When subject matters are approached objectively free from the rancour of personal recriminations, and without any deplorable attempt to gain petty political party advantages, then members on both sides of this House will more often than not find themselves on common ground, for unquestionably practically all national problems confronting this country apply with equal stress to adherents of the Government and the Oppositon followers. The admirable restraint with which the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) dealt with questions raised by him deserves appreciation, and members on both sides would do well to emulate the standard set by him and the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga). If that were done the prestige of Parliament will not only be restored, but enhanced, and we shall find that we once more have a debating chamber of forensic power where different views are advanced, and where no attempt is made to vilify any person, or to seek a personal advantage or a party political gain—but that may be Utopian, I know. It is thus with pleasure that I find myself able to agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) and his plea for an extension of facilities for vocational training will find strong support. Agriculture is unquestionably the most essential industry, for without its products our very civilisation itself would cease to exist, yet it is a sad reflection that in so important an industry the producer has little or no say in fixing the price of his product, which is always governed by circumstances entirely beyond his control. In every other industry the price of the product is governed by the cost of production plus a reasonable margin of gain, but unfortunately the same does not apply to agriculture; in this respect South Africa suffers with the rest of the world, but only to a larger extent, for in addition to this serious handicap we here have to contend with adverse natural conditions. Though we may be rich in many other resources, we cannot boast of being essentially an agricultural country in the same way as other great agricultural countries like the Argentine, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In these countries nature has been kind in its endowment of rich, fertile soil, and favourable climatic conditions. The costs of production are less and the yields correspondingly greater, which makes competition by us on an equal basis practically impossible. There is another factor which we have to take into account, and that is that very often a man adopts farming in this country as a profession, not because he feels he is specially suitable, but out of necessity, and I suggest that one of the remedies for that would lie in the choice of applicants. If farmers had to go through a selective process, and only suitable men were selected, you would meet with greater success in agriculture in this country. To be a successful farmer in this country requires a combination of qualities which are rarely found in one man. To be a farmer you have to be an agriculturist, an engineer, an economist, a financier, and last but not least, you have to be an incorrigible optimist. Therefore I say that if we were to adopt a selective process, we would find that some people would be suitable farmers and others would not be suitable. For those who are not suitable, we have to find other avenues of employment and what I propose this afternoon is that the Government should take steps to establish an oil industry in this country. With the advent of the internal combustion engine what was once a waste by-product of petroleum has become a commodity of the most vital importance in modern times. Today petrol is the life-blood of the community, and one of the bulwarks of civilisation, for it has been said that with the exception of the printing press and the alphabet no invention of recent times has done as much to push civilisation forward as that which abridges distance. Unfortunately we have not any indigenous oil wells in this country, and we have perforce to look round for a substitute. When this subject matter has been raised, it has time and again been the cry that economically we cannot exploit our indigenous oil fields because the cost of our product is so high that it cannot stand on its own feet in competition with the imported article, but in an emergency such as is to-day facing this country along with the rest of the world, we cannot be tied down by economic considerations alone. When the safety of our country is at stake we do not query the cost of providing fortifications, but we get on with the task of building them, and so it is in the present emergency facing not only South Africa but the whole of the civilised world. Safety and national welfare are paramount considerations, whilst financial costs are of subordinate importance. What is the good of all our modernised transport and mechanised weapons of war if we have not the necessary means of propelling them? I say, therefore, that we have arrived at a stage where economic considerations fall away. I go further and say that if this problem is tackled now and put on its feet in a time of emergency, it will be more than able to hold its own in times of peace. On the financial side of the question I would point out that there has always been money found for irrigation. We have, in the past, spent millions of pounds on irrigation to produce more agricultural products with which the markets of the world are already congested. If a portion of the money that has been invested in irrigation in the last few years had been invested in establishing an oil industry, we would to-day be producing a product of value and be giving employment to hundreds and possibly thousands of people. Besides which there would be an unlimited market for our product. I do not wish to be taken to be unsympathetic towards irrigation projects, but as many of these have unfortunately not proved a success, I feel that the money would have been very much more profitably invested in an oil industry. We have vast coal deposits in this country, which are amongst the most valuable of our national assets. I think I can go further and maintain with justification that our coal resources are the most important national asset we possess, and the surest bulwark of Western, or for that matter, any civilisation whatever. It is estimated that we have a reserve of 250.000,000,000 tons of coal, and at the present rate of consumption that will last 20.000 years. I say, therefore, that so far as the question of raw materials is concerned, there is no fear for the adequacy of our supply. At first it was thought that the only way of extracting oil from coal was by means of the hydrogenation process, but it is known that our coals are not very suitable for that process. Subsequently, however, another process has been discovered, and what is known as the Fischer-Tropsch process has been perfected. Admittedly, our coal is not of the highest quality, but on account of its high volatility it has been found to be particularly suitable for treatment by this latter process. Practically all the coal can be usefully treated with a minimum of waste. That is a most important consideration, for in dealing with our national reserves it is essential that they are used in the most profitable and economical way. We are told that in burning certain classes of coal for ordinary domestic and other heating purposes we are losing the richest qualities by allowing them to escape through the chimney. That in itself is a subject of a very comprehensive nature, and in the few minutes allocated to me it is impossible to do more than refer to it cursorily. I will thus content myself by dealing only with the establishment of an oil industry by extraction from coal. An admirable and commendable start has already been made by private enterprise, and here I wish to pay tribute to the Anglo-Transvaal Company for its pioneering effort, which has resulted in the present torbanite mine in the Ermelo district, and the refining works at Boksburg. When this industry was launched the price of petrol was higher than it is to-day, and the company had every reason to budget for a profit. Unfortunately for the company, however, shortly after mining operations commenced, the government of the day, in the interests of the general public, reduced the price of petrol considerably. I do not wish unduly to criticise this act, for I am only too ready to concede that cheap petrol is of the utmost importance in any country, but as far as our particular industry at Ermelo is concerned, the reduction in the price of petrol operated as a distinct hardship. Representations were made, and to atone for the injury to the private concern concessions were made which I am prepared to describe as generous, but I regret that I am not justified in saying that full reparation was made to this particular company. To deal with refining of the crude product adequately, it was necessary to erect large works at Boksburg, and as the industry at Ermelo was not able, in its infancy, to keep the refining works supplied to full capacity, it has been necessary to use imported crude oil in conjunction with the local product. It is in connection with the importation of such crude oil that concessions were made which enabled the company to carry on its operations successfully. We are not ungrateful for the help thus extended, but that is not nearly enough, and now the Government must take a very great step forward. As this House knows, torbanite is found in conjunction with coal, approximately in the ratio of one to two, and to mine the torbanite it is also necessary to remove the coal, with which it is found. The present plant is only capable of dealing with torbanite which has a richer oil content than coal, and which yields to treatment much more readily. The coal, as conditions are to-day, is a waste product, and this, from a national point of view, is most unfortunate. Members may be interested to learn that a ton of torbanite yields about 50 gallons of crude oil, and when this is refined we have about 25 gallons of petrol. During this year it is estimated that the Ermelo plant will produce at least 4,000,000 gallons of crude oil, and next year this figure will be increased to at least 6,000,000 gallons. The amount of petrol will be half these figures, and it is apparent that this is only a very, very small percentage of our national needs, which amount to about 140,000,000 gallons annually. Thus far we cannot complain of any shortage of supplies, and it is understood that in comparison with other countries we have been treated fairly by the big oil trusts, in whose hands the control of supplies rests. We cannot, however, allow ourselves always to be completely dependent on outside supplies. In the turmoil of present-day world conditions it may well happen that the large oil companies refuse to send adequate supplies to the Union, and in that case we shall be entirely lost. I have no reason, at this stage, to fear that such a contingency is an immediate probability. But even the most astute cannot foresee future developments with any degree of certainty. Whilst we have the raw material at hand we shall neglect our duty to this country if we do not insist upon immediate exploitation of our fuel reserves, so as to keep us supplied against any national emergency. It cannot, at this stage, any longer be a matter of finance. The urgency of the matter is far too great to be affected by any minor considerations. After all, if Australia can, with inferior raw materials and under more adverse conditions, establish an oil industry, there is absolutely no reason why we cannot do the same. At Glen Davis in Australia, about 100 miles west of Sydney, the first big oil plant has been installed. The controlling company is being backed to the extent of £550,000 by the Federal and New South Wales Government, and it is estimated that the first year’s output will be not less than 10,000,000 gallons, rising to a maximum of 30,000,000 gallons annually. The spirit will be run by a pipe line from Glen Davis for a distance of 25 miles. This is proof, if proof is needed, to show that what can be done in Australia under very much less favourable conditions, can and should be carried out here more effectively. I do not wish to appear parochial, when I plead the cause of the district I have the honour to represent, but I would remind this House that as a pioneer in the field and under the circumstances previously set out by me, Ermelo has a prior claim founded upon moral and practical grounds. We already have the nucleus of an oil industry, and it would be in the interests of the country as a whole if this industry was nationalised, and the first plant for dealing with the combined raw material of coal and torbanite was established at Ermelo. Our raw material is unlimited, and in addition all the necessary facilities can be provided. We are blessed with a bounteous rainfall, and at no great expense the necessary body of water could be impounded to operate the plant. Secondary industries could be established, and to mention only one by-product, we could supply the material necessary for constructing tar macadamised roads. Cheap power could be made available from the industry, and the whole of the eastern Transvaal could be industrialised. Geographically, too, our situation is ideal, and lends itself to the carrying out of the Government’s professed policy of establishing industries in the rural areas. What is more, the whole of the plant could be manufactured in this country, and this removes any possible obstacle which otherwise might be put in the way of the exploitation of our indigenous oil fields to the lasting benefit of this country and its inhabitants, many of whom will find permanent and profitable employment in consequence. This subject may have been mentioned on many occasions, but I make no excuse for reiteration. Its importance is such that overemphasis is impossible, and I appeal with all the sincerity and earnestness at my command for immediate action. To be effective, the Government must act, and act at once. I know that our Cabinet is sympathetic, and that its members are desirous of doing everything possible to facilitate industrial development, and might I, in conclusion, again stress the claims of the Ermelo district, which, at present, is undoubtedly the most suitable situation for launching what this country needs more than anything else to-day, a national oil industry.

