous gambling, on the Rand more particularly. They hire premises, form themselves into a club, with bogus rules, used as a screen in order to get round this legal point. They say: “This is a club, and the public have no access to us. We have got our, rules. You have got to be elected a member.” And because of that, a court has to find these people not guilty, though they are caught actually gambling, because they say, “We are a club, and the public have no access to us.” I ask the House to tell me whether the list of clubs which I have read here can be bona fide clubs. They have sprung up since December, and almost every one of them has a larger membership than any of the old-established clubs. My information, and I have checked it to some extent myself, is that there is scarcely the pretence of the nomination or the seconding of a member. Any man can go there. I will not mention names, but there are certain members who, in order to check this, have gone to a club like this and got themselves nominated straight off. I have a list of membership, and without their knowledge they are figuring as permanent members of this club. [Laughter.] I do not know whether this is a cause for laughter, when we have a state of affairs like that, when we have a strong report from the police on the matter. It is becoming an open scandal in Johannesburg, and is doing a tremendous amount amount of harm. We find the law is being openly defeated, and we are asking this House, not to introduce a joy killer and new repressive legislation, but to take the necessary measures to carry out the existing law. What are the objections to this? I have heard only a few, and I am astonished that there are any objections from any quarter. I understand there are going to be objections, based, as far as I can make out, on two points. Several members have received wires to the effect: “Please do not close down these”—night clubs or gamblng hells, or whatever you call them— “because you will cause more unemployment.” You san say the same about brothels or illicit distilleries, because, if they are closed down, some people will lose their employment. This is, to me, an extraordinary argument. That objection I think we can brush aside. The other objection has more substance, and it is said, “Yes, we agree, the position in Johannesburg has become a serious evil, and it is a danger”; but it will not be confined to Johannesburg, but will spread its tentacles to Cape Town and other places. It is said that, while stamping out this evil, you are affecting bona fide clubs. That is the only argument which, as far as I can see, has any substance whatever. The objection based on the allegation that we are going to damage bona fide clubs in Johannesburg is purely academic. They say that if this law goes through, if a member of the Rand Club or a similar club plays an innocuous game of bridge, or whatever they do play there, they may be raided. All these clubs are subject to this at the present moment. Under the liquor laws anyone of these can be raided. So this argument carries very little with it. Where, I ask members, has a reputable club been raided by the police, unless a club has been known as a centre of gambling. Surely we know, in a country like this, that our police use their discretion. Those people who are afraid of being raided should have been afraid of this all along.

They can raid them under the liquor laws.

Yes, they can be raided under the liquor laws, under the gambling laws, and under a number of laws. [Interruption.] There may be exceptions, of which I do not know; but generally speaking, reputable clubs have never been molested, and when an hon. member uses this as an argument, I am inclined to reply that if you are using that argument, you are degrading your own club to a night club. Surely the Rand Club, the Civil Service Club, or any other decent reputable club, has nothing to fear from this Bill. Then I will be asked why I have brought forward this Bill at all. I will be told there are a great number of important measures for which the country is waiting, and that in a session like this—a whirlwind session—which is supposed to be dealing with financial measures, the Government should not bring in this Bill; but I can only say that I have brought this Bill forward because it is an emergency Bill. The police and a great many other citizens in Johannesburg look upon this as crying for immediate relief, and this cannot wait. Another six months and these gentlemen running these gambling resorts will have reaped another hoard. I do say that, if this Bill is not passed before we can bring in another Bill next year, the damage done may be irremediable; I hope the House will assist the police and strengthen our hands, and that it will carry this Bill.

I want to associate myself with the Minister in this Bill. There is just one point in which the Minister has disappointed me, and that is this—I thought I was the only member who had actual experience of these night clubs, but the Minister assures me that there are others. I know what these clubs are like, and I want to tell hon. members what happened under my eyes. I have seen a man who cannot afford it lose a sum of £1,700, and youngsters who sat through the night lose £800. I saw several people I knew to be clerks and others I knew as typists lose their entire month’s salary in one night at these clubs. The danger in that is obvious to all; and therefore I ask the House not to treat this as a matter of levity at all. There is one thing in addition I object to in these clubs, and that is the type of person to whom the money is going. Surely, if this is going to bring anything in the nature of a disturbance to other clubs, I hope they will have a high sense of responsibility and not mind that. This movement is not going to stop in Johannesburg, but is bound to spread to other parts. I can assure hon. members from the country that the first thing most country visitors ask is where these clubs are, and how they can be introduced to them. I am sure that the more reputable clubs will have a high sense of responsibility, and support this measure. Therefore I do very strongly urge the House to support the Minister in this Bill, and not to think it has been brought in lightly or that there is no urgent need for it, because those of us who live in Johannesburg know only too well the need that does exist.

I want to reinforce what has been said about the evils of these night clubs. I have never been in one of them but I have heard sufficient to know what goes on there. Young respectable girls are lured there under the pretence of excitement and they are supplied with liquor. It is not supplied by the club, but is kept in lockers by the members. These girls very often have to be carried into motor cars between three and six o’clock in the morning. The hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. Reitz) has told you of young girls losing a month’s salary in these clubs. Sometimes they do not lose, they win, and I have heard of girls winning £50, £80 or £100 in one night and spending the whole lot the next day on dress.

Shame.

The trouble is they get accustomed to this sort of thing and they go back for more excitement and more money. The danger is increasing and I want to impress upon the House the urgent necessity for passing this Bill.

I have no sympathy whatever with gaming houses and from what I have heard of the things that happen in the night clubs referred to, I am inclined to agree that they are seriously in need of drastic control. But the whole point is that this Bill is introducing something like panic legislation which go.es far beyond the mischief it is aimed at. The difficulty in Johannesburg seems to he that where the public have access to a gaming house you cannot run anyone in. I pointed out that under the Cape law we have dealt with that and under the Act of 1902 any such house, even if open for the use of subscribers only, may be deemed to be a gaming-house. The Transvaal law is an old law of 1889 which needs tightening up. Surely, the way to deal with it would be to stop that loophole and not bring in a general law for the whole Union which will interfere with a number of innocent things which have nothing to do with these night clubs in Johannesburg. The whole subject of betting in the Union stands in need of a consolidated law, but now the Minister is introducing a great deal of confusion by bringing in a Bill in this form. In the first place, ordinary licensed clubs are already dealt with under the Liquor Law of 1928. Are they to come under this law as well? It is an offence for any licensed club to allow gambling on the premises. Is this to repeal the Liquor Law in that respect? The Minister will find from the Liquor Act of 1928 that there is special provision in Clause 161.

I do not see your point.

My point is, that as far as the licensed clubs are concerned, the law deals with that. You want to deal with a big mischief confined to a small area. Why do you not amend the Transvaal law so as to deal with that? Why introduce a panic law that is going to deal with a number of things not comparable with what is going on in Johannesburg? There was recently a successful prosecution in Cape Town—

It is under appeal.

I do not know what the result of the appeal will be, but at any rate there has been a prosecution and a successful one in the magistrate’s court. As a matter of fact, without consolidating the betting law we are introducing a Bill here which is going to make the subject of betting one of absolute confusion.

How will it affect betting?

I am telling you that the Bill as it stands does not refer to any other legislation and it will be a fine time for the lawyers to decide how far it affects clubs under the Liquor Act and betting houses without in express terms amending the law. Surely the only mischief the Minister is concerned with is in Johannesburg. Why then does he not close the loophole in the Transvaal Act. This Bill has consequences which he does not intend it to have.

It is necessary in the Cape too.

If the Minister will look at the Act of 1902 he will find the mischief he referred to of gambling taking place and not being subject to conviction because it is only open to subscribers, is specifically provided for in that Act. The law is there applied both to subscribers and to members of the general public. Take again, the question of race clubs. Tattersalls and other places are specially licensed by the State as places where you can conduct betting in connection with horse racing. If this goes through in its present form you will be taking, on the one hand, revenue through bookmakers and so on, and at the same time you will declare that you can run them in The race club is not expressed to be exempt under this provision. Anyone who goes to bet at Tattersalls may be contravening this law or if he bets on a racecourse. The Minister has introduced this slap-dash one-clause Bill without saving what is going to happen to legitimate betting that is allowed by law to take place on racecourses—

It says—”Unlawful gambling”.

Was this Bill drafted by the Minister or by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell)?

You would not dare to bring these arguments before any court.

My hon. friend is not going to say what I would dare or not dare. I am going to say what I have to say in spite of the hon. member for Kensington. As far as this particular Bill is concerned, there is no provision made for what is to happen on race-courses. Why not? Are we going to leave it to the courts to decide whether Tattersalls is to be closed down or whether you are to be allowed to bet any more on racecourses? Undoubtedly such bets may be interpreted to come under tins clause. I do not suppose it is intended, but that is my objection. If this Bill were referred to a select committee so that we could see that the mischief aimed at is dealt with, I should have no objection. I realize there is a great deal of mischief going on in Johannesburg which should be stopped, but you must bring in legislation to deal with that specifically and not with a lot of other things that have nothing to do with it. Racing clubs should be dealt with by way of exemption. The question of ordinary clubs with liquor licences should also be specially dealt with. If this were earlier in the session I would say send it to a select committee. I realize that the whole subject of betting in the Union needs consolidating. You have different laws affecting gaming and betting in every province and the time has come to have one law for the whole Union but you cannot bring it in by such a clause as this. For such a Bill I would vote, and I would certainly vote for anything that would close the night clubs so far as gaming and gambling are concerned, but bring in your Bill in a form which will deal with the mischief you want to deal with, and do not bring in a Bill that deals with matters that you do not want to deal with. You do not want to prevent a person from going to Tattersalls and betting on the racecourse. Under this Bill you do not make it clear that you are not doing so, and yet you take revenue from them under the provincial ordinances. You bring in a Bill which may stamp the whole of that procedure as illegal, without attempting to expressly repeal the existing race laws, or without dealing with a number of the existing provisions in provincial legislation by way of exemption. This Bill is in the form of panic legislation. It is not carefully drafted or considered, and I hope that the Minister before going into committee will agree to draft the measure in such a way that it will deal with the mischief which he intends to deal with, and not with a number of other matters which he does not intend to deal with.

If the hon. member j who has just sat down had taken the trouble to read this one-clause Bill, he would not have got up here and spoken as he has done. This Bill has nothing whatever to do with race-courses or with betting on the racecourse. The measure consists of one clause, which I shall read to him. This is what it says—

The hon. member will sec there that it says “unlawful games or gambling”—

In other words, once the fact is established that the acts committed arc unlawfid gaming and gambling, as already laid down in the existing laws, it will not be a defence for such a person to say “I did so as a member of the club”, but what the racecourse has to do with it, I do not know. It was quite unnecessary for the hon. member to get so offensive. I put a perfectly legitimate point to him. This Bill is not a Bill to abolish night clubs, it is a Bill to abolish gambling in night clubs, and gambling is defined in the Transvaal Act and in other Acts. Gambling is defined in the Cape and elsewhere in this way—it is not playing bridge for money. If playing bridge for money is gambling, then I am a gambler, and I admit it. Gambling is defined in this Act as playing such games as chemin-de-fer, faro, games in which the bank is held by one person, and the members of the public come to stake against that bank. It is defined in the clearest possible terms in the Gambling Act of 1889, passed in the then Transvaal Republic, and it has been the law in the Transvaal ever since, and every one of us Transvaalers has grown up to understand that such games as are played at Lourenco Marques and Monte Carlo are forbidden in the Transvaal. That was the case until six months ago, when someone succeeded in getting a decision from a magistrate in Johannesburg to the effect that if you are all members of the same club, then you could have all these games which have been forbidden from time immemorial in the Transvaal, and it is simply because of that decision that the introduction of this Bill has become necessary. The acting Minister of Justice is perfectly correct when he says that these are not bona fide clubs. They are not clubs to which 50 or 100 people belong in a bona fide way, to which they pay their subscriptions, of which they are members in the ordinary sense of the word. They are not clubs as we understand the word “club”. There are members of this House, I am one of them, who have been to these night clubs, and there is little or no formality whatsoever about getting in. The hon. member next to me (Mr. Kentridge) went into one himself. You are signed on as a member and if you want to visit the gambling portion of the club it is quite easy. The hon. member who sits next to me told me just now that he went to one of the most prominent of these clubs. He went with a friend, he was presented with a card of membership, and he was at once enrolled as a member. You have seen where the mischief comes in. The acting Minister of Justice has told us what the position is. Any person in Johannesburg who wants to gamble can go to any of these clubs as freely as he can go to any of those clubs or to any of those casinos in towns like Monte Carlo, Trouville, or other continental cities. Is there any hon. member of this House who is prepared to see any of our towns brought down to the level of a place like Nice, Monte Carlo or Trouville, or any other European city where gambling is carried on?

Why not?

I shall tell the hon. member why not. Because the dissipation that is caused by these casinos in those cities is of such a nature that the countries in which these things occur are at their wits’ end to put an end to that kind of thing. They used to have an open casino at Lourenco Marques; the Portuguese authorities are perhaps not as greatly concerned about the welfare of their citizens in respect of gambling as our Government is, but the condition of affairs got so bad at Lourenco Marques that in order to protect their own nationals they closed the place down, and if it exists to-day it exists under the robe. The authorities found that their own nationals were being ruined to such an extent by these casinos that they had no option but to close these places. Are we going to allow, not a casino controlled by the authorities, but a dozen or two dozen or three dozen unofficial casinos run by bookmakers? I was pilloried in the “Cape Times” this morning as a “kill-joy”. The editor of the “Cape Times” is talking through his editorial hat when he suggests that this Bill is aimed at or will hurt legitimate clubs; he is talking through his hat and he ought to know it. This Bill is not aimed at, and does not interfere with, legitimate clubs Its only result will be to do one thing, to close down these night clubs which have sprung up like mushrooms in the last six months, and are absolutely poisoning the life of Johannesburg. My words are not inspired by a desire to be a kifl-joy. Responsible business men of Johannesburg will tell you that the young men and girls of Johannesburg are being debauched by these night clubs. The case has not been put too strongly by other members who have spoken. Young men and women go night after night to these places, and they sit there from 9 o’clock at night until 5 o’clock in the morning gambling. The rake-off taken by the proprietors of some of these clubs has been mentioned to me as being something in the nature of £10,000 per month. Many people have been ruined by frequenting these places. Already two suicides are known to be due to gambling in these clubs, and the amount of human misery resulting from the activities of these clubs cannot be adequately described by me. I have had a telegram from a prominent solicitor in Johannesburg, who is not a kill-joy by any means, which reads—

The sender of this telegram is Mr. Leveson— I do not suppose he minds my mentioning his name—of the firm of Messrs. Wertheim, Becker & Leveson. Every citizen of Johannesburg knows that these gambling hells are a curse which we have to stop, and to stop immediately. This legislation is just as urgent as any other legislation that can be brought forward this session. Let me deal with one or two arguments that have been advanced. Does the hon. member for Castle (Mr. Alexander) know that only two or three months ago, in Cape Town, the Savoy Club was raided? A long defence was put up, and ultimately the magistrate who heard the case convicted the members of the club of gambling. The defence was the very same defence as was put forward in the case of the Embassy Club, Johannesburg, namely, that they were members of a social club, and therefore could not be touched. An appeal has been noted, and if that appeal is successful, then you will get the same mushroom growth of these clubs in Cape Town, although probably to a lesser extent than in Johannesburg. This necessitates making this a comprehensive Bill dealing with all portions of the Union.