An hon. member on the other side of the House last night described this Budget as a poor man’s Budget. He continued to prove his contention by pointing out that as far as income tax is concerned a man with an income of £600 may escape that tax. The man who has an income of £600, or even £300, is not my concern, but I want to speak about the poor man on the platteland who receives £4 to £15 per month. First of all, I want to discuss the housing conditions of these people. The Minister is aware that these people cannot get loans from building societies and from municipalities which are not in the position to render assistance, and they are living under conditions which are a disgrace, and they cannot obtain proper housing. I think the Minister will agree with me that, if these people cannot obtain proper housing, they are not in a position to bring up their children properly, with the result that these children later on become a burden to the state. To make good citizens of these children it is necessary that they should be brought up decently. It is a fact, however, that these small municipalities are not in a position to assist in the housing of these people. For that reason I suggest that the same assistance should be given to these people as the assistance which is given to people in larger municipalities, enabling these poor people to buy their own houses. To-day the position usually is that when these people come to the village or town, they are housed in that part of the village where the very poor people live, and consequently they develop an inferiority complex. I want to ask the Minister to assist these people to procure their own houses. I want to ask the Minister to make provision for these people on the platteland who have a small income and who live in poverty. Then I come to another matter, which I have discussed on several occasions, and that is the problem of the semi-fit. In 1937, the Minister, who at that time was Minister of Social Welfare, introduced a Bill which passed the first reading. It became known as a Bill providing pensions for crippled people. That Bill made provision for the semifit. When you visit any village, you find a large number of people who are not declared as totally unfit by the doctors and, therefore, they are not in receipt of pensions for the semi-fit. But most of these people cannot get old age pensions either, because usually they are young people with a family and very often there are a number of small children. They can get no assistance from the state. They are not old, but possibly they have a stiff leg, or only one arm, and then it is surmised that they can make a living, but usually they can obtain no work. For that reason I plead for these semi-fit. I want to point out to the Minister that when he was Minister of Social Welfare, a Bill was introduced by him to make provision for people who are semi-fit, people who have been crippled, and I want to know why he did not go on with that Bill. I want to ask him to go on with that Bill, because it is a Bill which fills a gap in the care of these people, who are not in a position to provide their families with food and clothing. I have already asked the Minister on a previous occasion whether he would be prepared to reduce the excise duty on brandy, and to make good the loss of income, and in order to make good the loss of income to the state, to increase the import duty on whisky and other imported liquor. I understand that the hon. the Minister is not prepared to do that, but if he is not prepared to do that, I have another request to make. I think the whole country is proud of the wine farmer and what he has done through co-operation. But as far as brandy is concerned, we are dealing with an article which improves from year to year, and as it ages, the quality is enhanced.

The 1924 Act compels the farmer to add at least 25 per cent. three year old brandy to a bottle, and we feel that there is room for improvement in that respect by increasing the percentage to 50 per cent. It is calculated that it will cost the state 1s. for every year the brandy ages, and if the Minister grants that rebate for three years it will amount to 3s. As the Minister does not see his way clear to reduce the excise, I want to ask him whether he is prepared to grant the rebate on brandy up to ten years. It is apparent that in that way brandy will improve, and if the Minister is prepared to grant 1s. rebate per year up to ten years, then he will do something of great value to the industry, then the industry will be in a position to market first class brandy, to improve the brandy which is marketeed, and that brandy will be of such a quality that it can compete with whisky or imported brandy.

What of the other 75 per cent.?

The hon. member knows as well as I do that that does not consist of brandy but spirits, and even if they add brandy it is not three-year-old brandy. That is the reason why I say it will be beneficial to the industry if these people are in a position to store the brandy, because they will be able to market a product which can compete with any product in the world. There is another matter I want to deal with. I know that the hon. the Minister of Finance has a soft spot for our poor children, and he is aware of the provisions laid down under the Child Welfare Act, the provisions of which have to be complied with in order to get assistance for children, the so-called mothers’ pension. It is granted in the case of orphans whose mother is still alive, and for that reason it is called a mothers’ pension. The system is such that the pension is granted for one year, and it means that every year a fresh application has to be sent in for the pension. It sometimes takes a long time before it is granted, and in the meantime charitable institutions such as the A.C.V.V., who are prepared to help, have to support these people until the pension is paid out once more. I think the Minister should apply the same system which is in vogue in respect of old age pensions. It should not be necessary to make application every year. These people should send in their application, and after the department has gone into the matter and granted the pension, it should be paid out over the necessary period, without new applications every year. There is another matter, and that is the question of the Wine Control Bill which has been tabled. I have so far refrained from discussing this matter, and I do not want to drag this matter into the political arena, because I know it is a matter of life and death to the wine farmer.

This Bill contains provisions which enable the wine farmers to control the production of their products, and without these powers in the hands of the wine farmers — and they should be granted as soon as possible — the wine industry is threatened by a catastrophe. I am convinced that we have the sympathy of the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister, but I also know that the wine farmers are becoming irritable. They ask what is going on, what the position is going to be, and possibly it will be said that it is a sign of weakness on my part that I did not raise the matter. I think that the Minister and the Prime Minister should put aside the necessary time in order to pass this Bill. I want to give the Minister the assurance that this side of the House is prepared to deal with the matter, even if it means a few days extra as far as this session is concerned. We are also prepared to support the Minister in this matter. The Bill has been drafted in consultation with the wine traders. They accepted the provisions, and it is, therefore, a matter which has been approved of by all the interests concerned, except the two biggest wine traders, who are standing aloof, because they are out for certain advantages, and the Minister agreed with us that we were right, and the Bill was drawn up. We were under the impression that the measure would be dealt with last session. Unfortunately there was no time, and the Minister promised, and we made it known all over the country, that the Bill would be introduced at the beginning of this session, so that it would be possible to pass the Bill before this year’s vintage. Difficulties arose and the matter has not been disposed of.

A new Government came into power.

Yes, but I want to say to the Minister that, though it is true that a new Government came into power, and though it is possible that his party has changed its principles, yet I do not believe that they have turned against the wine farmer. I feel they will do something for the wine farmers, and I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture, and the Prime Minister. It is said that he has a heart for the wine farmer, and I want to remind him of the fact that there are other traders besides those two big wine traders in the country. There are 40 other traders and they, and all the makers of wine, have agreed with the wine farmer that a Bill containing these principles should be passed. Therefore, the discussion on this Bill need not be prolonged, unless too much opposition is organised by those two traders. I can well understand that they want to organise opposition to the Bill, because as long as this Bill is not passed, it means that they take out of the pockets of the wine farmers £100,000 per year, and every year of delay the wine farmers lose at least £100,000. For that reason I appeal to the Government, in all humility, without wanting to drag in politics. I know what it will mean to us if we get this Bill. It may soon be too late to pass this Bill, and therefore, I am entitled to ask the Prime Minister to make the necessary arrangements in order to bring this Bill under discussion. From our side we are prepared to give him all possible support and assistance and to cut down the discussion as far as possible. It is an agreed measure and no opposition need be expected, except from those two traders. If we read the pamphlets which they have issued. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will agree with me that they have no case to justify us in postponing the passing of this Bill.

The position of the farmer under war conditions will call for redoubled efforts on the part of the Minister of Agriculture for a twofold task, that of safeguarding and building up the Union market for primary products, and secondly, that of reducing the cost of the farmer’s requisites for carrying out his work. In this latter connection, the high cost of farming, I should say the Department of Agriculture would do well to ascertain the wide difference between the prices charged for fertiliser where the terms are for cash, and the price which is insisted upon when payment is deferred over periods of from three to twelve months. I once quoted in this House figures from a reliable source, an unquestionable source, from which it was evident that the prices for cash terms were doubled where a period of twelve months was agreed upon beforehand for settlement of the account. Under war conditions it becomes the duty of the Department to make the closest investigation into matters of this kind, and to provide whatever relief may be obtainable for the farmer. On this other question of the high cost of farming, let me quote from a letter which I have recently received from a prominent farmer in my constituency. He says this—

Now this is undoubtedly a strong statement but it goes to show the need for watchfulness in the interest of the farmer at this difficult juncture. Many farmers were led to hope that the boards under the Marketing Act would provide salvation for them from their ills, but they have been disappointed in their experience of these boards. For my own part I was always sceptical of the fair promises held out by supporters of the Marketing Act, but I have in this House facilitated a fair trial of the machinery of the Act. I have on no occasion impeded or delayed any necessary legislation being put through to improve that machinery. I must say, however, that there is a growing dissatisfaction among farmers in regard to some of the work of the boards in question. The Mealie Control Board has earned for itself a bad pre-eminence in the minds of the farmers of Natal. In view of the fact that this board’s spending capacity will be very great I hope the Minister of Finance will see to it that its financial transactions are brought under the control of the Auditor-General otherwise I fear that the country will have to pay for the losses, which will be inseparable from the mismanagement which has so far characterised the work of the board. Let me give the Minister a typical example of the confusion which was shewn to exist in the office of the general secretary, the chief administrative officer of the board, on a matter of the simplest kind. It will be remembered that members of the board when the scheme for the marketing of maize was promulgated, went round the country explaining the main features of that scheme, and in the course of their tour they emphasised that the producer would be in no way hindered, or taxed or impeded by this scheme. A producer in my district wished to sell maize, but there was such a tangle of verbiage published in connection with the scheme that it was impossible for a simple layman to understand it, and so the farmer wrote to the Mealie Control Board: “Will you please tell me in plain language what I am to do before I can dispose of the maize which I have grown?” Let me say that the ground had been prepared by members of the Mealie Control Board going round the country and telling the farmer that he had nothing to fear from this board, it would not interfere with him, it would not lay additional burdens of any kind on him, and my constituent who was a producer, pure and simple, wrote to know what he should do in order to dispose of his maize. He got a letter informing him that it had been decided not to require the farmer to produce a guarantee or cash deposit to cover levies payable on the sale of mealies at levy paid prices, but he would require to pay 5s. for a certificate of registration under the scheme. He was satisfied to receive that information and he was also told that there were certain formalities that he would have to comply with, but the one point was that he would have to provide no guarantee or cash deposit whatever to cover his maize levy. There was a maize levy, as you know, of 4s. per bag, which had to be accounted for by the producer, whenever he sold maize at levy paid prices; and in respect of that levy it was emphasised that the producer would not have to deposit any guarantee with the department. He had been asked to obtain a certificate of registration under the scheme and he paid his 5s. Now let us bear in mind that he was told he would not have to pay any guarantee, and that information was over the signature of one official. From that official he received the assurance that that was so and no guarantee was necessary. That was on September 19. An undated letter was sent to him shortly afterwards enclosing his certificate of registration, and telling him that a £25 guarantee or cash deposit was necessary. This was signed by a second official. No sooner did they issue him his registration certificate at a cost of 5s. than they departed completely from their previous statement and said “now we require payment of a £25 guarantee.” Willing to do anything to satisfy the department, he sent the £25. The demand for the £25 was subsequently followed up by a letter from a third official stating that as the £25 had not been received his registration certificate was now cancelled. He had actually sent the money which was in the possession of the department. The whole difficulty seems to be through the overlapping of the activities of these three officials. First the one said no guarantee was necessary, the next one said £25 must be paid on the spot, and the third declared, that the certificate of registration was cancelled, and any transaction on the farmer’s part would be illegal and subject to prosecution although the £25 was proved to have been paid. Mr. Speaker, you and I represent a large and important section of the producers of this country, and we naturally resent the treatment of a man in this fashion. Three different officials, sir, neither of them knowing what his colleagues were doing sent out contrary instructions in three different documents. The thing is ridiculous. If that department is to be entrusted with the handling of upwards of a million of money in maize transactions, I say heaven help the accounts of that department when they come to be unravelled and audited by people of ordinary business principles. I strongly urge that the Minister of Finance, who himself is a purist in these matters, will see to it that from the very beginning the Auditor-General should take charge of these accounts and that there shall be no possibility of our being faced with disagreeable consequences in connection with these boards. I don’t condemn these boards generally as a body, but I say, from my own personal experience and the facts I have just brought before the House, it is high time the Minister of Finance saw to it that he is not placed in an utterly false position by bad work as I have drawn attention to. My constituent, a producer of maize, was prevented from selling his maize at that stage, which was the season coincident with the coming of the weevil, and he had considerable losses. He had in sheer desperation to feed most of his maize to his own cattle because he was intimidated by the action of these three officials, one of whom cancelled his licence on the ground that he had not paid the £25 which was already in the possession of the department.

Did they refund it?

He finally recovered his £25 but the harm to the marketing of his maize had already been done. What he wanted to do was to be able to sell his maize after he had complied with every condition laid down. To that man £25 was as much as £1,000 would have been to many others, and the injury done to him was very great. It was the withdrawal of the privilege of selling his product at a stage when it had become critical that he should sell, and he was prevented by nothing but the overlapping and complete confusion that prevailed in the offices of the general secretary of the Mealie Control Board. There is one point I would like to put before the Minister of Finance in regard to the excess profits tax. One of my constituents, who lives in my constituency, although be has a business in Johannesburg, has raised the question of the levy on excess profits in respect of the three preceding years. I think the Minister said in referring to this matter that the pre-war standard would be based on the average trade income of the three pre-war years, and provision would be made to compensate the taxpayers for losses sustained as a result of a fall in prices after the war. That I take it is intended to apply more to the commercial community who are trading in commodities which will be affected by the ending of the war. My case is that of a stock and share broker who, according to his statement, can prove that he made losses upwards of £7,000 in each of the three years preceding the present one, but he may during the present year make a profit of £1,000. His submission, sir, is that where such losses have been made it will be only fair to take an average of three profitable years prior to this year and not to take the three preceding years. Perhaps the Minister would prefer that I should submit this to him departmentally. I myself would prefer that, but I mention it here because I was asked to do so.