Does it?

We can deal with that point in committee. Then we have heard a plea for delay and investigation. Surely the facts in this case cry aloud to heaven You do not want more than that simple document— the report of the commissioner of police for the Union. What member of this House would dare to have it on his conscience that he opposed the Bill, when the commissioner of police says that the state of affairs now prevailing in Johannesburg is unparalleled in the empire. What member dare say to his constituents, “I voted against or thwarted the passing of the Bill to close down these night clubs”? If we do not pass the Bill this ses sion, these places will have another twelve months’ respite. In that time the existing number of clubs will probably be trebled or quadrupled, and then next year we shall have a cry of “vested interests.” The proprietors of these clubs will then say, “We have sunk so much capital that if we close down we shall be ruined.” The best thing to do is to stamp out this evil before it becomes too big to be tackled. We should let it be known that we are not going to tolerate casinos and night clubs. The cabarets and dancing portions of these clubs can be kept on until the crack of doom, as far as I am concerned. But if you close the gambling hell portion of the clubs, you close the clubs themselves. That is why the proprietors are down here to fight us. Everybody knows that the minute you close down the roulette tables and stop the gambling, you close these clubs automatically, an admission on their part that they can only exist out of the profits of gambling. The acting Minister of Justice was right in saying that we are not creatig any new offence, but endeavouring to affirm what has been the law of the Transvaal for 45 years. Unfortunately, the proprietors of these clubs have found how to drive a coach and four through the present law. If Parliament has a conscience, however, it will see that that loophole is closed, and what was understood to be the law is to be continued as the law. There is only one other argument that can be used against this Bill—that is the argument expressed through the press, that if you close down these clubs you will throw a number of people out of employment. Of course you will. You cannot deal with any evil which is a form of money-making without creating unemployment. The acting Minister of Justice rightly said that a similar argument would apply to the closing of brothels or shebeens. Six months ago, shebeens sprang up all over Johannesburg, and the owner of a shebeen and his employees might argue that the closing of the shebeens would throw them out of employment. It is just as logical to advance that argument in the present case. In conclusion, do not let us delude ourselves into thinking that this Bill will have any effect on the ordinary reputable club, the rules of which forbid gambling. No gambling is permitted at the Rand Club, or any other reputable club. No decent club will allow you to run a roulette table, or to play baccarat, but it does permit the ordinary card games, such as bridge and, perhaps, even poker. No reputable club permits gambling in the sense in which gambling is referred to in this Bill. It is not true to say that the Bill refers to existing clubs, and if it does, then you have the assurance of the acting Minister that if the Bill brings a reputable club within its ambit, then that club has nothing to fear. Reputable clubs do not play the games included in the definition in Law No. 6 of 1889, section 3, of the Old Transvaal Republic. The games which the Bill seeks to prohibit include baccarat, roulette, chemin-de-fer and faro. In other words, the essence of gambling is that there is a proprietor who keeps a bank, just as in the casinos in Europe. That is the essence of gambling under this Act. They get over this by saying there was no proprietor, and that they are all members of one club. That is how they managed to evade the law in this Embassy Club case. Any reputable club in South Africa forbids this sort of thing by its rules. I hope hon. members will forgive me if I speak strongly on this subject. I have seen something of the evil that has been done, and I know something of the evil that is being done, and I do believe from the bottom of my heart that this House will put an end once for all to this social canker that is eating into the heart of Johannesburg, and that threatens to eat into the life of the rest of South Africa.

I want to associate myself with what was said by hon. members who have spoken on the importance of this Bill. In connection with the remarks of the Minister as to why this measure is necessary, I want to point out that this canker has gone a great deal further than the House may realize. I imagine that that canker is not confined to Johannesburg, but that it is also met with in Cape Town. Apart from the instance which the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell has mentioned, I believe that there are many institutions of this kind in Cape Town. It is bad enough that we, in South Africa, should tolerate in any form that kind of abuse, but I cannot conceive of there being people in South Africa, and in this House, who can plead that we should not introduce legislation to combat this illegal gambling that is going on. I cannot conceive how an hon. member, with a sense of responsibility, an hon. member who has made a study of the moral side of gambling, can get up here and plead that we should allow this canker, which prevails in Johannesburg, and also in Cape Town, to continue. In the first place, it is quite clear to any person who has made a study of the problem that it is necessary for all representatives of the people to make a deeper study of lotteries in general. We are dealing here with lottery in its saddest form, but when we hear how lightly some members talk about it, not merely about night clubs, but also about ordinary lottery in general, then I must say that they give evidence of the greatest ignorance. There are excellent books in the parliamentary library dealing with this problem, and I hope hon. members will make use of those. We are not discussing the principle, but the basis of this Bill is that those things are illegal. It was interesting to hear from the hon. member for Kensington, and from the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. Reitz) of the tragic results of this gambling among young and old people. I imagine that to hear an hon. member of this House directly or indirectly defending such places by opposing the Bill before us, would be enough to scare us all. Young people lose money at those places, I know that they lose money there. They lose lots of money there and the majority of them lose. And what is worse still is this, those young people do not merely lose their salary and their money there, but they lose their moral life as well. If we sit still and allow that kind of thing to take place in our country, these gambling places will not stop in Johannesburg but they will spread throughout the country, as they are doing to-day, with all the moral ruin that they carry in their train. This gambling and lottery does not merely ruin all moral life, it also ruins religious life. Those of us who have taken the trouble to make a study of those things can testify to the correctness of the words of a savant from Holland. He states—

It is true that at the root of the matter we find that those people who take part in that kind of thing lose their religious sense, if they ever had any. It has a deadly effect on their religious life, and it is ruinous to the religious life of a nation. For that reason it is tragic to see that although the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for Kensington have given us instances here of what is going on, there are yet members who see fit to laugh about things. If they could only see the external results of those things that are going on, they would be scared and come to the conclusion that we can no longer tolerate these things. I want to read a few lines from a book which may be seen in the library. It is a book named “Fortuna,” and it is written by Norwood Young. He dilates on what takes place in a town like Monte Carlo, and he says—

We are dealing here with the losses of gamblers. The author continues and says—

I shudder almost to say this, but we have already experienced the truth of what is said here. I know that in a certain province one of our most prominent men in public life took part in that kind of thing, and he was taken away from our midst in the most tragic way as a result of the things in which he participated. I hope it will never be my lot that a son or a daughter of mine should ever be found in one of the night clubs of Johannesburg. We who honour our fathers and mothers would not like to see them in those night clubs which one comes across in Johannesburg. It is for that reason that I am of opinion that this Bill should be passed, to put a stop to those night clubs. One does not find them only in Johannesburg, but they are already found in Cape Town. Let us put a stop to them.

I would not have had anything to say at this stage had it not been for the speech of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell), who rather fired my imagination and aroused my curiosity. He caused me to wonder, as it must have caused other hon. members to wonder, where we are. It caused me to wonder where I am. The hon. member was at great pains to illustrate that why we should close down these night-clubs was to prevent gambling. He gave two instances where individuals had committed suicide because of their losses, and by the general atmosphere, to which the previous speaker (the Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) referred, caused by the wounding of their self-esteem, and not so much by the losses of these sums of money. But, in order to placate somebody else evidently, the hon. member for Kensington was at great pains to convince us why gambling in other directions was not affected by this Bill, and that there was no purpose in opposing this Bill. I say, as a member of Parliament with a certain modicum of commonsense and responsibility, that I have to confess that I do not know where I am, and I have to pass a vote and other hon. members have to do so. I agree with the contention, brought forward by the Minister and the hon. member for Kensington, that all this talk about closing down night-clubs causing unemployment is altogether beside the question, and is only making use of an unfortunate situation quite wrongly, and I may say, dishonestly. The burglar might as well say “Do not attack my profession, because are are preventing the ironmonger from making jemmies, and so causing unemployment”. Of course, I deplore anything which causes unemployment; but that does not cause me to warp my judgment in this matter or any other matter that comes before Parliament. Two hundred or three hundred years ago, I can quite well see the hon. member for Kensington consigning anybody to the rack on a mere statement—it is enough for him to be satisfied that something is wrong to say that it is wrong. He is satisfied that we should support this Bill on the mere recommendation of the commissioner of police.

What about newspaper reports?

I am not saying there is nothing else.

I think it is common knowledge.

The hon. member’s attitude does him no discredit, and I do not see why he should be ashamed of it. He wanted us to be convinced by the report of the commissioner of police, and I resent that. I have my own judgment to consider, and build that up with evidence. I want the evidence. My hon. friend is a barrister, and I can well imagine him appearing before a court and objecting to any ex-parte statements.

They are facts.

I have to convince myself that they are facts, and have to convince myself of the implication of those facts. It may be my loss that I do not come into touch with night-clubs, and I have not even become an honorary member. I am not like the hon. member who is an honorary member of a nightclub.

A member for one night.

I should like to know what transpired to make him cease to be an honorary member But I absolutely object to having to cast my vote without evidence being brought before me. Then the Minister says this is very urgent. But there is the settlement of the problem of unemployment and provision of food for starving children to-day. The Minister anticipated one of my objections to this rush legislation when he said it might be argued that other legislation like that to deal with miners’ phthisis, was urgent. But, in the eyes of the Minister and his colleagues in the Cabinet, none of these things is so necessary as by an Act of Parliament, in a hurry, in a panic-stricken way, to make certain people moral—try to make them moral by an Act of Parliament It is infinitely more necessary to remove from thousands of unfortunates in this country the misery they are enduring to-day owing to not being able to obtain food through unemployment. I urge that on the Minister. I have yet to learn that you can make any person moral by Act of Parliament.

You can make them immoral by force of circumstances.

You are deliberately conspiring in favour of circumstances which make for immorality, and there are people who have to go in for illicit liquor selling because of the misuse of your power. I agree that circumstances may make people immoral; but acts of Parliament will not make them moral. If the hon. member for Kensington is the Simon Pure he makes out—I am sorry he is not present— why does he not endeavour by this Bill to put down gambling altogether? You talk about suicides as a result of night clubs. Have you never heard of them as the result of gambling on the stock exchange, the worst gambling institution in South Africa.

Or the racecourse?

I am coming to that, although I have never been there. Yes, I have been to the racecourse, but I have never lost any money, nor have I won any. That reminds me that the hon. and charming member for Parktown (Mrs. Reitz) poured a terrible tale of woe into our ears about the typist who lost a month’s salary in the few hours of darkness between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. She found this sufficient reason, in her mind, for the closing of these night clubs, and she was followed by the hon. but not so charming member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), who found sufficient reason in the fact that some people won money there. One wants them closed because people lose, and the other because the same sort of people win. Incidentally, we are told that the girl who wins spends it on dress, and then looks forward to winning again. Well, good luck to her. If the object of this Bill is to stop gambling, then why don’t you stop gambling? Why do you just make a point of killing a particular type of gambling, and leave racecourses, for instance, alone? I say that we are hypocritical if in the sacred name of keeping down gambling we close night clubs and allow the bookmaker and the totalisator on the racecourse to remain. We are hypocritical if we desire to close down night clubs, because there is gambling there, if we allow to remain what the hon. member for Kensington is pleased to call reputable clubs—and I notice he is careful to say “reputable”, if we allow them to permit their members to play bridge or even poker. I understand that this remarkable game is essentially a gambling game. I have heard, of course, that classic phrase “a poker face”. I have usually assigned that to the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard). I have always thought he had what is generally known as a poker face. Joking aside, either we are out to stop gambling or we are not. If we believe, which I do not, that you can stop gambling by Act of Parliament, that you can make people moral by Act of Parliament, then your legislation has to be completely comprehensive. We have to stop gambling by means of playing cards, whether it is bridge or poker or anything else, or whether it is betting on a horse race. The only gambling I know of that you can regard as giving you an even money chance is the little whippet. The poor little beggar does try his utmost when running, but we never know when a horse is being pulled. If you are out to stop gambling, stop it or try and do so; shut down your stock exchange, which has ruined hundreds of people in South Africa; stop betting on horse racing, which has ruined hundreds also, and has not been unproductive of suicides.

What about politics?

No, that is not a gamble, that is a swindle. No one knows that better than my hon. friend, or rather, his constituents are convinced of it. As a member of Parliament, I have to cast my vote and I do not know how to cast it without full enquiry. I have no interest in any night clubs anywhere. I have no interest in any gambling concern or arrangement. I am not trying to write myself a testimonial. This has been foisted upon me personally very suddenly. After all, when you are attacking people who have hitherto been able to escape the law, you have some obligation to get evidence from them. It could be done in a week. If this is so urgent there is no reason why the session should not be extended for another three weeks or a month, to cope with this situation. Let us get away from the reputation we are rapidly gaining, of hastily passing legislation because of panic, because some representations have been made sufficiently loudly. Let us get away from that reputation, and once more get back to the reputation we used to have of calmly and carefully considering our legislation with all the facts before us, and all the evidence it is possible to obtain, before we come to a definite conclusion. I do not want to hold this up. I am against gambling, I am against drink, I am against all those things that upset the balance of men’s and women’s lives, but I am not a fool, nor am I prepared to cast my vote without knowing all the evidence from all sides. Therefore, I urge upon the Minister that while not withdrawing this, he does allow an inquiry to be made in the form of, say, a select committee, which could be set up to-day. My hon. friend says the supporters of the night clubs are in the lobby at the present time.

They are up there.

All right, get their evidence then.

The Reef mayors, I mean.

My hon. friend has spoken more truly than he knew. Let us go into all the pros and cons. I do make that plea to the Minister.

There is nothing much more that I want to say at this stage. Several hon. members have remarked that you cannot make a man moral by Act of Parliament. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) was very emphatic on that. I would like to agree with him. You cannot make a man moral by Act of Parliament, but you can, by Act of Parliament, prevent a man or woman from becoming immoral. I was very glad indeed to find the support which I have for this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee to-morrow.

I move—

Customs Duties.

1. (1) That, subject to the provisons of an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament and to such rebates and remissions of duty as may be provided for therein, customs duties be levied on the articles imported into the Union as set forth in the accompanying schedule.*
   *See reports of debates hereafter when House in Committee of Ways and Means.

Excise.

1. (2) That, subject to the provisions of an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament and to such rebates and remissions of duties as may be provided for therein—
   1. (a) an excise duty on cigarette tobacco manufactured in the Union as set forth in the accompanying schedule be levied; and
   2. (b) a surtax or corresponding customs duty be levied on cigarette tobacco entered for consumption in the Union, either on first importation or when cleared from a bonded warehouse as set forth in the accompanying schedule.

Schedule.

Excise and Corresponding Surtax Duties.

Income Tax.

1. (3) That, subject to an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament and to such amendments of Act No. 40 of 1925, as amended, as may be provided therein, there shall be charged, levied and collected as from the first day of July, 1933, an income tax (to be called the normal tax) on all incomes received by or accrued to or in favour of all persons from any source within or deemed to be within the Union during the year of assessment ending the thirtieth day of June, 1933, at the following rates:
2. (a) In the case of companies the sole or principal business of which is mining for gold, for each pound of taxable amount, four shillings;
3. (b) in the case of companies the sole or principal business of which is mining for diamonds, for each pound of taxable amount, three shillings;
4. (c) in the case of all other companies, for each pound of taxable amount, two shillings and sixpence;
5. (d) in the case of persons other than companies, for each pound of taxable amount, one shilling and as many two-thousandths of a penny as there are pounds in that amount, subject to a maximum rate of two shillings in any such pound.