When the Minister of Finance delivered his Budget speech, and after he had finished, the Budget was acclaimed on many sides as a brilliant Budget. Well, as far as the Union is concerned, it certainly is a record Budget, because never before did we have to face such colossal expenditure as in this case, with no less than £57,255,000. That is the estimate, whilst under normal circumstances the expenditure would have been just over 45 millions. As the Minister has admitted, the extra amount is due in a large measure to the amount we are voting for war purposes, namely, £14,000,000, for a war which we have declared, for what purpose? We do not even know for what purpose we are participating. We have only been told that our honour and duty prescribe our participation. This colossal expenditure places an extra tax burden on the nation, but the Minister referred with gratitude and satisfaction to the extra £264,000 which he is making available for certain services, such as labour, social welfare and public health. That at once shows us that an additional amount is necessary for the current year, because the people of this country are not in a sound position, but in a precarious economic state. Calculated in pounds, shillings and pence, the decline of our nation amounts to £264,000 per year, according to the Minister’s estimates. That goes to prove that the position in the Union is anything but rosy, and that South Africa in those circumstances should have hesitated a long time before deciding to take part in this war, a war from which we cannot expect any benefit. The war expenditure already amounts to 14 millions per year, and I am putting the question to this House: What will happen if we continue for a few years with this idiotic war and if the war spirit of the Government prevails? From time to time extra expenditure becomes necessary. We have, for instance, the internment camps. Up to now we have not succeeded in getting exact figures as to the amount spent on those camps, but it must be a large amount. If it had not been for this ridiculous war it would not have been necessary to intern hundreds of people. Neither would we have had the intelligence service with its special agents in every district. When referring to intelligence officers my mind goes back to the days of 1899—1902, when we had martial law in the country and an intelligence service. What did we find? That the very weakest, I am inclined to say the lowest characters, were employed in the intelligence service. In my own district, for instance, we had four of them. One of these men was an old man whose whole life had been fit for nothing else. He went round in the district in order to, try to get people into trouble. The second one, until his death practically never held a permanent position. Those two were Afrikaners, and then they had a coloured man and a Jew. I do not know whether he came from Poland or Russia, but he was a Jew by the name of Levy, and in 1914 I often wished I could lay hands on him to pay him back in his own coin. These are all expenses which have to be paid for by the taxpayers, and we see in this Budget how the Minister proposes to get this extra amount. In the first place there is an increase of £70.000 in customs duties; then the rebate of 30 per cent. on income tax disappears, which means an additional £1.800,000. But when we come to the gold mines — we hoped that this amount of almost £14,000,000 would be paid for out of the extra premium — we notice that the Minister has softened and that he did not have the courage nor the inclination to seize the premium over 150s., as promised by the government at the end of August last year. The government at that time declared that gold, having risen to 168s., that is 18s. over 150s., the government would apply those 18s. to the farming industry. It was a sound principle to take that amount and use it for the benefit of the nation.

We will get exactly the same amount under the new scheme.

Yes, out of the other amount which you would have received as well. But the Minister of Finance has toll us himself that the cost of production for the mines is rising, and for that reason he effected a change in the basis of taxation. We are also worried about the cost of production, because the cost of production for the farmer is going up as well, notwithstanding the argument of the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Klopper) that the cost of machinery, etc., was almost lower than in 1914. That is a futile argument, because the price of all the requirements of the farmers has gone up, and the price of farmers’ produce is controlled by the control boards, and there is no question of these prices going up. In cases where they actually go up, steps are taken immediately to prevent prices rising above a certain level. Yet the cost of production of the farmers has gone up to a level much higher than before the war, but there has been no improvement in the price of produce. Moreover, the farmer has lost his markets, and the position of our markets is such, at the present moment, that the farmers were compelled to fix a quota of 50 per cent. for export, based on the average export during the last two years. And even where a farmer has forwarded 50 per cent. to the docks, difficulties are experienced, in view of the limited shipping space, and we find very often that he cannot send his produce away. Consequently the farmer is in a very precarious position. I have a letter here from a fruit farmer in my district, in which he points out that the price of boxwood, free on rail Cane Town, between 1937 and 1939, was £11 2s. 6d. per 1,000, and the price of 5½ inch wood was £16 7s. 1d., whilst the first-named boxwood now comes to £22, and the 5½ inch wood to £29 15s. 6d. There we have a rise in the price of an article which the fruit farmer requires to market his produce. The farmer requires boxes, whether the produce is supplied to inland markets or is exported. The farmer, marketing his produce in South Africa, has to pack his produce in the same boxes, because otherwise he runs the risk of losing the market which he has built up, and then he loses everything. For that reason I contend that we should get a share of the gold premium, in order to assist the farmers in the difficulties with which they are faced to-day. During the last few years efforts were made to induce the shipping lines, particularly the Conference Lines who formed a ring, to decrease the freight on fruit. We did not succeed, and to-day the freight may still be the same, but insurance is much higher, and where a farmer succeeds in exporting small quantities, he is still worse off than last year. If we had not thrown in our lot with the Allies in this war, we could have taken the extra gold premium to assist our farmers. We could have established factories in this country to use our raw materials, and to export a finished article, but to-day we have to export our raw material, which comes back in the finished form to South Africa. The argument is used that we do not have a fleet. Quite right, but after improving our defence, we could have spent five million to six million pounds yearly on ships, and were the war to last for a number of years we could have exported our produce on our own ships. Then we would have built up an asset. But today we are faced with additional burdens. Possibly the cost of the war will rise to £15.000,000 and even £20,000,000, and as a result our burdens must increase tremendously, because to-day we are not firing a shot and yet our expenditure goes up and up. We already have 154 boys who are overseas, and South Africa has to bear the cost.

No, the Prime Minister stated that they are not paid for by us.

But what will happen when these boys return, who is going to pay for their pensions?

These will be British pensions.

Very well, I accept that, but I want to point out to the Minister that he is wasting 14 million pounds yearly on a war which is of no benefit to us, and he could have used that money in the interests of South Africa, and in the interest of the farmers of South Africa, then it would not have become necessary to place additional burdens on the people.

I want to bring to the notice of this House the unsatisfactory way in which so many German aircraft have been supplied to South Africa, and also the excessive prices paid for these machines by us. I feel, possibly, a little bit diffident in bringing this matter before the House this afternoon, as I read in the paper a day or two ago that the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) had suggested that it was possible that after this war he would recommend that Baviaanspoort should be retained as a concentration camp for the loyal Dutch and Jingos which this country at present holds. Mr. Speaker, I am told that I am classed in that category, hence my diffidence in this matter. I feel that possibly I can survive this threat. I must lay the blame for all of these previous transactions, so far as our air purchases are concerned, at the door of the ex-Minister of Defence and the ex-Minister of Railways and Harbours, the hon. member for Gezina. While I am on the subject of his speeches made at Robertson and Piquetberg, might I also say, seeing that he has come into his place now, that I also see it was suggested he was going to inaugurate in the Nationalist Party storm troops. Well, Mr. Speaker, I remember, purely and simply as a matter of a joke across the floor of this House, suggesting that hon. members on the opposite side had joined the P.P. brigade. I am wondering whether the hon. member for Gezina has deemed it fit to take a suggestion from a backbench political nincompoop, as he terms us, whether he has taken up this suggestion and used it. I do not know, but I am sure that the hon. member for Gezina really did not mean to say what he did say. However, let us come back to the question of aircraft. The first Junker planes which arrived in this country was a single engine Z.S.A.B.U. machine, and a couple of smaller junior machines. These machines were sent out by Junkers of Dessau, directly after a man by the name of Hoepfner arrived in this country in 1928. Immediately after he arrived here he formed a company called Junkers South Africa (Proprietary) Limited, in which he and Junkers of Dessau held the controlling interest. This company assumed the control of sales organisation of the parent company in South Africa. In regard to this man Hoepfner, may I tell the House, first of all, something about his career before he came here. During the 1914-T8 war he served in the German submarine service. His progress in this country is rather interesting. Just after he got here he applied for the contract of the South-West Africa Administration, the airways contract, which was to operate between Kimberley and Windhoek. He was successful in getting this contract, and incidentally I believe there was quite a lot of controversy over it. However, this man Hoepfner was successful in getting it and he immediately then formed another company and called it the South-West African Airways. This man Hoepner, I believe, claimed a, great friendship with the hon. member for Gezina. In fact, gossip says, and it has since been confirmed to me verbally, that the hon. member for Gezina and Hoepfner, when they met each other, whether in the street or elsewhere, their greeting to each other was to stand rigidly to attention and give each other the Nazi salute.

Did they click their heels also.