Super Tax.

1. (4) That, subject to the terms of the aforesaid Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament, there shall be charged, levied and collected as from the first day of July, 1933, a super tax on all incomes defined as being subject to super tax by the provisions of section 27 of Act No. 40 of 1925, as amended, which shall have been received by or accrued to or in favour of any person other than a public company during the year of assessment ending the thirtieth day of June, 1933, at the following rates:
   For each pound of the amount subject to super tax, one shilling and as many five-hundredths of one penny as there are pounds in that amount, subject to a maximum rate of five shillings in any such pound.

Interest Surtax.

1. (5) That, subject to the terms of the aforesaid Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament, there shall be charged, levied and collected as from the first day of July, 1933, a surtax upon all fixed interest as defined in the aforesaid Act which has been taken into account in the determination of the taxable income of any person for the year of assessment ending the thirtieth day of June, 1933, at the rate as set out hereunder for each pound of the amount of such interest subject to surtax:

Rate of Surtax—

Gold Mines Excess Profits Duty.

1. (6) That, subject to the terms of an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament, there shall be charged, levied and collected as from the first day of July, 1933, a duty (to be known as the gold mines excess profits duty) upon the excess profits as defined in the aforesaid Act derived by any person from mining for gold within the Union during the twelve months ending the thirty-first day of December, 1933, and during any subsequent period for which the said duty shall be chargeable at the rate set out hereunder:

Rate of gold mines excess profits duty—

Farm Mortgage Interest Tax.

1. (7) That, subject to the provisions of an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament, there shall be charged, levied and collected as from the first day of July, 1933, a tax upon all interest derived from farm mortgages, as defined in the aforesaid Act, received by any person after the thirty-first day of Marcii, 1933, at the rate set out hereunder:

Rate of Tax—

The first of these resolutions is on page 26 of the English version of the Votes and Proceedings, and that resolution relates to certain duties dealing with rice, grain, fish, etc. These duties are introduced now, in order to bring in certain additional duties which were levied on these articles by Act No. 37 of 1922, which imposed certain additional duties on these articles, by reason of the fact that we were then on the gold standard, and it was found necessary to make certain additions to the duties existing on these articles. Act 27 of 1932 provided that these additional duties could be repealed by proclamation by the Governor-General. Now the Minister of Finance, in his budget speech, explained why it was that he had not taken the course which some hon. members expected him to take, namely, of repealing these duties as being no longer justified by the circumstances in which they had originally been imposed. He explained his objection to repealing these duties as being based on two grounds; the one was that he required the revenue derived from them, and the second one was that the imposition of these extra duties has not produced any increase in the price of these commodities, and he did not anticipate that a removal of these duties would cause any reduction. So he felt justified in reimposing the duties as part of the ordinary normal customs duties levied on these articles. Then there are certain other customs duties, which will be found on page 77 of the Votes and Proceedings. That resolution provides for additional duties on groceries, ground coffee, ground nuts, and on certain classes of soap. Now these duties are imposed for the purpose of giving additional protection to certain manufactures. In the case of coffee, the extra duties on roasted or manufactured coffee is put on in order to rectify an omission which took place, when, in accordance with the Ottawa Agreement, an additional duty was placed on raw coffee introduced from non-Empire countries. In order to give effect to that agreement, raw coffee introduced from countries outside the British empire was subjected to an additional duty, but the corresponding increase was not made in the case of manufactured coffee, and therefore the manufacturer of coffee in this country, who imports his raw material from foreign countries—and most of it comes from Brazil—is placed at a disadvantage, because his tax on raw material is increased, while there is no corresponding increase in the manufactured article. In the case of ground nuts, the increased duty is to protect the local market against competition, which comes mainly from China. The additional duty applies only to these ground nuts, which are brought in for edible purposes and not to those that are brought in for the purpose of producing oil. The latter remain free of duty, as they fall under Class 50 of the tariff. Then there is the question of soap. This duty on soap looks very large; it is one which is introduced to protect the soap manufacturing industry in this country from competition with soap which is brought in, in increasing quantities, mainly from Japan. These imports, I am informed, come in at prices which are lower than the cost of the raw material in the local industry. The soap-making industry in this country has been established for a number of years, and is producing the bulk of the Union’s requirements of this class of soap. South African materials, such as whale oil, and other raw materials, are used by the industry to the fullest extent, and the industry gives employment to 600 Europeans, and 1,100 non-Europeans. To show the extent to which this competition from Japan is growing, I may tell the House that, in 1931—before that there was hardly any importation of soap from Japan —the importation of soap was 12,535 lbs. In 1932 it had increased to 30,750. And in the first two months of this year it amounted to 45,010 lbs. So that one can say that the imports of these cheap soaps from Japan, against which our industry cannot possibly compete, have been increasing at an alarming rate.

Why do you not exclude toilet soap?

Because it is not being imported to that extent. The great bulk of the competition is in regard to common soap, and I do not want to increase the duties unnecessarily. Now these are the resolutions dealing with customs. If hon. members will go back to the previous part of the Votes and Proceedings, they will find that the next point dealt with is an excise duty on cigarettes and tobacco manufactured in the Union. A surtax, and a corresponding customs duty, is levied there on cigarettes and tobacco. The object of that, as explained by the Minister in his budget speech, is to prevent unfair competition by persons making their own cigarettes. It is a small affair, but it is considered to be justified in order to deal with what I might call the evasion of the cigarette tax by people who make their own cigarettes; they evade a tax which is paid by the cigarette manufacturers. The third resolution is the one relating to the ordinary income tax, and i do not think I need trouble the House with any explanation of it. The rate of income tax is the same as that imposed last year. The next resolution concerns the surtax, and imposes a flat rate on all interest over 5 per cent.

Interest at 5 per cent. is now free of surtax.

Yes; in the past there was a graduated scale.

If I receive interest at the rate of 6 per ecnt., do I pay the surtax on the full amount?

No, only on interest exceeding 5 per cent.

Do I get the first 5 per cent. rebated?

I think the wording of the resolutions will cover that point, but I will have to look into it. My understanding of it is that it applies to anything in excess of 5 per cent. The next resolution appears on page 63 of the Votes and Proceedings. It is to give effect to the policy laid down by the Minister of Finance in regard to the rate of interest on farm bonds. He explained that the policy of the Government was to fix, as far as possible, the interest on farm bonds at 5 per cent., of which 3½ per cent. would be paid by the farmers, and 1½ per cent. by the Government. He was not prepared to go so far as to make it illegal to charge a higher rate of interest on farm bonds than 5 per cent., but the State would take the excess amount. This resolution is intended to cover that. I now come to the resolution dealing with mining taxation; in its amended form, the resolution appears on page 95 of the Votes and Proceedings. The rate is a very technical matter, and I cannot expect to make it fully intelligible to any member of the House, except to those who are experts in mining matters. I do not think I need read it; hon. members have seen it for themselves. All I can do is to point out what is intended to be the general effect of this amended resolution. The original scheme moved by the Minister in connection with the budget has been criticized on the ground that in certain cases—a considerable number of cases—it would have the effect of defeating the expressed intention of the Government, that is, to encourage the mining of low-grade ore. In certain cases it was rightly contended that a mine would be penalized if it worked low-grade ore. The original scheme provided that the ore should be calculated back, so to speak, to a standard rate of profit on the basis of gold at 85s. an ounce; that is the price before we went off the gold standard. The scheme was to calculate the profits back to that rate, and to take the difference between the two as excess profit due to the premium on gold. Certain allowances were made in that calculation, and a flat rate of 10 per cent. was added to the standard profit to allow for a drop in the grade. That proposal has been criticized, and criticized, I think, with a certain amount of justice, but I do not intend to go into that, because we have substituted an amended resolution. Under this amended resolution an allowance will be given incorporating the profit of 2½ per cent. on every one-tenth of a penny-weight by which the average grade drops during the 12 months ending the 31st December. Then the tax as explained in the resolution will be calculated on a maximum rate under this proposed scheme. Certain allowances will be made, but the result of these changes is that the liabilty of each mine will be definitely affected by any lowering of the grade. This is the intention of the new rate which is disclosed in this resolution. I know that it is not above criticism. I know that cases can be brought where it can be shown that it will not have the effect intended. I do not think any scheme can be devised under which anomalies will not arise, because the circumstances of each mine vary, and I do not think it will be within the wit of man to devise a scale on these lines which will not create anomalies. I can only repeat that enquiry will be made during the recess into the working of this tax, and information will be obtained to enable the department to remove these anomalies, if they possibly can be removed, by the time we come to deal with this matter again. It may be possible to provide statutory means of redressing anomalies, but I do not at the moment see how that can be done. Some hon. members say; why not have a flat rate? One objection to that is that it is desired to keep the taxation of these excess profits separate from the taxation of ordinary profits. Hon. members have forgotten that this tax which is now being proposed is quite different from ordinary taxes imposed for the ordinary service of the year. This tax is, in effect, appropriation by the Government of a certain share of altogether exceptional profits which have come to this industry owing to an alteration in the basis of our currency, not due to increased operations or to increased efficiency, but due to an act of the State whereby the basis of our currency was altered and the whole community was affected. This particular industry, owing to that act of the State, has immediately received unprecedented and altogether exceptional increased profits, and the State is entitled to take a definite share of these profits.

The Minister of Finance said that the Government was entitled to take the lot.

I do not propose to go into that question. We are not taking the lot, and we are not taking the lot for this reason, that we recognize that this accession of profis, due to no increase of efficiency or extension of operations, can be used and should be used as a most valuable instrument to enable the industry to expand, to enable new properties to be opened up, and to enable new classes of rock to be worked, and to afford more employment to the people. I have tried to explain the resolution, I admit inadequately, from what I may call its technical point of view, but I submit it will be of more utility for hon. members to consider it not so much from the technical point of view as from the point of view of the effect its imposition is going to have on the industry concerned. I need not remind hon. members of the political storm which was raised around the imposition of this tax. It is, I am sure, fresh in the mind of every one of the members of the Rand constituencies, and I may say it is particularly fresh in mine. But I would like to put before this House for its consideration, the fact that this agitation, if I may use a mild word, against the tax, has been based on certain assumptions which are not in my opinion borne out by facts. We have heard a great deal about the fifty-fifty basis. We have been told that we have gone back on the undertaking of the Finance Minister by taking an amount under this tax which is more than 50 per cent. of the profits. Now I want to make it perfectly clear that the statement of the Finance Minister was that we were taking 50 per cent. of the premium, not 50 per cent. of the profits. His point of view was— hon. members may agree, or disagree with it— that owing to the action of the State in altering the basis of our currency, huge profits had come to this industry, amounting to over £19,000,000, and in his opinion the State should take half of that premium, not half of the profits, but half of that premium. This tax is well within that limit. I do not intend to go into the whole controversy, whether it is the premium or profits; but I would like to point out that insofar as that amount of premium does not represent profits, owing to the lowering of the grade of the rock to be mined, that only means that that amount of the premium is put back into the mines, and it is not a loss to the shareholders. If by lowering the grade of a mine they increase the life of the assets; as they, of course, necessarily do, then any part of the premium they use for that purpose, and thereby diminish the profit they get in this particular year or in the next particular year, is not a question of loss, or of increased expense, but something put back into the life of the mine; and that must be borne in mind when you take the 50 per cent. of the premium and compare it with 50 per cent. of the profits. I only mention that because it is put against the Government that it has gone back on the undertaking which was given by the Minister of Finance; and the idea is that I have gone back on it. Then, it is also brought up against me in particular, that I misled people by the speeches I made before the election. I said that the national interest in the mining interests of the country was not principally the question of how much could be got from it for the State coffers, but that it was in the expansion of its operations, the prolongation of its life, and the additional amount of employment it would give to the people of the country. I am told now that this action of the Government is going back on that. I say most emphatically that this is still the outlook of the Government. We are not out to plunder this industry, or do anything that will reasonably be expected to stop expansion, and limit the extension to which they will be able to exploit their mineral ore, or to frighten capital away from the country. I said that a few days ago in this House, that if this tax was found to have the effect of, in fact, discouraging capital from coming over to this country, stopping expansion and limiting the working of lower grade ore, it would have failed in its object; and I say so still.

Capital is being frightened away.

The gold is there, and the capital is there. As long as capital is assured of decent conditions, and a fair reward, it will come. I admit it has had a shock, and that the Budget, coming as it did, has given a shock to investors, and interpreted, as it has been, by investors, it has given them a shock, but when they come to see what it really is, with the assurances which I will give, they will be reassured and they will see that their alarm is not warranted. Taking all the years during which mining has existed, and taking it from the time when it was regarded as a foreign industry, financed by overseas capitalists, and having no part in the national scheme of the country, till these years when I think a more reasonable idea obtains— in spite of taxation which they complained of bitterly at the time, it has grown up into an industry which, for efficiency of management, and the manner in which it treats its officers and servants, is an industry that can bear comparison with any industry in the world. We do not want to put back the clock in that respect, and no Government responsible for managing the affairs of this country would want to make an attempt to do anything to cripple this industry. We are not only interested, but vitally interested, in the prosperity of this industry, and we are vitally interested in its expansion, and in its being able to extend its operations and to exploit to a further extent than has been possible hitherto, its mineral resources. We are aware of the windfall, as somebody has called it, of the gold premium, but we would be unworthy of governing this country if, in order to get a certain number of the farming population out of their financial difficulties, we should do something which would check the expansion of this industry.

That is what the heads of the industry are, in fact, saying you are doing.

I say they are exaggerating the effects of this tax. They may be right, and they may be wrong. We do not claim to be infallible; but what we do claim is that we have gone into this most carefully, and we are satisfied that, with the checks we have imposed, a sufficient amount of this accession of profit will be left to the industry to enable it to carry out its operations, and to expand. Now I say the assurance we have already given in that respect will stand. With regard to the tax itself, it has been claimed by those who speak for the industry that this special excess profits duty will bring in a larger amount than the £6,000,000 for which we estimated. I have given the assurance that that is not our intention, and that if it should be found that this tax, during the current year, brings in a larger amount than the £6,000,000, we shall rebate this excess to the companies concerned; and we also stand by that. But although this is a one-year Budget, so to speak, and although it is a Budget designed to meet the exigencies of the year, of course the State will continue to take its share of the additional profits due to the gold premium; and those who are interested in the development of the industry, and particularly those who are considering the question of investing in the industry in future, might ask, what is going to happen after this year; and on this point I will be able to give some assurance. Before I come to that, I would like to lay particular stress on one point, because it affects very seriously the estimates which have been given of the probable effects of this tax and of the amount that was to be got by the Government from this additional taxation. Those who speak for the mining industry, when they put before the public what is being taken by the Government from the mines, have included the full amount of the rentals which the Government provides from leased mines. I want to make it perfectly clear that the amount which the Government gets from these rentals has nothing whatever to do with any increased taxation. Every penny of the money the Government gets in that way would have come to them had no extra taxation been imposed at all, under the contract of lease which these companies entered into, and on which they are paying rentals. That amount is no part of the shareholders’ money, and never was. In giving the figures in regard to extra taxation of the mines, I will not include the amount derived by the Government in this way. It will interest hon. members to know that this system of leasing areas for mining purposes is now practically the only means—and I hope when the amendment to the gold law is passed it will in fact be the only means—by which large areas are taken up for mining purposes. The old system of pegging claims has, to a large extent, been abandoned, and I hope will be entirely abandoned when the new gold law comes into force. Those areas which are under consideration now will be taken up under leases, for which the companies tender, and which the Government accepts if they are satisfied with the company concerned. Therefore, for the future, the tendency will be for the share which the Government gets from the exploitation of gold areas to be less and less derived from taxation, and more and more from the rents paid by companies for exploiting these areas. I say again that what we get out of these areas is under ‘contract between the company and the Government, and the figures which have been published to show the effect of the tax are wrong and exaggerated in so far as they include these rentals. All I shall say refers only to the increased revenue derived from taxation of these additional profits. For this current year we estimate that at £7,400,000, that is to say £6,000,000 from this new excess profits duty, and £1,400,000 from the ordinary income tax applicable to these profits. Of course, these increased profits come under income tax as well as the new profits tax, although anything they pay in income tax is a deduction from the charge made under the excess profits tax. That figure of £7,400.000 represents as nearly as we can arrive at it a percentage of 57 per cent. or 58 per cent. on the profits of the calendar year on which this new duty is being levied. It is being urged that this is not the real effect of the tax, because during this particular year income tax will be levied on certain mining companies on their financial year running from 1st July to 30th June, and on others for the calendar year from 1st June to 31st December, so that in the case of some companies the income tax will not be levied on the whole year’s premium, but only on half. It is urged, therefore, that you cannot take this percentage as a fair one for what the yield of this taxation will be. Well, that is perfectly true, but I want to come now to what we propose to do with regard to the incidence of this tax in future years. We have been pressed from various quarters to reduce the taxation, to reduce the amount which will be got from this tax during the current year by an amount of about £2,000,000. The Government is not prepared to reduce the amount provided for during the current year below the amount of £6,000,000, which they estimated for and which, as I said, will be the maximum. £6,000,000, and not more than that, is what the Government intends to get from the excess profits duty. In order to give those interested in the industry, or those who contemplate taking an interest a certain safeguard, the percentage for future years will not run into higher figures than those I have just indicated. The Government is prepared to give this assurance, that for the next financial year, 1934-’35, it will not take by way of taxation from the excess profits earned by the industry during the calendar year, more than £7,400,000; that is to say, it will not take more than it is getting this year by way of excess profits duty, plus income tax, on the profits. Let hon. members get that quite clear. This year, from the excess profits duty plus the ordinary income tax on additional profits, we are estimating to get £7,400,000. Those mines which this year pay income tax on a half year’s premium will, in future, pay on a full year’s premium. We say we will limit the amount to be taken from these additional profits by excess profits duty, or income tax, to £7,400,000, which is the amount we are getting this year. In addition to that, the Government is prepared to give the assurance which, of course, will be binding upon itself, but naturally cannot bind a Government that may come after it, that, as far as it is concerned, for three years after the next financial year, it will not for the services of any financial year take, by way of taxation, more than 50 per cent. of the excess profits during the calendar year, to which the taxation of that year will apply. That is to say that it will not take by taxation out of these additional profits more than 50 per cent. for the next three years. That undertaking, of course, does not apply to ordinary rates of income tax, and other taxation which may be levied on other profits of the mining industry, or any other industry, but the intention is, and that intention will be carried out, that, as regards these profits, not more than 50 per cent. will be taken during the next three years.

Do you make any conditions of employment?

No, we have made no conditions of employment: we do not think it necessary to make such conditions. We consider that with the expansion that has already been going on, and which we believe will continue, the conditions of employment will be protected without any conditions that we can lay down.

You are very trusting.

I think that what the mining companies have already done since the country went off gold, has shown that they are on, what I might call, the expansion tack and that they are employing additional men, and are prepared to employ additional men. I know that for the first four months of this year, that is up to the end of April, 842 additional white men were employed by the mines, and that shows that with expansion there will be additional employment. These are matters affecting the amount of taxation on these additional profits from which the Government estimates to take certain amounts during the next year, and the following three years. The undertaking is given for this Government itself and of course we cannot bind any new Government or Parliament. There are one or two other points which have been under discussion for some time with the mines on which, although they are not connected with this taxation, I should like to touch now because they do come into the general outlook of expansion on the mines. The question has been raised in several cases by companies which are proposing to undertake the opening up of new mines, whether any allowance can be made in respect of their capital expenditure on shaft sinking and development, against taxation of these excess profits when they are in a taxable position. For the present they are not producing mines, and they are not taxable at all. But they want to know whether, when we come to take our share, we shall take into account the capital employed on shaft sinking and development. That the Government is prepared to allow; that is to say, that expenditure on shaft sinking including all expenditure necessary for the equipment of a shaft as a working unit and underground equipment would be set off, or written off against any taxation on additional profits when the mine becomes to be a producing mine.

Do you mean the entire amount?

Yes. Not over one year.

If they spend £2,000,000 you will set that off?

Yes.

The whole of the capital expenditure?

No, it does not refer to surface work buildings, etc., it does not apply to machines, and so on, but only to shaft sinking and underground equipment, as that money is to be sunk largely for the benefit of the country.

Oh!

I thought the hon. member wanted to help the expansion of the mining industry.

Oh, yes.

What the hon. member seems keen on is to see that no one shall get any profit at all.

Why don’t you run these J mines yourself?

The hon. member suggests that the Government should take over the whole of the mining industry and work it itself. Well, when that day comes, I hope I shall not be in this position. The other point I wish to refer to is this, in the case of leased mines, what is called normal development, that is, development necessary to maintain the mine in its existing position is allowed to be charged against income tax, but what is called excess is not allowed. Now the intention is to allow all approved development, whether normal or not, and the idea of that is to allow the lower-grade ore to be brought into operation. Another point is this. A question has been raised in regard to the official life of a mine. For income tax purposes a mining company is allowed to amortize its working capital by an annual deduction from its assessment for the term of the life of the mine. To make that clear, the Government mining engineer decides what is to be regarded as the normal life of a mine, and then, for income tax purposes, its working capital is amortized by an annual sum calculated to redeem it, in the course of a certain number of years fixed as the life of the mine, and these annual sums are allowed as deductions from its taxed assessment. The question has been raised whether, if the mine by working the lower-grade ores, substantially increases its life, it will be penalized by its amortization allowance on income tax being reduced. As hon. members will see, if the life of a mine is increased the annual amount to redeem the working capital would be diminished, and the allowance for income tax purposes would be reduced. It has been agreed that, so long as our currency continues to be off gold, the life of the mines for income tax purposes will not be increased on account of additional low-grade ore that is added to the ore reserves, and thus the amount allowed to be deducted for income tax will not be diminished. Then I might also refer to the amendment which it is proposed to make to the gold law, which will have a very important bearing on the facilities for opening up new fields, and on the facilitating of the working of mines in many cases where that is now hampered by certain provisions of the gold law, which law, of course, was introduced at a time when the mining practice was entirely different from what it is today. That amendment, I think, will constitute a substantial encouragement to the industry, and will facilitate the opening up of new mining operations.

Is that going through this session?

No, it cannot go through this session. I am giving these assurances in regard to the taxation. Next year, as I have said, we shall not take more than £7,400,000.

Even if the price of gold goes up to 140s.?

Yes, even if it goes up.

And if it goes down?

Well, then we may get less.

It is a case of heads they win, tails you lose.

We are taking what we regard as our reasonable share. The State is taking out of these additional profits of the mines what it regards as the State’s fair share. I do not expect the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) to be satisfied. Next year the amount to be taken by the State will be £7,400.000, and we shall not for the three following years by income tax or excess profits tax, take more than fifty-fifty. Some people may say the Government, although it might not take more than fifty-fifty of the excess profits, might increase the normal income tax on the mines to 15s. in the pound, and so nullify their assurance. I can only say that no responsible Government could do a thing like that. We are giving a serious assurance and that assurance will be carried out. I hope that this assurance in regard to the incidence of the tax in future years, and the effect of the tax during the present year, will reassure those who are prepared to take a reasonable view of the matter—that it is not the intention of the Government to penalize the industry or to discourage the inflow of fresh capital. On the contrary, the Government’s intention is just the opposite. The Government is most desirous of seeing the gold-mining industry go ahead, of seeing new capital come in, of seeing new areas and new payability of rock worked. Some hon. members, like the hon. member for Benoni, condemn all these concessions; they say that the Government has taken too little already; some even say the Government should take the whole; I want to bring it home to hon. members that the exploitation of these goldfields has been carried out, and is being carried out, by private enterprise. The State, it is true, claims the right to mine for and dispose of, precious metal, but it has never yet done so itself.

State ownership.

My hon. friend is mistaken—at least, as far as I understand the position. The dominium of the metal is in the owner of the ground, and the right the State has is to mine for, and dispose of, the gold. The State has, from the beginning, exercised that right through private enterprise; that being so, you cannot have your assets exploited by private enterprise unless you give private capital the assurance that it will receive fair treatment. After all, mining is a gamble, less perhaps on the Rand, than on any other goldfield, but even on the Rand there are many instances to prove that investment in mining is subject to very serious risk. Any State that wishes to see capital come in to exploit its mineral resources must be prepared to give that capital a chance of getting a reward, which will encourage capital to take that risk. Do not, for heaven’s sake, as some sections of the public seem to do, regard every capitalist who puts money into our goldfields as a sort of vampire, sucking the blood of the people. It is to our interest that this capital should come here for the development of our national asset, and we are bound, as those responsible for the utilization of that national asset, to give capital such conditions as will encourage it to come. I hope that this legislation which we are undertaking this session will be an object lesson, for the farmers in this country in particular, to what exent they and all of us are dependent, from an economic point of view, on the gold-mining industry, on what it is doing now, and on what we hope it will do in the future. I hope it will be more and more established in the minds of hon. members, and in the minds of those whom they represent, that these gold deposits of the country are a national asset, that we are exploiting them through the agency of private enterprize and private capital, and that we are bound to see that that private enterprize and private capital gets fair conditions, and that that exploitation will make the fullest use of that asset. I hope, and the Government hope and believe, that this tax is not going to shut down enterprize, that it is not going to stop the expansion of the industry, and is not going to discourage South African capital from being invested in the exploitation of our gold-mining assets. The shock which I admit has been given both to the share market and to persons interested in South African investment, will gradually disappear, and confidence will be restored. It is for that reason that I support this tax, because I believe it will not have discouraging effects, and because I believe that the Government is entitled to take a reasonable and fair share of this accession of profits which has come to the industry through the Government’s action.

Mr. PIENAAR seconded the motion.

I think the House is indebted to the hon. the acting Minister of Finance for the explanation that he has given this afternoon of the mining taxation and the assurances he has given for limitation and relaxation in the future. It is on this matter that I would like to speak. I would also like to express my thanks to the Minister for allowing me access to the figures which have been prepared regarding the new scale of taxation, and which have enabled me to size up the position in the short time available better than I could have done myself, figures prepared by officials of the Minister’s departments which have been placed at my disposal. I must, however, express regret that the time I have had for examining these figures has been so short. I only received the new scheme of taxation last night, and it was only this morning that I had access to the figures. I think the country is also indebted to the Minister for the assurances he has given regarding the incidence of the tax, and the amount of it, and the various ways in which the industry will be assisted in the future, and how the tax will be limited to £6,000,000. I would suggest, if there is going to be a rebate on an excess of £6,000,000, that this should be incorporated in the law. Otherwise we may have trouble with the Auditor-General. As far as the other alleviations are concerned, in the following year, and three years thereafter, I think the country will accept the assurances of the Minister with considerable satisfaction. The Minister has intimated to us that the sum of £6,000,000 is to be exacted from the mines by this tax. He has said that the proposals will encourage the mining of low-grade ore, and there would be a better distribution as between the various mines. I should like to examine these claims of the Minister in respect of the new taxation. Now as far as these £6,000,000 are concerned, the first question to be asked is, is this to be considered onerous taxation or not? I cannot give a better illustration of the onerous nature of the tax than by saying that, if it had been a flat rate on profits it would have amounted to 33 per cent. of the taxable income, to which must be added 20 per cent. income tax, so that the total tax on the mines is 53 per cent., in order to yield what the Government proposes to raise from the mines this year. I put it to the House that this is an extremely onerous tax, and that that alone is a discouragement to the investment of fresh capital.

See what you have done— killed the mining industry

That would be the average over all the mines. The new scale, very much like the old scale, does not distribute the burden equally. It is not an average of 53 per cent. of taxable income all the mines have to pay. It is a variable amount, due to the operation of the scale which has been put before the House this afernoon. I would here remark on the way in which this taxation is being evolved and passed through this House. A complicated scheme was placed before us last night. The officials have had to work overtime to produce a scale like that and to work it out, to get a satisfactory scale; and we have to examine it. The House is really unable to size up the situation. It is even difficult for an expert to do it rapidly. The House has to take one’s word, and I do decry running through this complicated scale, which imposes a burden on the mining industry of many million pounds, without an adequate examination: and had the time been available a more satisfactory scheme could have been worked out, not only as regards the distribution, but as regards its total incidence—the whole burden to be borne. I will now proceed to an examination of how the burden is to be distributed between the various mines. On the figures which I have before me, the total tax on the mines is distributed as follows: There are five mines which would have to pay a tax of between 60 per cent. and 63 per cent. on their total profit; nine mines which would be taxed between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent.; seven mines between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent; three mines between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent., and two mines 27 per cent. and 28 per cent., respectively, so that the variation between the lowest mine and the highest mine is from 27 per cent. of the profits up to 63 per cent. The Minister says the new taxation does not profess to tax profits, it taxes the premium, but I think the tax will be translated by everybody, in terms of profits. What it means to the profits—that is what interests the shareholder and the investor, and not the amount to be taxed on a special portion of his income only. I would next like to point out that the incidence is mainly on the lower grade mines. In my speech during the budget debate I showed how example number one in the white paper, which is a high grade mine, paid a much smaller percentage of its profits than example number two, a low grade mine. As a matter of fact, the percentage payable to the State under the old taxation scheme in the white paper, amounted to 41 per cent. for the high grade mine No. 1, and 59 per cent. for No. 2, the low grade mine. In the new scheme the high grade mine is reduced from 41 per cent. to 36 per cent., and the low grade mine is increased from 59 per cent. to 61 per cent. The high grade mine, apparently, comes off even better under the new scale than the low grade mine. I am sure the House will appreciate that this is not a proper way of taxing people. The tax should be placed on the shoulders of those best able to bear it, and I claim that the low grade mines should have had better treatment. I would like to point out to the House that the motion before us would rather make one believe that the maximum rate of 70 per cent. on the taxable amount is perhaps only rarely attained. As a matter of fact, the only mines that do not pay the 70 per cent. are those two very low grade mines I have mentioned. The other mines all pay the maximum of 70 per cent., so that to all intents and purposes the scale is a 70 per cent. scale, with two exceptions. In the rates under the new scale, some allowances have not yet been made, allowances for capital which will have to be deducted from this percentage, and may lower it slightly. The amount of capital is not yet ascertainable, but it cannot amount to very much, if the Government is going to collect £6,000,000, because the estimated yield from the tax is somewhere in the neighbourhood of £6,750,000, leaving only £750,000 for capital rebates. Now I would like the House to follow me in a discussion, of the details of the new tax as compared with the old tax. The Minister has already explained that instead of 80 per cent. of the taxable amount the maximum will be 70 per cent., in fact, that will be the rule. Then in regard to allowances, he has indicated that the allowance of 10 per cent. is to be dropped, and that this allowance is to be calculated on the fall in grade since November and December, 1932, at the rate of 2½ per cent. for every tenth of a dwt. fall. Now the period of November and December is to be taken as the basis on which the calculation is to be made, that is an arbitrary period and the mines have to take their chance whether they were on a high or a low grade at that time. There is, of course, considerable objection to an arbitrary basis like that. It is like taking a ticket out of a hat and chancing whether you get a good or a bad ticket. No one can maintain that the grade for November and December of last year is the grade which a mine could claim as being representative of its ore reserves, but the mines must take their chance. The Minister has not explained, that, after deducting the 4s. tax, the whole of the old allowances are to disappear. There was an allowance equal to 1s. per ton milled and a further allowance for capital expenditure. These are to go. One now has first to calculate how much the 70 per cent. would amount to and thereafter make an allowance for capital expenditure. Referring now to these No. 1 and No. 2 examples of the white paper, I find that the result of this in the case of No. 1 example the amount due to the State in the high grade mine is somewhat less than before and in the case of No. 2 example is somewhat more than before—that is to say, that the low grade mine is somewhat worse off than before, and the high grade mine somewhat better off. I want to make the point that the distribution is not a fair one among the mines. The distribution ranges very widely. I am not going to refer to the two cases of 27 per cent. and 28 per cent., but the distribution in the other mines ranges from 30 per cent. and goes up to 63 per cent. of the profits. That is a very unfair distribution, unfair, not because it is between mine and mine, but unfair because the burden falls mainly on the low grade mine and it gets less as the grade gets higher and higher, instead of being the other way round. I shall come to that later when I shall advocate the adoption of a flat-rate scale. I shall now come to the point as to whether low grade mining is encouraged. The Minister would make the House believe that low grade mining is now encouraged under the new scale. I would say definitely that the mining of low grade ore by any such mine is not encouraged. Take mines which have a grade of 40s. per ton. If a mine has a grade of 40s. per ton, mining ore near to its pay limit is definitely encouraged, but for mines with a grade below 40s. the mining of such low grade ore is definitely discouraged.