I don’t know about the clicking of heels. Another thing about Hoepfner was that he was dubbed as the deputy-leader of the Nazis in Natal. On the 1st February, 1934, the Union Airways were taken over by the Union Government. This Mr. Hoeffner who was a director also of Union Airways was taken over by the Union Government and was given a position in the Union Government service— the position of airways superintendent, technical and commercial, and a remarkable thing about this gentleman is that he was also allowed to retain three other appointments which he held. He was managing director of South-West African Airways, also managing director of Junkers (S.A.) Pty., Ltd., in which capacity he also held a special power of attorney as the representative of Junkers, Dessau, and also he was an agent for “Mittel Deutsch” Insurance Co. From the 1st February he was taken into our service. During February, 1934, an order was placed with Junkers by the Government for three machines. The order was for three J.U.52’s, and the purchase price was £27,500. At the end of May, 1934. Mr. Hoepfner left South Africa ostensibly, we were told, to take delivery of these machines which the Union Government had purchased from Germany. While we are on the point of this gentleman’s departure from South Africa, I would like to refer to Hansard of 1st June, 1934, page 4897. Here the then Minister of Railways, to-day the hon. member for Gezina, said in his speech, “Mr. Hoepfner happened to be a German citizen, not naturalised.” Later on he says, “I can tell the House, however, that although he did represent Junkers Aircraft Company, when he came into our service he immediately resigned that position and is now serving only the Union Government.” That was on the 1st June. Let me now turn to the second of June. In answer to a question by Col. Stallard who said: “I would like to know a little more about Mr. Hoepfner, who was managing director of South-West African Airways, does he still hold that position?” the Minister said: “Yes.” Col. Stallard then asked, “I understand he is a large shareholder in that concern. Is he still managing director of Junkers (S.A.), is there any connection between the Junkers Co. of Germany and Junkers (S.A.) Pty., Ltd.” To this the Minister of Railways replied: “He has no connection with Junkers, either here or anywhere else.” Now I have a letter in my hand which I am quite prepared to show to any hon. member, dated the 30th May, 1934, and it is a copy of a letter signed by Mr. Hoepfner, and in this letter he says: “Furthermore, as you know, I have appointed Mohl as my alternate director, and also given him a power of attorney for shareholders’ meetings, and I have requested him to attend the meetings.” Hoepfner was supposed to have retired from this company in February, when he took up his appointment with the Union Government, but on the 30th May he is still with Junkers. Later on in this letter he says: “I want also to inform you that Mohl holds full power of attorney from Junkers as their representative during my absence, and the Railway Administration is informed accordingly.” Well, to me that is a surprising thing. When the Minister of Railways gets up in the House and gives information that this man is not connected with Junkers, either here or in Germany— is not a statement like that tantamount to wrong information being given to the House? I was very surprised when I picked up Hansard and found that in it. Now that is the end of our friend Mr. Hoepfner as far as I am concerned and I am sure that none of us are sorry to see a wily gentleman like that leave South Africa. He is out of the country at present and we sincerely hope that he does not come back because the country, vast though it is, is far too small to hold a gentleman of that description. Now let me carry this argument a little further. According to this letter this man Hoepfner was the representative of Junkers in South Africa. We bought Junker machines, so I take it that this man was given a commission on the sales of these machines to the Union Government. I should like to know what happened. I should like to know whether any commission was paid to any representative in South Africa, and I should also like to know whether it is right that an individual representing an interested firm should sit in judgment on articles of a firm with which he was actually connected, although at the same time he was a Government servant. He was our airways superintendent (technical and commercial adviser). He was in an advisory capacity to the Minister of Railways, and also to the general manager of Railways. Was it correct to have a civil servant acting in that capacity when he was judging on his own goods? No, I am surprised that that ever happened. Let me trace these Junker purchases further. During 1934 further orders were placed for J.U.52 machines at a price also of £25,700. There were no tenders called for these purchases. Later on, in the middle of 1935, South African Airways called for tenders for machines. Two firms tendered for these machines—Junkers were the one firm, and the Douglas Company was the other. I believe these tenders were considered in September, 1935, by the Airways Management Board which consisted of Messrs. J. A. Lindenberg, J. S. Leverton and C. T. S. Capel. Their recommendation was that the Douglas tender be accepted, and that was approved of by the Tender Board. But it was disapproved of by the then technical adviser to the general manager of Railways, and by order of the then Minister of Railways the tenders were washed out. Now why was that done? We wonder why it was? I did hear that two excuses were put up. The one was that the then Minister of Railways had taken exception because information with regard to the recommendation of the Tender Board had leaked out before he had heard of it. That was one of the excuses put up. The second excuse was that the Douglas Company had not given details of the conversion of their craft for military purposes. It is significant that the specification did not call for these details, and it is significant that if the Junker people gave that information they did so without being asked to do so. Now what was the next move? Again, without tenders being called for we went and ordered some Airspeed Envoy Machines. These Airspeed Envoy Machines were being criticised before they arrived in the country, and actually I think the criticism was well warranted. They were totally unsuitable for South African service, and shortly after their arrival they were transferred from the South African Railways to the Defence Department, and quite rightly too. But I suggest that there would have been a different story told if instead of the Airspeed Envoy machines being ordered, De-Haviland Rapides had been ordered at the time. I wonder if this order which was placed without tenders being called for, if this order for British machines which were unsuitable for the country, was not just a camouflage to smooth the way for further purchases of German machines for our airways. Because shortly afterwards more orders were placed for J.U.86 twin-engine machines and J.U.52 triple-engine machines, and again no tenders were called for. To sum up, since September or October, 1936, seventeen J.U.86’s and ten J.U.52’s were ordered at a cost of £24,000 and £22.000, respectively. What happened in November. 1936? A Mr. E. L. Errington came to this country for the purpose of instructing South African Airways pilots in the use of these Airspeed Envoy machines.

Where did he come from?

He came from England. These were British machines. Anyway, to his disgust he found that the attitude of the airways’ management was just to criticise anything British and any British machines, and to praise all the German machines, and he found that that attitude was confirmed by a remark passed to a representative of the Armstrong Siddeley Company. That representative was talking to a senior official and asked why South Africa was always purchasing German machines. The reply was that in the interest of South Africa she should ally herself with a virile nation like Germany, as the British Empire was decadent. I am surprised that an official of ours should have passed that remark. Anyway, my contention is that the prices paid were far too high, and that fact was confirmed by an independent enquiry which was made. That enquiry disclosed this fact, and it is from an excellent authority which I am prepared to give to the Minister, that these machines for which South Africa was paying £22 000 and £24.000 could be purchased at Junkers for £18,000. The Union Government paid £27,500 for four machines, and £24,000 for seventeen machines, and £22,000 for ten machines. There were some very ugly rumours going round South Africa in regard to our dealings with Junkers, and I must think that possibly they are justified because never yet have we had a satisfactory explanation. Propaganda matter was brought against these Douglas machines because the Douglas machine was the most serious rival which Junkers had. This propaganda matter also took the form of Press reports which were given to our Press here. These Press reports appeared in two foreign papers, the Nova Air Review and Het Nationale Dagblad. The assistant editor of one of our largest newspapers in this country made discreet enquiries as to the politics of these two particular papers. And he found, sir, that these were both Nazi subsidised publications. Time does not allow me to discuss the merits or the demerits of the Douglas machine. It is sufficient to say that they are producing machines both passenger and military which the whole world is buying to-day, and apparently the only place in which they could not sell was South Africa, although flying conditions in South Africa are possibly far superior to most places in the world. Sir, the supreme joke of it all was that this serious criticism of the Douglas machine was directed against the engines which were in those machines. Peculiarly enough all the South African orders to Junkers insisted on American engines being installed in our Junkers machines. Well, sir, that is the criticism that was levelled at the Douglas machine. In conclusion, might I say it was common knowledge that the member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), when he was Minister of Railways, wanted to provide for an extension of Union Airways northwards, so as to link up at Cairo with the Deutsche Lufthansa Line. Only, he would have to get the permission of the German Government to be able to connect up with that line, and he said that he believed the British Government would object to the Deutsche Lufthansa Line operating to Cairo. But giving expression possibly to another of his great thoughts, he said that through careful handling and negotiation those difficulties could possibly be overcome. Now, sir, I think the time has arrived when a searching enquiry should be made into all our past purchases of aircraft, and I urge that a select committee be appointed to call for all the necessary papers and evidence to go into it.

What appears so strange to me is that the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) in 1938 and 1939 sat on the same benches as the then Minister of Defence (Mr. Pirow), and he could have obtained all the information he wanted then. But the hon. member in those davs did not enquire into matters. He neglected his duty, and to-day be comes here with insinuations against the hon. member for Gezina. I am surprised at the kind of spirit prevailing among hon. members on the other side of this House. Latterly, a number of hon. members on that side of the House have been making attacks on the hon. member for Gezina and have been denouncing him. I do not think one can call that “fairplay”. What I have got up for is to associate myself with the remarks made here last night by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer). He explained the position of the young men from the rural districts when they wanted to get employment. The hon. member explained to the House that the position was, specially in regard to technical and commercial education, that after a young fellow had been trained and he made application for work, he found that a great many of the professions and trades were closed to him. I am glad to notice that the Minister of Labour is here because we on this side of the House are very much in earnest when we raise this matter — the question of apprenticeship and training in connection with trade and industry. We are involved in the war now, and as a result of the war there will in all probability be industrial development in this country. It is quite likely that in the course of the next few years more factories will be established, and we also notice that the Government intends making available a large amount of about £5,000,000 for the development of industries. That being the case, and as we are on the eve of great industrial development, I want the Minister to give his attention to the condition of affairs in connection with apprenticeships in this country. We find to-day that there is a general depopulation taking place on the platteland, a phenomenon which, as a matter of fact, is also being met with in other parts of the world. I have found it in England and in France as well. Those physically well developed young fellows from the platteland are going to towns to take up work in industries. What becomes of those young fellows from the rural areas? If they have not had any vocational training, they simply become unskilled labourers, and they have to work alongside the class of man who up to the present has been doing the unskilled labour of the country, the coloured man and the native, and they have to work at a very low rate of pay. But I want to say something of a general nature in respect of apprenticeship, and I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that there are parts of this country which are begging for facilities for the training of young fellows and young girls in spheres of commerce and industry. There are parts of the north-west where it is impossible to get a trade school established, where there are no commercial schools, and I trust that the Minister will give his attention to this aspect of the case. Up to 1910 or rather up to 1911 our young fellows generally speaking had a horror of trades. They mostly tried to find employment in offices—they preferred to do office work. In 1911 a change set in. The then Minister of Education drew attention to the fact that the day would arrive when we would be compelled to train and educate our young men for trades. And thus Juvenile Advisory Boards were set up in various places, and they did the work in regard to advising young people leaving school. They gave advice as to positions which were available, and the Juvenile Advisory Boards generally formed a sort of link between employers and employees. At the time a scheme was devised, and the result of that scheme was the Apprenticeship Act of 1922, an Act which even to this day is a measure of which we, as Afrikaners, are very proud, because that Act has already been emulated by the Province of Ontario in Canada. What is the basis of that Act? The basic idea of the Act is to raise the standard of education for trades in this country. Then we also find something else. If a tradesman has not served his apprenticeship and is unable to produce his apprenticeship contract, he is unable to obtain work from the large employers. As a result of that the whole position was placed on a more definite basis. Gradually wages have been fixed, and the general training has been improved upon. What, however, is the position of the rural districts? We have a number of trade schools, but the training given at these schools, however good it may be, is not recognised by the apprenticeship committees. The hon. the Minister knows that apprenticeship committees practically hold the lever in their hands. One finds these committees in the various large central areas, and they control the entry of employees into the different industries, and those apprenticeship committees consist of representatives of the employers and employees, together with an impartial chairman appointed by the Minister. Those committees go into the contracts of apprentices, they watch to see that the apprentices are being properly trained and whether contracts are being carried out; in addition there is also a provision that in areas where technical colleges do exist apprentices shall also be given the time to attend those technical colleges, so that they may be equipped with the necessary theoretical knowledge in connection with their trade. All the work done by the apprenticeship committees is confidential. We do not know how they set about their duties; we do not know on what grounds they arrive at their decisions; we do not know what facts they consider in arriving at a decision, and the result of all this is that we find to-day that the interests of the public are not so well locked after as we would like to see them. One finds that every year there are a large number of young fellows who want to be trained for the different trades, but only a limited number of contracts can be entered into.

It is laid down in the law that the committees shall look after the interests of the workers as well as of the employers, but the law does not make any provision for the Government to have a direct say in connection with the work of the apprentices, and the carrying out of the contracts. For those reasons we want to urge the Minister to consider the question of making provision so that on these apprenticeship committees there shall not only be representatives of the employers and employees, but in addition representatives of the Government, who will then represent the general public of the country, to look after the interest of the general public, so that we may also have some say in the issuing of those contracts. What do we find further? We find that there are three trades, three industries, the engineering trade, the building trade and the printing trade, and those three take up 80 per cent. of our apprentices. The remaining 15 per cent. of the trades are tanning, bootmaking and furniture making, and for those three trades there are trade schools, or commercial schools in the rural districts. In the rural districts the young fellows are trained for bootmaking or furniture making, but only 15 per cent. of the apprenticeships are absorbed by those trades which I have mentioned, so that the young fellows from the rural areas, if they want to take up some trade or other, find that the doors are closed to them. Now there is another point I wish to refer to. As these committees are doing their work to-day, favouritism is shown to certain sections, that is to say to people who are already in the trade. The work is being strictly graded and contracts are strictly adhered to. The result is that there is a restriction, and we feel that there should be a greater degree of elasticity so that a larger number of apprentices may be taken on. In consequence of the restriction laid down, it is found that in days of prosperity there is a tremendous influx from abroad into our trades. We find, for instance, that in 1934 there we’re no fewer than 259 immigrants who joined the engineering trade, tradesmen who were brought into this country, as against 769 South Africans, which means that 25.2 per cent. of the tradesmen had been imported. We find that in 1937, in a time of prosperity, there were 469 immigrant tradesmen in the engineering trade, and 624 South Africans, so that 43.7 per cent. had been imported. In the building industry the position is even worse. In this industry the figures show that in 1934 there were 127 immigrants and 606 Afrikaners, so that 17.3 per cent. had been imported. But when we look at the figures for 1937 we find that 559 had been imported—those people were immigrants—and 203 of the workers in the trade were South Africans. This means, therefore, that 79.7 per cent. were imported tradesmen. In times of prosperity one finds that there is an importation of tradesmen, and in times of depression people are put off, and then the South African is unable to get in because the other people are already there. As the Minister knows the age of the ordinary tradesman is thirty years, and thus a large number of South African tradesmen are being excluded. Now, let us look at the position of the apprentices in the engineering trade. In 1934 there were 259 immigrants, and 973 South Africans, that is to say 21.1 per cent. were imported. In 1936 there were 770 from elsewhere and 1,289 were South Africans, which means that 37.2 per cent. were imported. Let us take the building trade. We find that in 1934, which was a depresison year, 127 apprentices were imported while there were 484 South Africans, so that 20.8 per cent. were imported apprentices. Put in 1937 there were 834 imported apprentices, and 678 were South Africans; in other words 55.7 per cent. were imported.

You do not mean that they had been directly imported, but that they had come into the country at some earlier date — some time before that?

What I mean is that there was a shortage of tradesmen and the employers were obliged to import tradesmen from Holland and England.

Yes, and they abused the position.

Now it is quite possible that this war will be followed by a depression, and it will then be found that the people who had been imported, the immigrants, will hold their positions and the apprentices who are on contract will be unable to find employment when they finish their apprenticeships. In all those circumstances I wish to ask the Minister to give this matter his serious attention. We find that between 1934 and 1938 nearly 5.000 tradesmen entered the engineering trade and the building trade from overseas, and that only a little over 5,000 South African young men were trained here to become skilled artisans. The conclusion which we arrive at, and which we ask the Minister to give his attention to, is that the existing system requires a very high standard from the artisans, and for that reason we want to ask the Minister to reduce the period of apprenticeship from five years to four, in order to give the apprentice an opportunity to attend a trade school or a technical college for a year, and we want him to have this one year calculated as a year of his apprenticeship. Where we are at the moment able to train 100 young fellows we shall be able to train 125, because the employers will have to absorb smaller numbers. Then in regard to apprenticeship committees. The people appointed to those committees are all men who have a direct interest in the particular trade, and I consider that the state should have more representation on those bodies. Our whole system tends to encourage or to foster unskilled labour. When they come from the platteland, even from the trade schools on the platteland, they find that they cannot be taken up, they cannot be employed as artisans. We find, for instance, young fellows from Calvinia attending a trade school at Knysna, but when they return after three years to carry on their trade, they find they are unable to be employed at the full wage laid down for the trade, and they are not looked upon as artisans. I feel that the Minister should give his attention to the establishment of additional trade schools in those parts of the country where depopulation is taking place to-day, in parts such as those which I represent. In those areas there are thousands of people along the river, on an area of ground 100 miles long and from seven to eight miles wide, but there is no hinterland, and when these boys have completed their schooling there, are only two things for them to do: they either have to join the police or become teachers; failing that they have to become labourers. There are young fellows among those people with plenty of ability and talent, and I do hope that the Minister will give his serious attention to this aspect of the case.