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

Before proceeding, I have been asked why I referred to the mines as paying 70 per cent. of their profits, and again have stated that 63 per cent. is the maximum. I am referring to two different kinds of profit. Seventy per cent. is to be applied to the amount defined as excess profits, while 63 per cent. refers to total profit. If I may, I will refer to example No. 1 in the white paper—a mine making a total profit of £1,070,000. The gross excess profits are arrived at by taking this sum and deducting therefrom the amount estimated to be made if we had been on the gold standard. This would amount to £685,000, leaving the gross excess profits at £385,000. This is an attempt to get at the amount the mine would have paid if we had remained on the gold standard. It is on this £385,000, and further allowances, to which this 70 per cent. is applied; that constitutes the excess profits tax. To that has to be added income tax of 20 per cent. and the sum of the two taxes compared to the total of £1,070,000. This is a smaller figure than 70 per cent. and is in fact 41 per cent. Reverting to the question of the effect of the taxation on the mining of low grade ore, I was explaining when the House adjourned the case of a comparatively high grade mine—a mine that works 40s. ore. Suppose it works low grade ore approximating to its pay limit, which is the value of the ore equal to the working costs. If your working costs are 20s. per ton of ore mined, and you recover gold to the value of 21s. per ton, you have a profit, of course, of 1s. per ton. Now I find that a mine with a grade of 40s. when working such low grade ore still has some profit over after paying its taxes, but if the grade is not above 36s. a ton, which is the average of the Rand, then it cannot work ore worth only 21s. or 22s. a ton, or even 24s. a ton, although its working costs may not exceed 20s. a ton, for it would lose by the transaction. That is a peculiarity of the operation of the scale. The effect is, therefore, that only a very high grade mine that recovers over 40s. a ton can afford to mine low grade ore. The average mine, with a grade of 36s. to 38s. per ton, cannot afford to go down to the low pitch that a high grade mine can do. It has to continue to mine ore of 4s. above the pay limit as defined by working cost, so that it loses the greater proportion of the low grade ore which would otherwise have been rendered payable as a result of the gold premium. Consequently, the effect of the gold premium in enabling the working of low grade ore is almost lost, and the desire of the Government to encourage the mining of low grade ore is not accomplished, although the Government has made certain allowances which will help to encourage low grade mining in other ways. I have made the three points that I started out to make. The first one was that the burden is a very onerous one. It amounts on the average to 33 per cent. of the profits of all mines, which added to the 20 per cent. income tax brings the amount to 53 per cent. of the profits. That to my mind is a sufficient indication of the extreme onerousness of this tax on the mines. That alone will go a long way to discourage capital from flowing in for the starting of new enterprizes. I can conceive of nothing that could be such a deterrent as this tremendous tax that is being imposed. My second point was that the burden is unequally distributed. I have endeavoured to show that it varies from 30 per cent. to over 60 per cent., and that in addition it falls more hardly on the poorer mines than on the richer mines, which I think is a mistake. My third point was that under these proposals we do not encourage low grade mining to the extent that was thought. I consider that that is also a serious defect in the proposals. I have indicated before now that I think the trouble could have been got over by a flat scale. The burden of £6,000,000 could not have been done away with, and that would still have remained, and would still have scared away capital; but, apart from that, a flat scale would have been one that everybody could understand. It does not differentiate between mine and mine, and it is the total profit of a mine that counts with shareholders and with everyone else. If that is taxed it should be taxed to an equal extent on all mines. That scale has the great advantage that it does not discourage low grade mining to the slightest extent. You can mine right down to your pay limit. If your costs are 20s. you can mine to 20s., and you don’t have to stop at 24s., and leave the remaining ore in the mine, never to be worked. Although the Minister has put forward these proposals, I still have hopes that he may find a method of adopting the flat rate that I have advocated. A private member cannot propose an amendment to a taxation scheme, but perhaps the Minister may, see his way to adopt it. I sincerely hope he will be able to do it. Finally, I wish to read a wire that I had to-day from the Association of Scientific and Technical Societies of South Africa. I am a technical man myself, and I value the opinion sent to me by these societies. The telegram reads as follows—

I have the support of my colleagues and compeers in the mining world in the view I have taken of the Minister’s proposals, not the financial world, but the experts, and they knew that this tax is hurting the industry very much, and that in hurting the industry it is hurting the whole of the country. That is the view not of mining engineers only, but also of engineers in the metallurgical and chemical and other technical professions and I feel that in having their support I am encouraged in the views I have put forward to-night.

While listening to my hon. friend the acting Minister of Finance this afternoon I could not help wondering what would have been the hon. gentleman’s reaction if he had been sitting on the benches on this side of the House, and some of these proposals which he has made had come from the Minister of Finance himself. Take the proposal with regard to farm bonds. That proposal is that if an investor happens to have a mortgage over a farm, and the rate of interest he is to receive is say, 7 per cent., then the State is going to confiscate from him any difference between 5 and 7 per cent. If he has been fortunate enough to put his money on mortgage on town property, or any other form of investment, the State will leave him alone, but if he has put his money into a farm bond, and if the interest on that bond is 6 or 7 per cent., the State is going to take from him the whole of the amount of interest above 5 per cent. Anything more Bolshevistic in its nature than a proposal of that sort I cannot imagine. I should like to ask the farming members what they would say if the boot were on the other foot. I can understand the State saying: “We have got to come to the relief of the farmer,” and that the farmers cannot pay more than 3½ per cent. on their farms under present conditions; but’ surely the State should then say that they themselves propose to pay the whole of the balance. To say by law to an unfortunate investor that because he happens to have put his money into a farm mortgage he shall be mulcted in the balance is to my mind an extraordinary piece of legislation. I feel that it is the worst possible service that could be done to the farming community themselves, and the farmers will live to rue the day when the Government has legislated in this way. By this legislation the Government is saying in effect to investors: “Whatever else you put your money into keep away from farm bonds.” Never again, so long as this is remembered, will any investing society or corporation put their money into a farm mortgage, nor will anybody having private money to invest for clients dare to advise their clients to do so. I agree that the Government had to come to the rescue of the farmer, but the only clear and logical way in which they could have done that was by shouldering the balance themselves. By tampering thus with a fundamental principle of economics, they will do the worst possible service to the farmers. I want to come now to this burning question of mining taxation. No words of mine can possibly exaggerate the intensity of feeling on the Witwatersrand and other parts of the country with regard to the proposals of the Government. I have known the Rand for nearly 40 years, and I was somewhat late, as you know, in coming to this House this session, and I had the advantage of being some days on the Rand after the Government’s Budget proposals became known and after the man in the street knew what these were. I would say to the Acting Minister of Finance and to the Prime Minister that never, or for many years, have I seen the public of the Rand so stirred with indignation as they were with these proposals. Do not let Ministers run away with the thought that this is an engineered movement, and that the Chamber of Mines have anything to do with it. Every man, woman and child on the Rand feel that their interests have been attacked by these proposals and they have been let down by the coalition Government they so recently returned to power. I cannot exaggerate the gravity of the position. The blow is an absolutely staggering one. They have been flabbergasted at the bite the Government intends to take out of the premium. From the speeches of the Minister of Finance and my leader, General Smuts, they rightly or wrongly were led to the belief that, if the mines were not to keep the whole of the premium, yet the bite to be taken out of it would be a moderate one. The Acting Minister of Finance said at Benoni that the best service which the industry could render was not in yielding a larger amount to the Treasury, but in giving a larger amount of employment to the people. The heads of the mining industry and everybody else are sure that the effect of this £6,000,000 tax must inevitably be to destroy confidence, to retard development and to take away from the people of the Rand, and through them, from the people of South Africa, that vista of a new era which they had. I do not look upon the leaders of the mining industry as irresponsible people or scaremongers, and when they tell me that the inevitable result of this will be the creation of this state of affairs, I believe it. In my own constituency I have a very competent mining man, and I would like to quote from a letter I have received what he says about the effect of these proposals on certain specific mines. He says—

Here is the case of a mine run at a loss from year to year, and they do so rather than close down, with the resultant loss to the State and to the people of the Rand. They have at last been able to realize a profit. Now all that they make as a profit, the Government says is their “profit,” and the full 70 per cent., less the allowance my hon. friend mentioned, has to be paid.

The ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE [inaudible].

It made no profit before, and all its profit now is “excess profit.” Instead of allowing them anything for the losses of past years, all that they are now making as profit, so my correspondent tells me, is subject to this taxation.

The State does not take the whole of that.

No, not the whole, naturally, but 70 per cent. When good times do come, ordinarily they help to pay from their profits for the accumulated losses they have made, but there is no hope of paying these losses now. The letter goes on to say—

I believe this particular case is being met to some extent by the amended scheme of the Minister. The letter proceeds—

That is from the premium. “For the three years after that,” he says, “we will not take more than 50 per cent. of the excess profits.” I hope he will not take it in a carping spirit, but I am afraid that the effect of that pronouncement of his on the industry and on the investing public, will be the exact opposite of what he intends. I will tell him why. It is because this figure he has fixed is so high that the investing public may read into what he has said, a veiled intimation that the Government will, at any rate, go, or be prepared to go as high as that. We had hoped that the Minister would tell us in bis speech that although he was taking £6,000,000 this year, it was more in the nature of a levy than a tax, it was something that would not be repeated, at any rate, to that extent next year. What he has told ns is this, “I will not go any further next year, and in the years to come I will not go further than a 50-50 basis,” which is slightly less than what is being taken now.

Very much less.

The Minister said it was 57 per cent. or 58 per cent.

Yes, on a smaller year.

The intimation that, for the year following this, the Government will not take more than £7,400,000, may be read as leading the investing public and those interested in mining to expect that the Government will, in any event, probably consider going as far as £7,400,000. The temptation placed before the Government, with the farmers clamouring for doles and subsidies, will be very heavy, I am afraid, next year. I do think that this taking so much as £6,000,000 will prove to be one of the gravest blunders any Government has made in the history of this country. I am certain from the information that has reached me, that it is bound to arrest the development and expansion of the industry. We appointed a Low Grade Ore Commission a little while ago, and it reported to the following effect—

What does that mean? That means if we can only get our costs down, and work the requisite amount of low-grade ore, we can double the amount to be worked and consequently the life of the mines and consequently again the economic life of this country. Are we not justified, therefore, in scrutinizing very narrowly any proposal which the leaders of that industry tell us will have the effect of preventing this development, and limiting the amount of gold to be won? They tell us that is the fact. They have told us so privately, and they have told us so in public, and none of us who represent mining constituencies would be justified in accepting this £6,000,000 figure which the Minister proposes to take this year, especially as the only assurance we can get from him is that next year he will not take more than that. We were told by Mr. Havenga that a sum of £6.000.000 was necessary to balance his Budget, ulus the relief given to farmers. I believe from the bottom of my heart that it would be far better business not to balance your Budget this year, if, in order to do so you have to take £6,000,000 in one fell swoop from the mines, and that not on a full year’s benefit of the premium. If you have to be as drastic as that, you may kill your patient, and it would have been far better to take the £4,000,000, leaving the Budget for the moment with a paper balance, because I believe that the resultant prosperity for the mines, and the confidence that it would give to investors here and overseas, would mean more benefit in the long run to the Treasury than an immediate balancing of the Budget. In other words, if we had left £2,000,000 to look after itself, or even £1,000,000, we should have got far more from the ordinary normal tax than we ever expected to realize, and the general prosperity to the country resulting from the creation of confidence would have more than repaid the Government. I say to the farmers, “Do not be too greedy, do not grasp at the shadow and lose the substance.” Do not ask for a balanced Budget after a three years’ deficit in one fell swoop from the mines. We all sink or swim together, and in the end the result to this country, to the farmers as well as to the mines, will be that we shall do better to moderate our demands on the mines, and not make a demand which they stigmatize as excessive. It is unsound finance and bad economics to try and redress a three years’ deficit and to provide £2,000,000 extra as subsidies for the farmers, all out of one bite from the mining premium. I believe the country would be far more prosperous, and the exchequer would do much better if we had limited our demand to £4,000,000. I am prepared to be guided to a large extent by what the heads of the industry say. The Minister will agree they are reasonable people, who usually take a reasonable attitude. They know their work, and they know their job. Public confidence is the most delicate thing in the world. What the whole world is suffering from is loss of confidence and here this Government, by imposing this tax, which staggered everyone, has made the worst possible attack on the confidence of the investing public, whether in South Africa or overseas, that could be made. Docs the Prime Minister know that the time had come when overseas trust corporations were regarding Kaffirs as trust securities, and going in for them as investments in the same way as they went in for trustee securities in England? Overseas insurance corporations were investing in Kaffirs as gilt-edged security, and now the Government has come along to take £6,000,000 extra from the mining industry in one swoon, and I am as certain as I stand here that the result to that industry is going to be harmful. Speaking as a member for a Rand constituency, I cannot take the responsibility, and I will not take the responsibility of accepting these proposals. Changes have been made in the incidence of this tax. It is still the £6,000,000, but a change has been made in the incidence. I cannot do more than say that if an authority such as the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) tells me this incidence has made the position worse—

He did not tell you that.