The ears of the House are so delicately attuned to the complaints made on behalf of the European people that it is not necesary for those hon. members, who represent European constituencies, to repeat those complaints too often. Unfortunately, sir, the ear of the House is not so delicately attuned when it comes to a consideration of the position of the native people. Thus it happens that we, who represent the native people, are forced to repeat, perhaps more often than we desire, statements and arguments in order to bring before the public of this country the situation as we see it. We are bound to follow the idea that “it is not the force of the water that wears away the stone, but the continual dropping.” For this reason I am constrained to come out of the Eldorado in which we have been living during the past few days, during which we have been speaking in millions that make us dizzy, and give some consideration to what I may call the “people’s paltry pence.” The mining industry, with the assistance of the blood and sinew of the native people, reached last year an output of £100,000,000, and the industry is contributing to the revenue of the country something in the neighbourhood of £16,000,000 per annum in taxation. I should like to put, as it were, in juxtaposition to this, the actual earnings of the people who have helped to win that tremendous sum of money from the gold industry of the country and the manner in which they earn them. If I may be allowed to do so I should like to turn very briefly to the native labourer and to his work and the conditions under which he works. It is usual for him to be contracted to work 270 shifts; the performance of that contract will take him a matter of eleven months. He receives on an average for eleven months work in cash a sum of between £26 8s. and £30 0s. 9d. In addition he receives, of course, food, quarters and medical attention, which the companies themselves value at 1s. per man per shift, but hon. members will perhaps appreciate this fact, that a man’s family cannot live on the medical supplies which the husband gets when the family is living 750 miles away. That cannot be regarded as anything in the way of real money in the native household. Against that sum of money earned for eleven months of hard labour the native has to pay his fare one way. Last year he had to pay it both ways, as well as the subsistence expenses of the journeys to and from the mine from the Transkei. The total cost amounted to over £5, or an equivalent of more than two months’ pay. Last year the mining companies agreed to pay the fare one way, but there still remains that tax on the earnings of the people, unfortunately, of a rail fare one way, and sustenance on the journeys amounting to about £2 10s., or at least the equivalent of one month’s cash earning. I would remind the House — and I am speakink subject to correction — that I believe the Labour Convention which dealt with indentured labour provides that rail fares of indentured labourers should be paid to and from the scene of their work. I understand that the native people from north of Rhodesia (Nyasaland) who are attracted to the mines receive the benefit of that provision through the intervention of the British Government. Because we have not yet ratified the Labour Convention to which I have referred, the native people who come from Nyasaland are put in a better position in that regard than our own people who travel almost as far and under the same difficulties. I do hope that hon. members will bear that in mind in considering the position of the native people. We should remember too, so far as I can see, that there has been no real material change in the rate of pay of the native labourer on the Rand during the past twenty years. I can quite believe that when gold was 80s. per ounce a higher rate of pay would be a tax on and might make it impossible to work the low-grade mine. You are not faced with that position to-day. You are faced with the position to-day that the industry milled 37,000,000 tons more than previously; gold itself is about 170s. per fine ounce, and in those circumstances, according to the figures given by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell), the industry shows a profit on the working of almost 50 per cent. The figure he gave was 8.3 as against 12.2. The type of labour that these men do is a hazardous type of work, which makes heavy demands on their constitution. It is difficult for them to be in constant employment on the mines for many years. I feel that we in this House should voice our appreciation of the service of these people. We should show some sympathy, some vocal sympathy, in this House for the people who have made it posssible for us to balance our Budget, and we should pass on to them in some degree a share of the tremendous profits we are making out of the gold mining industry. It is a fact that the rate of pay of the gold mining industry does set a standard for remuneration of native employees throughout the rest of this country. It is also unfortunately a fact that the cash payments of the mine worker are on an individual and not on a family basis. That is clear from a paragraph of the Native Affairs Commission report of 1937-38 on page 13 as follows—

It is implicit if not explicit that because the native worker has a place to live in the Transkei, that is regarded as a subsidy on the wages he receives, and in consequence of that fact he is not paid what he would be paid if his family were living with him on the Rand. Now, is there any real justification for regarding that home as a subsidy? The impression might be abroad that these people live on these plots for nothing. The fact is that they pay a site rent or local tax of 10s. per annum, they build their own houses at their own expense, and for the land they use they pay a perpetual quitrent of 3s. per morgen. Whether they are earning money or not they have to pay their poll tax of £1 per year. In those circumstances it cannot be justly said that the occupation of land should be regarded as a subsidy, and that therefore they should be paid less than they would otherwise be paid. The unfortunate part is that the whole idea of the subsidy must break down if it has not in fact done so. In support of this statement I wish to quote another paragraph on page 13 of the Native Affairs Commission, report 1937-’38, which is in the following terms—

The report then goes on to say—

An examination of these statements shows quite conclusively that the so-called subsidy is either breaking down or has broken down. Therefore I do feel that the time has come in relation to the mining industry for further consideration to be given to the whole position. Let me say that I am not criticising the mining industry itself. I am perfectly prepared to admit that it is highly organised and that the labour conditions are the best in the wrld, but I cannot get away from the fact that the actual pay is without any question at all based on the individual, and not on the family basis, and that therefore the scale of remuneration, particularly having regard to the fact that this industry is earning such enormous profits, both for itself and the country, should be increased and revised. If I may turn to another aspect of this matter I would like to mention on this question of subsidisation that these people are actually allowed only five morgen of land. It is difficult to believe that with seasonal cultivation five morgen of land can support a family. If a hail storm comes, or a drought plus a mealie quota, the whole of the subsidisation disappears. I think the time has come to disregard the question of subsidisation and see if we cannot improve the position of native labour both in regard to actual wages and in regard to the question of the payment of his railway fare, both to and from the mines. I said just now that the mining industry undoubtedly sets a standard for the rest of the Union. I wish that the standard set in regard to the native labour conditions were followed by the rest of the country. Unfortunately, it is only the standard in regard to pay which is followed. I have the figures here of wages paid in secondary industries to native people. Those earnings throughout the Union average £44 per year, and of course the probability is that in those cases these people do not get medical attention or benefits of that kind, and one can readily understand the economic position they must be in.

That £44, is that including the mines?

No. You have this position, that in the mining industry the cash earned averages £30 and they are dependent on very doubtful subsidisation; while in the secondary industries you have as a fact that the inclusive average wage is £44. Now it is inevitable that where industries, primary or secondary, lay down a wage, even governments will follow that example. Whilst I appreciate that an attempt has been made to improve the situation, I cannot get away from the fact that there is very little hope for the profitable employment of the native man in the Government service. In many Government departments there is no employment for the native at all. But then we come to the Native Affairs Department. The Native Affairs Department is the one department where one does expect that people who are told to progress along their own lines will be able to find an opportunity of employment. But as a fact there is very little scope for them, even there, because I find in dealing with the position of the native people, out of a wage bill of £320,000 for district administration in the Native Affairs Department, the total expended on the employment of native intelligentsia is £25,000 per annum.

How many natives?

The figure for district administration is 1,117 in all and of these 903 are employed as constables, employed on a wage scale of £60 to £84 per annum. These people have to live, often under urban conditions, and I can tell the House that everyone of them is in debt and cannot come out on his pay. To pay our policemen on that basis is an invitation to bribery and corruption. In the Police Force itself you have a large number employed—there are 3,021 employed as constables in the Police Force—and they are in the same position and upon the same pay scale as these people employed in the Native Affairs Department. I have had numerous complaints about the pension position of the police, I feel that it is a reproach to us that such a position should exist. It is a reproach to us that men who have given 15, 20 or 25 years service should end up with a pension so small that it is practically impossible for them to live on it. I want to urge the Government once again to give serious consideration to the position which has arisen in this connection. If one goes into this whole question of spheres of profitable employment for natives one finds that every door seems to be closed to the native people. You have your specific colour bar provisions, and although subsequent industrial legislation does not explicitly include a colour bar there is an invisible colour bar which acts as a very real colour bar. Take for example your regulations in regard to apprenticeship. Although there is nothing to prevent a native from becoming an apprentice the fact remains that the skilled man will not apprentice him. Then take your professions. I understand that so far as the coloured people of the Cape are concerned, it is impossible for them to attend the medical faculty of the university beyond the third year, for the simple reason that they are not permitted to walk the hospitals and as a result the native people and the coloured people are driven to go overseas if they wish to take up that profession. Is this right? Imagine the bitterness that must be created when a man finds himself driven out of his own country in order to qualify himself for the service of his own people. Those are factors which I submit no Government can continue indefinitely to ignore. I urge that the native and coloured population of this country are 100 per cent. loyal, but I would be the last to say that they are 100 per cent. patient. The native and coloured people see what conditions are and they are always hoping that the whole question of their economic position will be reviewed and that they will be able to live decent lives, and be allowed to have decent standards of living, and that if their ability permits them they will be able to rise to decent positions. But if you are taking up that line that they are for ever to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, the day will come when these people will say, “thus far and no farther.”