If language has any meaning, he said that in the case of certain low-grade mines it was made heavier and in the case of certain high-grade mines it was lower. I do not know that I can go any further than that. I do not pretend to understand the technical aspect. I can only speak of it in its broader aspect. Let me deal with certain arguments of the Acting Minister of Finance. He said a certain share of the premium was to go back into the working of low-grade ore, and that in the end was really money spent for the benefit of the shareholders.

I did not say money spent, I said the profits went into reserve.

As that ore is not to be taken out to-day, it is left to be taken out at the end of the mine. The life of the mine is prolonged, we agree. Take a mine with a life of 15 years. We are told that instead of 15 years it may be 17 or 20 years. That has no immediate effect on the value of shareholders’ holdings.

Does it not increase the value of the shares?

No. You have the position of profits which may be made 15 years hence instead of to-day. I am told by mining men that the advantage of this is practically negligible. The value of ore which is won today instead of 15 years hence is practically negligible. Of course, if the life of a mine is a short one and it is closing down in a few years’ time, then there may be a difference. Then the Minister, using the words of his colleague, Mr. Havenga, said that this was simply an appropriation by the State of profit due to an act of the State itself. I do not think any single utterance has done more harm to the mining industry or done more to destroy the confidence of the investing and overseas public in the mining industry than that statement. The Minister says: “This is an increment due simply to State action. It is not in any way an appreciation of the assets of the shareholders. Tn considering its attitude to this premium the State need not be concerned by any claim that this money by right belongs to the shareholders.”

Is that true?

I regard it as an absolute act of bolshevism to say that the shareholders’ money, which has appreciated by certain actions taken by the State, is not their money, and that the State need not worry about it being their money. I do not think that any single utterance could have done more harm to the confidence which the investing public should have in the mines of this country than that utterance. I notice that the Acting Minister of Finance did not go as far as that. He was at pains to say that we must see to it that the investors in our mines got a fair return, and we must do nothing to shake their confidence. I can only say this. The Minister thinks that £6,000,000 is not an excessive amount to take, although it represents something well over 60 per cent. of the premium, probably 70 per cent.

Do you mean that?

£6,000,000, plus the income tax. Not the premium, but the profit I meant.

I told the hon. member distinctly that this year it was 57 to 58 per cent., but next year there was a limit on it, on a much larger amount.

Yes, I appreciate what the Minister says. The Minister admits that his figure of 57 per cent. is probably in this year fictitious. The mines are being taxed on the actual amount assessed, and they are claiming rightly that what they have to pay is something like 70 per cent., but the Minister now says that he will meet that position by limiting the amount payable next year to 57 to 58 per cent. Another complaint which the public of the Rand have, is this, that they were given to understand that what the Government were going to do for the mines was to say, “Look here, you have made a big profit, you must share it with us 50-50.” Well, that is not happening. If the Government took 50-50 of the actual profit made, the average man on the Rand would understand it. From speeches made by the Minister of Justice, before he left, they were given to understand that the Government would not take more than 50-50 of the profits, and even whether the public understood it rightly or wrongly, that would be a fair thing to do. But the Government is not doing that. If the Government had said, Of the profits made, yon take half and we take half,” the public would have understood it, but by taking 50 per cent. of the premium, they may very well be taking anything up to 75 per cent. of the profit. Well now, where is this money going? £6,000,000 is to be taken from the premium. The Government is going to take altogether some £7,400,000, £6,000,000 from excess profits, and another £1,400,000 from additional income tax. Where is this going? Part is going to balance the Budget, and the other part is going to relieve the farmers. But the point is this, that not one penny of the whole 19 millions is going to the workers on the mines themselves, nor is anything going to provide any additional benefits to phthisis sufferers. In other words, not one penny of the profits is going to the men working on the Rand, or to the miners’ phthisis sufferers.

There is a Bill coming next year.

Yes, but I am appealing for the average worker on the Rand. He sees this enormous advantage of £19,000,000. He sees the Government at one fell swoop taking half of it, putting portion of it into its own pockets, to balance the Budget, and another portion into the pockets of the farmers, but the workers themselves are told that they are not to have any increased wages.

The Government cannot increase their wages.

I ask the Minister to remember this. I ask him to put himself in the place of the workers on the Rand to-day, of the workers who are told that they are to have nothing.

Has the income of the worker been reduced during the last years, like that of the farmer?

Does the hon. member really use that as an argument. Will he go to the people on the Rand and put that before them as an argument? The farmers really have nothing to do with the mining industry, but still they get £2.000,000 from the mining industry, and probably a great deal more next i year. But what I want to say to the Minister is this. If he thinks that these proposals will give satisfaction to the Rand, he is mistaken. It is not only the shareholders who are disappointed, but the average worker on the Rand is absolutely dissatisfied with the position. The worker sees development arrested, and he sees no benefit at all for himself. So far, I have only dealt with the economic aspect of the proposals, but they have a very definite political aspect too. All of us members representing Rand constituencies are asking ourselves what we are going to do about these proposals. We believe them to be unsound and unfair, and we believe that they will arrest and retard the economic development, not only of the Rand, but of the districts outside the Rand, and of the whole of the Transvaal. What are we going to do? Speaking for myself I am going to vote against these proposals.

Oh

Hon. members may say “Oh.” Speaking for my own constituents they say: “If this is the first fruits of coalition, then we are sorry we voted for it.”

They are being put up to say that.

What does the hon. member who interjected know of the feeling on the Rand? If they had been asked to vote for this Budget as the price of coalition, I do not believe you would have got 5 per cent. of the voters on the Rand to support it. I have received instructions from my constituency on this point; my party organization has met, and has told me—and I agree with what it says— that I am not to accept these proposals, and with a full sense of responsibility, and with a full knowledge of what it means, I am bound to say I cannot accept these proposals, and if a division is taken on them, I propose to vote against them.

No one can possibly avoid the conclusion that the present is a very critical time for the Government, for the movement which was initiated by coalition, for the unemployed, and for all those who have money invested in South Africa. It is also a very critical time for anyone who has the interests of South Africa at heart. We wish to speak of this matter dispassionately and with restraint, but the time does not call for any mincing of words. I suppose we all agree that the greatest thing we are concerned with is the future. At present we may have a rough time, but the future is what we look to—the future for ourselves, our fellow-countrymen, and the youngsters. It is with regard to the influence of the present proposals on the expansion of industry the development of South Africa, and the giving of confidence that these proposals are going to be judged. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) drew attention to a statement made by the Minister of Finance when introducing the budget. It was a declaration in good round terms to this effect: that because by the Currency Act the currency of South Africa had been divorced from gold, the State had the right to appropriate to itself the mining profits in excess of those made by the mines when we were still on the gold standard. I say that that is a most monstrous proposition, but if it be a true proposition, do hon. members suppose that the only people who had their financial proposals revised by our divorce from gold are the gold producers? Is the whole population of South Africa divided into two parts: the gold producers and the producers of everything else? Such a thing is absurd. No one inside or outside the House can possibly hold that the application of the Currency Act is different in the case of the gold producers to what it was in the case of other producers. The result is precisely the same.

Theoretically, but not practically.

If your theory does not agree with your practice, there is something wrong with your practice, or with your theory. I say without fear of challenge that both in theory and practice, the operation of the Currency Act was precisely the same in its effect on the price of the products of any producer in South Africa.

No.

Let me give an illustration. In a Treasury memoranda the farming population was reminded that through the Union having gone off the gold standard the farmers had obtained an increase of 40 per cent. in their prices.

And still the farmers are producing at a loss.

Let us agree on that, but you get your 40 per cent., whether you were in penury or in wealth. What did the gold producers get? Did they get the 40 per cent.? Of course they did not. The profits of both were raised in the same ratio, in accordance with the operation of exactly the same law. Where is the justification for annexing the whole of the profits made by the gold producers and not annexing the whole of the profits by other producers?

We are not making any profits.

Never mind the 40 per cent. This tax on the gold mines is not always to be levied on profits; it is a premium tax.

We are not taxing gold.

I say that the proposal to treat one section of the population one way and another section of the population another way stands self-condemned. I have not heard the Minister, or his colleagues, or anyone else, attempt to justify such a separation of the population from a taxation point of view. The Government’s proposals are very far-reaching, because we are told that this is not a mere levy for a year only, but a principle of taxation to be enforced in the future. It is going on for the next three years, and if I understood the Minister aright, it is to continue as long as there is a disparity between the value of the South African pound and the standard price of gold, 84s. 9d. an ounce. I say that is absolutely unjust and unsound, and accustoms your population to disregard every canon of fairness or decency, and sets one section of the population to look to the pockets of the other section for help rather than trust to their own right arm and to their own industry. What is the effect of this doctrine of the Government? Simply that a man is not to feel sure that he will have the fruits of his own industry. He is liable to have the fruits of his own industry taken from him in large lumps, and transferred to another section of the population. This is something new in South African finance. We are breaking fresh ground, and I hope that hon. members will realize that they are breaking fresh ground, and realize the nature of the ground which they are now ploughing. If it is right that one section of the population should be able to take from the pockets of another section of the population, 20 per cent., 40 per cent., or any percentage that you please, of the profits of their industry, do you suppose that that will stop with gold? There is another thing for which people hunger just as much as they hunger for gold, and that is land. One day the great population of South Africa which is landless will wake up to the fact that a very large quantity of land is being held by people who are not using it, and they will want legislation of this kind. They will say: “We won’t take it all, but 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. will be very useful to the people who are without land.” You will find you are committed to principles which, in practice, are calculated to lead you in directions you never dreamt of. This is the principle which is embodied in these proposals as being a proper principle on which the taxation of this country should be based. I want to pass now to a consideration of the effect of this. I think a good deal of confusion has been caused by the way in which the Government propose to annex this colossal sum. It has been a very complicated method, and it was complicated because it was intended to get certain very definite results from it. This has been unfortunate, because it has diverted public attention from the colossal sum total to disputes about formulae. That is unfortunate. We have had, however, the advantage of hearing from someone who is expert in a sense that is not excelled by anybody else in South Africa—I refer to the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé)—a dispassionate and careful, and, I am sure the House will agree with me, a perfectly accurate account of the effect of these proposals. He having explained it, we have got to sum up the figures and realize what the result is. The result is a colossal figure. It is 53 per cent. of the profits of the whole gold mining industry, which are in one way or another being annexed by these proposals.

Quite right, too.

The plunder party is very attractive, and the plunder party will find plenty of support from people who are going to get part of the boodle. But the people who are left out will have a good deal to say as to why they have been left out. These colossal sums are being transferred, not to the farming industry, but to a selected group of landowners, who alone will get the benefit, An immense proportion of those who are farming, and who are actually tilling the earth, won’t get a halfpenny of this. A comparatively small and select group of landowners will scoop the whole of this kitty.

No, the bondholders.

If it is going to be a transfer to the bondholders, then it is a smaller selection than ever. If it is the bondholder who is going to get it, will our farmers remain cheerful? The bondholder advances money, and the person who receives the money and exploits it in his farm business, should regard himself as a partner of the bondholder. They both look to the land, and the fruits of the land, as the sole source from which one is going to get his profit, and the other is going to get his interest. Why go to these extraordinary measures of seizing the fruits of industry to please the bondholders, the small group of bondholders who are interested in land? I say it is a fable to say that this is being done in the interests of the South African farmer. The South African farmer will find that he will be no better off. He can only be made permanently better off by farming being converted to a paying basis. Let me say that if a large sum of money is necessary to conduct the enquiry that some of us have asked folto find out how South African farming can be restored to prosperity, I think the whole country will willingly give a very large sum for this purpose. But what does make people indignant i is to feel that, having the fruits of their industry taken away, the industry it is proposed to benefit will be left, if anything, worse off than before. The people of South Africa who are unemployed are the majority of them below the poverty line. What is the best way of dealing with unemployment? The only satisfactory way of dealing with unemployment is to put industry on a paying basis. Here we have one industry which was on a very sound paying basis, but until we left the gold standard the expansion of it was limited, and we could not absorb into it more than a fraction of the population. The Low Grade Ore Commission suggested heroic measures in order to expand that industry. I am sure the country would have been prepared, had a recommendation been made; on a scientific basis, even to give a subsidy for the purpose of expansion, a subsidy taking the form of a remission of taxation for the purpose of getting the low grade ore worked. Now what has been called a windfall is really the transformation scene which has been brought about by the severance of our currency from gold, which has given it a much higher price. This is the Government’s opportunity, which could never have been dreamt of. It has come, and never possibly will this opportunity occur again.

From whom did it come?

It did not come from one person. As the Prime Minister knows, it was brought about by the severance of our currency from gold, because the price of gold had risen to such an extent in the world’s market that it was no longer an even standard of value. Gold had been rising for all the different reasons which we discussed last year, and in my opinion, it is still rising at the present time; and a rising commodity of that kind was no longer a proper standard of value; hence, one after the other, the nations of the world were compelled to abandon it. That is my answer to the Prime Minister. The process by which it came about was not derived from the gold mining, or any other, industry, but the simple steady logic of conditions brought about the logic of those facts. We have this opportunity, and what are we doing with it? This is the cruelty of the position. We are throwing it deliberately to the wind, and committing this act of suicide. I can command no language which would sufficiently express my deep, deep disappointment at the loss of this opportunity, which is of such supreme importance and advantage to South Africa. What is the effect of this? Is it going to encourage the expansion of the gold mining industry or not? The only way you can encourage farming is to show you can farm at a profit, and the only way to encourage people to invest money in farming as well as gold mining, is to see that they get the earnings of their own industry; and it is idle to suppose you can do two contradictory things, take money and profits with the one hand and at the same time encourage the development of the mines; still less the low grade mines. There is only one way to encourage the gold mining industry, whether it is divided into high grade ore or low grade ore, and that is to let people earn profits, and having taken a risk, if that risk turns out in their favour, let them get the benefit of it. It is the most risky business possible, and, as hon. members know, immense sinus have been invested on the Rand in the shape of shafts sunk down and exploratory works, without an halfpenny of return. I have a high authority in whose opinion more money has been lost in gold mining than has been made out of it.

If you take the stock exchange into account.

My hon. friend is continually referring to the stock exchange, and he has developed a “stock exchange complex” since he has been Acting Minister of Finance. I have known him for many years, and have not noticed these stock exchange references in his conversation. He has talked more about this now than he has for the rest of his life. Let me say a word or two about this. He has been put to it to say it is a stock exchange ramp. If not, why these references to it? The Minister quoted stock exchange prices. For what purpose did he do so? To show that stocks had fallen or risen, or what? I think as I understand it, it is to get the House into a frame of mind of believing that immense wealth has been created because the price has risen. That is untrue and unsound. The only significance of the stock exchange quotations was to show that people were prepared to pay a certain price for the chance of getting wealth —in the future. Well, now, the House will be doing far less than justice to itself and to its intelligence if it allows itself to be bull-dozed in that way. The fact of the matter is, that the whole of the population of the Rand and a great deal of the population outside of it, has made up its mind on this matter in no uncertain terms. I have even had a telegram from the constituency of the hon. member for Renom. I do not know whether the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has received the same telegram. I have two telegrams in fact, both signed by the town clerk of Benoni. Just let me read this—

I can only think that the citizens of Benoni entrusted me with that telegram because they doubted whether their hon. member would be a proper exponent of these principles. The unemployed have been led to suppose, and rightly, that in the expansion of the gold mining industry lay the brightest hope of their being absorbed. It is that and that only which offers them a fair chance of success. I made a suggestion that they should be absorbed on the land, but it was scouted. You are causing unemployment on the Rand by taking money out of our pockets, and yet you will not give employment to one single white man on the land, although you are taking the money. I propose to move an amendment, and this is what I shall move—

I wish to say something upon that. I hope that the Government, even at this late hour, will realize that the position is a very serious one. It is not with a light heart that I have drafted this amendment. I am fully aware of the meaning of the amendment, and of the action I am taking, and nothing but dire necessity and a sense of duty would make me do that. I regret very deeply indeed that I have been driven into that course, and I hope the Government will realize the strength of the forces which impel one to form this opinion. I have made it my business to try and find out to what extent the prospects of development j have been affected in my own constituency, and I have got first-hand information about that. T will not exaggerate, but I find from my personal investigations that at least one very large concern is in direst peril of being entirely scrapped. I am not going to give the name. The House will take it from me when I say that is the result of my personal investigations. That is only just one case from my own constituency, but we know that exactly the same forces are operating everywhere else. We know that if you take 65 per cent., 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. of a person’s profits, you take away to the same extent the inducement to go into that industry, or to sink more money in it. For what? On the offchance of, by paying a certain amount of interest for a certain number of bondholders, you thus help the farmers. It seems to me to be utterly unsound. How do people overseas regard this? I have had a cable from a gentleman who was in South Africa and in this House not many months ago. In this he states simply the effect of these taxation proposals upon the outlook of certain of his friends engaged in raising large sums of money for investment. He says—

I think it is a sad thing that the opportunities which are before us are being scrapped in this way, and that the arguments which are being put forward, the simple analysis of the results of these proposals are treated with something approaching levity, not by the Acting Minister, but in many parts of the House. There is a spirit of rejoicing at the good things they are going to receive. I warn the House most sincerely and solemnly that, in annexing on this scale, the profits which have been made by this industry, they are doing something which can only be justified by the acceptance of the dictum of the Minister of Finance, that the whole of the proceeds of the premium could really be taken by the public. Are you going to accept that or not? If you do, the consequences will be very far-reaching indeed. If you do not, there is no justification for your accepting these proposals which drive our unemployed to despair, which chain up foreign capital that might otherwise come in, and which cramp a great deal of the expansion of our industry that might take place. I would like to point out that although the Rand is at present the chief sufferer, it is by no means confined to the Rand. Let hon. members who represent Potchefstroom, Klerksdorp, Barberton, Zoutpansberg and Heidelberg think this over. It is perfectly true that the small propositions at present being worked in Barberton mostly fall under the £2,000 exemption. But when there are possibilities, as there are, of very great mining developments, and of great concerns being started, the incidence of this taxation, the effect in preventing the necessary capital being raised, will affect these districts just as intimately as it is now affecting the districts of the Rand.

I desire to second the amendment, and I wish to state my reasons very briefly. In the first place, I feel this taxation is thoroughly bad in principle, and it offends all the good canons of taxation. We are starting a movement by taxing the mines in this way, which I feel may ultimately white ant the industry. We had statements made prior to outgoing off the gold standard that the mining industry supported more than half the population of South Africa, and that it provided more than half the revenue of this country. If previously the mines supported that burden, it can be said that this taxation adds unjustly to that burden. The Minister paraded before the House various modifications which actually mean the same in bulk in the taxation as the earlier proposals.

Does not the assurance that we shall not take more than 50 per cent. make any difference?

The mines are being plundered to the utmost extent that the Government think it safe to do. I also object to this tax because it could have been made very much simpler. The Government has failed to put forward a tax which is readily understandable to the average individual, and I consider that that is a very serious complaint to level against such a tax. Damaging attacks have been made on the Government proposals but the Government has not budged in one direction and it has not tried to bring forward a simpler form of taxation. I am also of opinion that if there was the necessity to raise this huge sum from the industry the Government should have consuited with the industry prior to raising this tax. I think that that is a reasonable statement to make. Here was a huge sum to be raised and as far as we know the Government did not consult that industry until the cat was out of the bag and the damage had actually been done. During the course of debate members raised various questions but they have been unable to come to any agreement principally because this taxation proposal is in such a complicated form. It seems to me that the Government put their nose down to the paper in order to evolve a tax and simply concentrated on one point and that was to get the £6,000,000. You have the pre-election assurances and even pledges and on that point alone I propose to vote against the proposals now made. I should like to quote the words of the Prime Minister at a meeting at Benoni on the 4th May, as they were in a sense a prophecy or prediction. He said—

I candidly am of the conviction that the Government has chosen the wrong path and I shall vote against these proposals because the Government is not carrying out the election pledges that were given, not only by the Prime Minister, but by other members of the Cabinet as well. The Acting Minister of Finance to-day made a statement, the effect of which really was to close the stable door after the horse had gone. In these modifications that have been given to the House this afternoon the Minister is trying to patch up matters and trying to re-inspire the confidence which has been so badly shaken. I think confidence can only be re-established by starting de novo and by bringing forward some completely new taxation proposals that will meet with the agreement and the general support of the whole community of this country. I think it is very regrettable that we should have this division at a time of a national crisis. The remedies are at hand, but the Government is so stubborn over these taxation proposals that they have not even considered the remedies. They have not thought those remedies worthy of bringing before the House. I think the only solution of the difficulty is to introduce taxation on a sliding scale on the profits. If for any reason at all, any business man, or a farmer were suddenly to receive twice as much, say, for his services, for his goods, for his wool clip, one would not think of taxing him on that extra amount which he was receiving. One would say, “We are going to tax you on all the profits which you have made.” The most vital part of this taxation proposal is that it does not clearly say anything. The first proposals were strongly criticized. I for one cannot see how they are going to help us in regard to giving more employment on the mines, nor can I see how these second proposals are going to help the situation to any extent. We have heard that various mining propositions, which were promising, are not even going to be tested. Propositions that had been abandoned previously would have been opened up again, but nothing is going to be done with them now. Even the position of the existing mines has been prejudiced, and we are aggravating the sombre and tragic problem of unemployment by embarking on what I regard as a foolish taxation policy. I have much pleasure in seconding the amendment.

The hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) has based his whole case on a single assumption. That is characteristic of the hon. member for Roodepoort. The hon. member’s assumption on which he based his case is entirely unsound. That is also characteristic of the hon. member for Roodepoort.

If you are correct.

The assumption on which he based his case was that there should be no difference in the State’s interest in the increased yield to the gold producers, and in the increased yield to other producers as the result of the change in South Africa’s currency policy. He said that the price of gold went up 40 per cent., and the price of other commodities also went up by 40 per cent., so what difference should there be in the State’s attitude to the two? He entirely forgot, however, what preceded that increase in price, and that while every other commodity had gone toppling down, the price of gold remained stationary, because of State action. The position of the Government is, therefore, entirely justified. The State has a very definite interest in the increased yield to the gold mines, resulting from the change in the State’s policy. There is no ground whatever for the assumption that the two cases mentioned by the hon. member are on the same footing. I had hoped that after the statement made here this afternoon by the Acting Minister of Finance—a very full, reasonable and remarkably frank statement— that we would not have had the kind of speech we have listened to this evening. But the speeches made by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) and the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) were prepared before they heard the speech of the hon. the Acting Minister of Finance. They were full of airy generalities which we would all be prepared to accept. But when they came to facts and figures, there was not very much to them. When they attempted to be concrete, they were either off the track, or their points had been met by the Government’s amended proposals. We are all prepared to agree that it is desirable to use the gold premium, to encourage the mining of low grade ore. We all agree that we want to encourage the employment of more men on the mines. We all agree that we desire to keep taxation within reasonable limits. These are all airy generalities which we are all prepared to accept. The only difference comes when we get down to concrete facts and figures. These hon. gentlemen spoke as members from the Rand. I am also from the Rand.

You would not be if you stood for re-election now.

I think I can assure my hon. friend that I have no fear on that point. Although he may have been flooded with representations, I have not. I am just as zealous as are the hon. members for Roodepoort and Kensington for the welfare of the Rand. I am just as anxious that the opportunities we now have for development should be made full use of, for the benefit of the country as a whole and of the Rand, and I am as appreciative as the two hon. members I have mentioned are of the importance of the mining industry to South Africa. But unlike them, I refuse to be stampeded by fallacious arguments and specious figures.

There is nothing specious about the figures.

When you come to analyze the effect of the taxation, you get fallacious arguments. We must take the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) rather more seriously. He, quite rightly, discriminated between the amount and the incidence of the taxation proposals. I should also like to deal separately with these two aspects of the problem. First in regard to the figure of £6,000,000. We have had strong language used in this House and outside as well, in regard to the Government’s proposals. We have been told that the sum total is colossal; we have heard about a “staggering blow”; it has been said that the taxation is “confiscatory” and in excess of what anybody dreamed of, and we have been told—and this comes home to the Acting Minister of Finance and myself—that the Budget represents a complete surrender of the South African party members of the Cabinet to their Nationalist colleagues. That statement has been based on a statement by the Minister of Agriculture, when he said that before the Coalition Cabinet was formed, a figure was arrived at representing the amount expected to be produced by taxation out of the gold premium. The suggestion has been made that the South African party members of the Government allowed themselves to be made tools of, walked into the spider’s parlour, like flies, and accepted whatever was put before them. The fact is this: that quite independently and before the coalition was formed, on our side a similar figure was arrived at, and that is why when we went into the Cabinet, we found no difficulty in accepting the Minister’s figure. I have before me an article written by myself towards the end of February.

Written on behalf of the South African party?

I said that on our side that figure had been arrived at. The article to which I refer was written in February last, and was published in the “Cape Argus” and the “Star,” and in its preparation I received some very valuable assistance from the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) in regard to the calculations. I attempted to arrive at what would be the figure that would be required out of the yield of the gold premium in order to balance the budget. The conclusion I arrived at was that in 1933-’34 the mines would be expected to pay to the Treasury not £2,040,000, but £9,490,000, an increase of £7,450,000. The Acting Minister of Finance gave the amount at £7,400,000. The difference between our figures is, however, a little bit wider because we must add to the Minister’s figures the amount ordinarily credited to our revenue account out of the leased mines which he did not mention—that will bring his figure up to £7,800,000. On the other side it was also made clear in this article that it would have been necessary to add to my figure any amount surrendered in respect of the interest surtax, which would bring the figure up to £7,650,000. The result is that the difference between my figure and that of the Minister of Finance is only £150,000, a mere matter of 2 per cent. I repeat that a member of the South African party, who has since become a member of the Cabinet, arrived independently without any inside information at the end of February last at a figure within 2 per cent. of the figure arrived at by the Minister of Finance in his Budget. The question has been asked: what would the Acting Minister of Finance’s reaction have been if he had been in opposition? The question has also been asked of me: what would my reaction have been if I had been in opposition? Three months ago I arrived at the same figure within 2 per cent. of that arrived at by the Minister of Finance, and if I had been in opposition I would have been in just the same relation to the figure set forth in the Budget as I am now. These figures were published in the ‘‘Argus” and in the “Star.” To my own knowledge, these figures attracted attention on the stock exchange in Johannesburg, and in the Rand Club. I say, in the light of that, there is no foundation whatever for the suggestion that there was no warning of the nature and extent of the taxation to be imposed.

You were a private member then.

The fact that I arrived at that figure without any inside information three months ago, is surely an indication that any intelligent observer of our financial position, especially any intelligent observer connected with the mining industry, could have arrived at the same figure. Any person connected with the mining industry who had gone fairly into the facts as then disclosed, could have arrived at the same figure. It is ridiculous to state that this proposal has come out of the blue. I have referred appreciatively to the assistance the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) gave to me in arriving at my conclusions. I may add that those conclusions were submitted to the hon. member, and that he never suggested to me that the figure was unduly burdensome. The hon. member for Springs has attempted to prove to us how onerous this figure is, and to do that he has added together the 33 per cent. represented by the excess profits duty to the 20 per cent. income tax, arriving at a figure of 53 per cent. But surely these two taxes are based on entirely different principles. The 33 per cent. on the excess profits is not a tax based on the result of the working of the mines; it is a tax based on the fortuitous results of a change of public policy. The hon. member must admit that it is statistically fallacious to bring those two things together.

They come out of the same pocket.

But they are based on entirely different things. We are told that the mining industry had no warning. I repeat that intelligent observers of our financial position could have come to exactly the same conclusions as I did, and if they had investigated the figures they would have come to the same conclusions. The facts were fully set forth on which I came to my conclusions, if they had followed out those figures, they would have found that those figures were correct. I arrived at the conclusion that that amount would be necessary to balance the Budget. We have been told that people on the Rand have been misled by statements made by Ministers. The statements that ministerial declaration have misled the people on the Rand are for the most part vague. They have been loose and indefinite, and very rarely have we had any attempt to quote a statement made by a Minister to prove this contention which is now being put forward. As far as I myself am concerned, I can say this, that I never at any time referred during the election campaign to the question of the application of the premium, to the desirability of extending the life of our mines and lowering the grade of the ore to be worked, unless I at the same time referred to the paramount necessity of providing for the rehabilitation of agriculture. I kept those two things together in every speech I made. Let me say this. I have, both before and since the election, prior to the presentation of the Budget, made the point that in regard to the disposal of the premium, there were certain interests to consider other than the interests of the shareholders. The interests of the shareholders, I admitted, should be considered, but I went on to say that there were other more important interests, the interest of the State, by whose action this accretion had come and the interest of the future. And that brings me to the second aspect of the matter. I have spoken of the amount of the taxation, I want now to pass on to the question of the distribution and the effect of the taxation. Here let me reply to a question which is constantly being canvassed outside of this House. One sees it constantly in the Johannesburg press. Why we are asked, did the Government not consult the mining industry with regard to its taxation scheme? The statement I want to make is, that the previous president of the Chamber of Mines, Mr. John Martin, was opposed to any such consultation, and, that being so, that argument should not now be used. There was opposition to consultation on that side because it was felt that the mines, if consulted, would be faced with a difficult position, because what was in the interests of one mine, would not necessarily be in the interests of another mine. That was a very sound reason for not wishing to be consulted.

The Minister told them that he did not wish to consult them.

I have already stated that the previous president of the Chamber of Mines did not wish to be consulted. Let us review what has taken place. The Minister of Finance, after submitting this Budget, and after stating the amount which he expected to receive by means of his proposals, made it clear that he was willing to consider a i modification of those proposals. But he made that clear subject to two conditions. The one was that the amount to be secured was not to be reduced, and the other was that the aims of Government in regard to the encouragement of development and the lowering of the grade were not to be impaired. In the weeks that have intervened the Government has kept steadily in view the conditions of the Minister of Finance. We have maintained the position that we are unable to surrender anything in respect of the total amount to be yielded by this taxation, but at the same time we have given the definite and final assurance that we shall not take any more than the amount which is estimated to be received from this taxation. We have also readily given heed to any criticism that has been offered, but unfortunately the criticism that has been offered has been destructive and not constructive. We have had some criticism from the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) this afternoon. I am afraid that that criticism was also largely destructive, and not constructive. I am sorry the hon. member did not go a little bit further in his acknowledgment of the extent to which the proposals of the Minister have met the mining industry, and met his own criticisms in the debate. He did make some acknowledgement but, even so, he left the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) under the impression that the mines were worse off under these proposals than they were under the original proposals. I am sure he did not mean that, but I would like the hon. member to have been more explicit as to the way in which the mines had benefited. He said, however, that we were not benefiting the low grade mines, and he tried to establish that by using the statistical fallacy to which I have referred before. He has taken the percentage of taxation on the whole of the profits, and shown that the low grade mines topped the list. Of course they do, for very obvious reasons. It is in the very essence of the case that they should show a very high figure, because hitherto their profits independently of the premium have been negligible by virtue of the fact that they were low grade mines. This should not take in anybody in this House. The hon. member has taken the position of a mine like the E.R.P.M. Does he seriously contend that we should to-day call the E.R.P.M. a low grade mine? No, he has made a statement here which will not bear analysis. He has however, gone further, and has proposed an alternative basis of taxation. Having told us that our basis was going to hurt the mines which are mining low grade ore, he proposed that we should tax on the basis of a flat rate over the total profits. If he analyzes it he will see I am correct—his basis is going to do more to harm the low grade mines than our basis will do. The poorest mine would pay, according to his basis, £19,000, while on ours such a mine would pay nothing. One of the richest mines on the other hand would pay only three-quarters of what it will pay on our basis. His proposal therefore would leave the position worse off than it is on the basis of our proposal as regards the mining of low grade ore. Of course, the hon. member for Springs can pick holes in the proposals now pul before the House. Of course you can find hard cases, as the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) demonstrated, but unless the hon. member for Springs can come forward with better proposals than he has done, we cannot accept them.

And if he does so?

We shall consider them—proposals from him or from anybody else. Well, we have gone as far as we could to meet the criticisms that we have received within the limits of the amount that we must raise. We have gone further, in giving those assurances which have been given to-day by the Acting Minister of Finance, and I must say I regret very much to find there has not been a word of appreciation of those assurances from the hon. member for Roodepoort and other hon. members who have criticized our proposals.

They never discussed them.

They prepared their speeches before they heard them. Now our proposals have been attacked in respect of their financial results along two lines in the first place, we have been told they will yield more than the estimates, and in that regard we have had, during the last couple of weeks, a succession of globular figures—one globular figure after the other—and these have been based on estimates which, in the last resort, cannot be justified; and they have had a serious effect on the market. In that regard we have made the position definitely clear. We have given the assurance that for this year, and for next year, we shall not take more than we have on our present estimate, and there can, therefore, be no further attempt on the part of hon. members to stampede the public with these globular figures, or to suggest that our taxation will yield more than it is estimated to yield. The other line has been the attack on the fifty-fifty legend by the hon. member for Springs, who said I have been a party to this fifty-fifty legend. Surely he knows perfectly well that I did not say anything more than that it was proposed to take 50 per cent. of the premium. To suggest that we are wrong because we are in fact taking more than “50 per cent. of the profits” is to put himself out of court. Surely he knows the difference between 50 per cent. of the premium and 50 per cent. of the profits But there are a number of people outside who do not appreciate it, and it is regrettable that these should have been imposed upon by such a statement. We said “50 per cent. of the premium,” and we stand by that. We are told that if we took 50 per cent. of the profits all would be well. I trust that the assurance which has been given by us, to the effect that after next year we shall not take more than 50 per cent. of the profits, will be more welcome outside the House than it has apparently been to the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) and the hon. member for Kensington. We have gone a long way in making the concession which we can justify on one ground, and one ground only, and that is because it will give the necessary assurance for the promotion of the development which the country requires, and because it will prevent people from being scared by fallacious figures as to what the Government may take in the years that lie ahead. Of course, there has been a good deal of objection taken to our proposals, coming to a large extent from those who will be hurt by those proposals—and it is quite natural that those who will be hurt should raise their voices. Who are the people who suffer financially? First of all, the speculator; and I do not use that word in an offensive sense—I use it in relation to all these people who are interested merely in the price of shares. I am merely analyzing the position, and if my hon. friend likes to attach an offensive sense to that word, he may do so—I do not. I cannot work up a white heat of sympathy for these people—they must take the swings with the roundabouts. They have reaped a very golden harvest, and must take their knock without squealing. When it was suggested a few months ago that the Government should tax profits made as the result of speculation, I personally felt that would be wrong. These people protested against it, and I would have been prepared to associate myself with those protests, but to-day these same people have no right to protest against the losses which they have sustained in exactly the converse way to the gains they made a few months ago. I say again they must be prepared to take the swings with the roundabouts. Then we have the second class— the investor, the man who is interested primarily not in the price of a share, but in the yield of the share. There we have two separate classes. We have first those who regard shares as a means, through the dividends, of providing themselves with a living. That is the pukka investor. That is not the man who has been buying shares on a rising market in the last few months. The pukka investor has no reason to complain. He will be getting greater dividends than he would otherwise be getting. But there is another class of investor. There are those bigger investors, holding companies and the like, who would naturally and ordinarily apply dividends to provide new capital for new ventures. To this extent the interest of the investor is also the interest of the country as a whole, and of the Government. We want to see these investors applying the proceeds of their investments in the interests of the country as a whole by putting up the money for new developments. It is that aspect of the matter which the Government has had in view in these amended proposals. The Government in these proposals has sought to wipe out the effect on dividend declarations of exaggerated estimates of what the taxation may be this year and next year. That is why we have given this assurance. The Government has sought further to give an assurance with regard to the still more distant future with a view to encouraging developments which will not yield an immediate return. In particular, the Government has sought to encourage entirely new developments—that is the floating of entirely new propositions; and I do not think any hon. member yet has referred to the significance of that part of my hon. friend’s proposals, where he told us that the expenditure on the development of such propositions in regard to shaft sinking and underground development will be written off entirely, as against the profits when it comes to taxation. I believe we have done the right thing. I believe we would be doing the wrong thing if we were prepared to go further to meet the representations that have been made to us. We are preparing to take out of the premium what the country needs. No more, and no less. We are not prepared to reduce the amount of assistance to be rendered to farmers. The rehabilitation of agriculture is our primary need at the present moment. We are not prepared, and I say this to the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell), to go forward with an unbalanced Budget. I want to remind my hon. friend opposite that we have already to all intents and purposes unbalanced our Budget by taking £2,000,000 out of loan funds and applying it to revenue. Does the hon. member, in the light of his speeches in the past, want us to go further by taking another £1.000,000 or £2,000.000?

Yes, I say it would be good business.

Well, the hon. member is strangely inconsistent with his own past in the matter of finance. No, it would be unsound finance, just as it would have been in the past. It would therefore be unsound finance to reduce the amount of taxation; but within the limits thus imposed we have done all we can to ensure the future of the industry and of the country, and we as a Government are content to be judged by the results of the policy we have pursued in this matter.

Having listened to the various speeches by other members from the Witwatersrand, I am almost inclined to tell the House that I am going to vote against the taxation proposals of the Government, and that I should like to move another amendment to take the place of those amendments that are before the House now. My amendment will be as follows: To delete all words after “that” and to substitute in their place, “To refer the taxation proposals back to the Government for the purpose of their considering the desirability of taking a larger share of the gold premium for the State, and to use it for the following purposes: In the first place, to pay a bonus to the mine workers; in the second place, to give further assistance to the sufferers from miners’ phthisis; in the third place, to give a subsidy for the working of the low grade mines; in the fourth place, to give a subsidy for the working of low grade ore; in the fifth place, to render assistance to invalid and sick miners who are not receiving compensation to-day; in the sixth place, to bring about the expansion of new-mining areas, and in the seventh place, to lender assistance to the farming population as is now proposed by the Government.” It is not necessary for me, however, to vote against the Government’s proposal. It is not necessary for me to move an amendment of this nature, as the Government has been generous enough to assure the House that the Chamber of Mines will itself give effect to all the matters which T have mentioned here. It appears to me, when listening to the speeches of the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) and the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell), and even to the speech of the new member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty), as if the Chamber of Mines has become a sort of charitable institution. They say, “Give us all those advantages, give us all those profits, and we shall see to it that there is more work; we shall see to it that the workers are better paid and that there shall be extension, and all such kind of things as are being proposed.” I am very sorry that representatives of the people and of the Witwatersrand can get up in this House and exploit the poor worker with that kind of thing which they are holding up to us here. It is simply an exploitation of the workers of the Rand. I had hoped that this Government was a national Government, that this Parliament was a national Parliament, and that there would be a wide outlook on matters of this kind, even among those people who were very capitalistic in their outlook in the past, and who could see nothing else. It is very clear to me, however, that when people are being incited, when the screws are tightened a bit, the real nature of the leopard comes out again. It is the same capitalistic members who, in the past, used to fight for the capitalists who are to-day again prepared to fight for the capitalists. As has been said by many speakers, I feel that those speeches which we have been listening to are nothing but pleas for the Chamber of Mines, such as we have had in the past. They are merely pleas to retain all the advantages, to get all the profits so that nobody else shall have any share not even the workers. We recollect that only recently the workers went forth with a polite request that they should be paid higher wages. The answer at once was, “No, we cannot pay any more, you must work and you must be content with what you get.” And now they come here and they tell us that they are going to treat those people so wonderfully if only we treat them (the Chamber) fairly ourselves. This is merely a plea for the speculators, who are day and night dealing in shares in order to make a profit. I think it will be in the interest of the ordinary public if the Government will say clearly how much it is going to take every year from any profits that are made, so that there shall be no opportunity of exploiting the small man and the ordinary public by selling when the shares go up a little bit, and by buying them back when they drop a bit. In that manner they are day in and day out making money out of the public. People are not all in the inner councils to know exactly what is going on. As the Government is so reasonable in regard to mining interests by taking so little off the gold premium, I want to ask it to secure a definite undertaking from the Chamber of Mines that it will have the low giade mines worked. It is of no use to us to have to rely on promises that are made verbally, because it may so happen that these promises will never be given effect to. I want the Government to see to it that it gets a definite undertaking that the Chamber of Mines will have the low grade mines worked so that more men can be employed on the Rand. And if the mines do not make sufficient provision for this purpose, a definite amount should be laid down in the law which the Chamber of Mines will then have to pay over to the Government. If the Chamber of Mines does not do al that is required, the Government can take that amount of money and do it itself. In the first place I want to achieve that the Government shall see to it that in areas where there are gold-bearing lands belonging to the Chamber of Mines, or where such areas are the property of individual mining groups, they will be compelled to open up such fields in the interest of the people of this country. There is a tendency among large groups which have certain goldfields in their control to keep them locked up for posterity without making the best use of them. It is essential at the present time that those areas should be opened up. The country needs it now. I also want to ask the Government to enquire whether it cannot compel the Chamber of Mines to employ a larger number of white workers underground. This is the right time for action of that kind. They have the profits that are left to them, 50 or 60 per cent. of the money to which they are not entitled, and I am convinced that underground more than one man is being obliged to do two men’s work. Too many natives are placed under one ganger, and that ganger has to see to it that the work is done. If the ratio as between the number of natives and the number of white men is changed, an additional number of whites up to a total of 3,000 can be employed for underground work. The Government should see to it that that is done. Then, in view of the fact that the Government has been so reasonable, I want it to insist on the Chamber of Mines immediately employing from 1,500 to 2,000 phthisis sufferers on surface work. It is absolutely essential that the miners’ phthisis sufferer who finds it impossible to get employment anywhere else on the Rand, shall be provided for at once. If the Chamber of Mines is so kindhearted, as we have been led to believe, let it give evidence of its kindness by immediately providing work for 1,500 to 2,000 of these people who are unable to-day to find employment anywhere else. If they were to do this, it might inspire us with a little more confidence as to their intentions in the future. I further desire to suggest that negotiations should be entered into with the Chamber of Mines that it should give its workers underground and on the surface a bonus out of the profits, so that the workers may feel that they have a share in the profits which so suddenly and undeservedly have come into the hands of the Chamber of Mines. There is another matter in respect of which they should do something. The Minister should give his attention to this matter. There are large numbers of miners who do not suffer from phthisis, but who suffer from rheumatism, heart disease and other ailments which they have contracted underground in the wet and owing to bad ventilation. They do not receive any compensation. Will the Chamber of Mines be prepared to render available an amount of money for these people? We feel that if there is equity on one side, there should also be equity on the other side. I further wish to suggest that the Chamber of Mines in consideration of the concession which it has received from the Government should bear in mind the necessity of assisting the miners out of their surplus. I look to the Government to take possession of that money and to distribute it. I would trust the Government, if it were to take all that monev, to do justice to the mines, the low grade mines, to the workers and to the miners’ phthisis sufferers, but I have not got that same confidence in the Chamber of Mines. I do not imagine that all I those people whom I have mentioned here will get their fair share out of that large amount from the Chamber of Mines. We should consider this aspect of the matter very seriously, because it is essential that justice shall be done to all sections of the community. We are testing the mines now by allowing them to have a large sum of money which they certainly never expected to get, and which they certainly did not deserve. They have that money now, and we wish to see whether they will do that which is in the interests of the country, the people and the workers. I desire to say emphatically that we cannot look at matters from the point of view, as many other members have done, that the mines are simply private property belonging to private individuals and that nobody else has any say over them. The mines are the property of the State and they belong to the nation as a whole. The people who are working the mines have merely received the privilege and the right from the Government to do so. I realize that there may be people who will widely differ from me on this point, but I feel, as I have always felt, that if the State itself had worked the mines there would have been no difference of opinion about the profits. All the profits would then have been in the hands of the State. I feel that the day will come when some future government will step in and work the mines itself. What has been said here by some members does not reflect the real opinion of the Witwatersrand. It may reflect the opinion of the capitalists, of the speculators and of the people who make big profits out of the mines, but it does not reflect the opinion of the population of the Witwatersrand itself. Before I came down to Cape Town, many people in my constituency and from other constituencies asked me what the taxation would be which the Government was going to impose on the mines. I naturally was unable to reply to that question, but there was always a fear that the Government would appropriate too little instead of enough. As regards that section of the population, they are not dissatisfied with the idea that the mines should be assisted. We want work for our people, we want the mines to live, we want to do all we can for the good of the mines. We thoroughly appreciate what the mines mean to South Africa and especially to the Witwatersrand, but in spite of that we do not want the profits from the mines to remain in the hands of a small group of people, we want the money to be distributed as much as possible, we want to see a general distribution of the profits, because the more the money is put into circulation, the better it is for all sections of the population, even for commerce and for farmers. I wish to insist that the Government shall not leave this large amount unconditionally in the hands of the mines, but that it shall impose certain obligations on them, and if they do not carry out those obligations, that a further amount of the premium be taken for the State.

I beg to support the amendment of the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard), and I do so on behalf of the mining industry, on behalf of the people of Johannesburg, and on behalf of the whole country. I pointed out some time ago that there would be a state of chaos if these proposals were carried into effect, and, though little attention was paid my statement at that time, it has since been borne out by the latest information we have got from Johannesburg. I have been told that prospecting has been stopped to a great extent, and that a considerable number of men have been laid off. I have a large number of telegrams before me, which are an indication of the situation on the Witwatersrand. I should like to refer to a point that has not been mentioned, and that is in regard to the benefit which is likely to accrue to the farmer in connection with the money allocated to him. It does not produce any markets.

I do not think the hon. member can refer to that. He will have other opportunities of referring to that matter. The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

If the mining industry expands, further markets will be created. I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Roodepoort.

On the motion of Mr. Madeley, the debate was adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.