Do you want them to have social intercourse with the whites?

What is the use of the hon. member raising that worn-out cry? May I give the answer, which was once given by an outstanding world personality, Abraham Lincoln. “The question of social intercourse does not come into the picture—there are enough native men to marry native women, enough European men to marry European women.” I put it to you this way: what has this system, of which the hon. member is a protagonist, done for the European people in this country? You have to-day 300,000 poor whites in this country, and in my opinion that situation is by no means unconnected with the system which we have. We have created an aristocracy based on colour, ignoring the fact that people of the same colour are not necessarily of the same intellectual standard. These poor whites are eventually driven back on the native people who are receiving the same low wages. I made the remark the other day that when the poor whites realised the great bluff that is being put across them they would cooperate with the native and coloured people to achieve better positions than they are holding to-day. The time is coming when the poor white is going to say, “This aristocracy of ours is all bluff, we are getting nothing for it, we are working for £5 or £6 per month knowing that the people who employ us would never do the work that we are doing for that money.” There would have to be a reorientation of positions in this country. And that time is not far distant. And here I would like to mention an incident connected with a recent wage determination. The representatives of that industry were made up of two Europeans, two natives and a coloured man; the case for all of them was put up by a European who was also an Afrikaner, which seems to bear me out when I say that co-operation between European and non-European to ensure a better wage standard for both has already begun. There are many other things I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, but time will not permit. I would conclude therefore by referring to the necessity for giving education to the natives and coloured people. I am grateful to the Minister for what has already been done, but I want to urge the necessity of native education in this country being placed on a per capita basis. If we do not give these people the opportunities of following the employment for which they are fitted; if we follow the protagonists of repression and close the door to all intellectual callings we will be throwing the intellectual non-European back upon subversive influences as his only intellectual contact and outlet. In that way you are going to force them in to a movement for a non-European front. You will be acting and continue to act as the finest recruiting agency possible for Communism.

What about other dominions?

I regard this thing from a South African point of view and I am not concerned with the other dominions and therefore I urge upon the Government to regard the matter seriously. I realise that in recent years the Government and the Native Affairs Department has been doing a great deal more than was formerly done; but, sir, there has been an atmosphere of apology and secrecy which is inconsistent with our obvious duty. Therefore I say I hope the Government some time or other will have the courage to face up to the situation created by the needs and demands of the native and coloured people and will not for ever defer to the unstatesmanlike policy of an obscurantist Opposition.

I wish to confine my remarks, and I wish to draw the attention of the House, and through the House, the attention of the public, to a matter which I have raised here on several occasions and which I have uttered warnings against— namely the really terrifying rate at which our public debt is increasing, and also the rise in our adminstrative expenditure. As we have a new Minister of Finance now, I feel that I must once more draw attention to this aspect of the position. I want to refer to two periods since the establishment of Union to shew the rate at which our public debt has increased. Before I do so, however, I wish to associate myself with the words of the late Mr. Merriman, who in his day was a great financier. He said that a country’s debt was in exactly the same category as a bond on a farmer’s farm. It has to be paid. The only difference is that the taxpayer cannot go insolvent. That being so we have to guard against a condition of affairs which is being brought about very rapidly at the moment, a condition of affairs under which the burden is becoming so large that it is getting out of all proportion. For that purpose, in order to show that, I wish to take those two periods, namely the position in 1925 and the position as it is to-day. It will be seen that at the establishment of Union the public debt was about £14,000,000. In 1925 it had gone up to £24,000,000. During that period of fifteen years the increase averaged about £750,000 per year, From 1925 up to to-day we have had an increase of £45,000,000, so that we find that since 1925 the increase has averaged nearly £2,000,000 per year. We therefore must realise at once that we are faced here with a very serious situation, and that we cannot possibly proceed in this manner. Why do I say so? Because I have drawn a comparison between the public debt of South Africa and that of other Dominions of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It will be found from the data of the public debt commissioners that our public debt last year was round about £271,000,000. This works out at £133 6s. 5d. per head of the population, bearing interest at £5 7s. 9d. According to the Budget speech of the Minister of Finance we find that the Minister estimates, and I think rightly so, that the public debt at the end of this financial year will not be less than £283,000,000. In other words, more than £12,000,000 more than the year before. That brings the debt per head of population to approximately £137 10s. and the interest for every man and woman per head of population to the amount of £5 14s. Hon. members will agree that that is a very high rate of debt in comparison with the other Dominions. We find for instance that in Canada the public debt is £68 14s. 1d. per head of population, and the interest only £2 9s. 3d. It will therefore be seen that the public debt in Canada is half of that of South Africa, and while Canada produces a little gold, it has not got the advantages which we have, through the considerable revenue we get from our gold mines. Yet we find that Canada’s public debt is only half that of South Africa. That being so, everyone will admit that we have to do something in order to improve the position. I know that hon. members opposite will say that this is a time of war and that in times of war it is impossible to restrict the debt that is being incurred. I hope that will not be the case, and that we have learnt a lesson from our experience of the past, because this burden is left for the people to pay; the public are responsible for the money that is being spent, and we have no right to impose heavy burdens on future generations. To do that sort of thing would be unfair and unjust. For that reason I trust that the Minister will do his best to ensure that the public debt shall not be increased further and that he will study the possibility of reducing the public debt. I now also wish to direct the Minister’s attention to another matter. I do not know whether he has already given it any attention, but the question I have in mind relates to our loans abroad. I find that we have an overseas loan of £7,900,000 which can be paid off this year. I say £7,900,000, and not £8,000,000, because £100,000 of that money has been borrowed locally and £7,900,000 has been borrowed abroad. I believe that the £7,900.000 may be redeemed in July of this year. This debt bears interest at the rate of 5 per cent., and I want to ask the Minister whether he does not feel that that loan could be floated in this country, as we find that the Government has given its consent to the Cape Town and Johannesburg Municipalities to enter into loans, and those loans have been advertised at 3¾ per cent. Is it fair and just in those circumstances that the Government should have to pay 5 per cent., while the current date of interest is only 3½ per cent. and 3¾ per cent. We would be able to save a large amount of at least £100,000 in interest by reducing the rate of interest. I had expected the Minister in his Budget speech to have informed us what he intended doing in regard to that loan, whether he was going to convert it in our country or overseas, and whether it was his intention to take up another loan at a low rate of interest in the place of that particular loan. It is essential that the public outside should know what is being done in connection with this loan. I also wish to draw the Minister’s attention to our trade balance. Let me say at once that any country with an adverse trade balance is unable to progress in the way it should do. Such a country is doomed to suffer great hardships and to have great difficulties so far as development and progress is concerned. Now what do we find in regard to our trade balance? It is very interesting to study this. What, however, has surprised me is that we are able to get the information in the League of Nation’s statistics. We provide that information to the League of Nations, but in our country the facts are held back. Of course, it is quite possible to obtain this information, but the ordinary man has not got the facilities to enable him to study the position. According to the trade balances published by the League of Nations, one finds that in 1923 we had a favourable trade balance of £2,798,000. We have often had a favourable trade balance, but in 1932 we had a favourable trade balance, amounting to not less than £20,076,000. I studied this question of trade balances, and from the Blue Book which I have in front of me it appears, in connection with the Union’s trade for the twelve months ending December. 1929, that we imported goods to the value of £90,222,000, and we exported, excluding gold, £28,027,000. Furthermore— and this will interest the Minister very greatly if he will go into it — we paid interest overseas, and we paid dividends which went overseas, to an amount of not less than £24,500,000. I am giving the totals in round figures. Tourists provided revenue to this country to an amount of £2,000,000, while people from this country travelling overseas spent no less than £6,000,000. Then there is other expenditure, such as dock fees and so on, which are less important. We further find that our gold export last year amounted to £90,000,000, and consequently our total export including gold amounted to £121,827,000, while the imports amounted to £123,722,000. From that it would appear that we were on the wrong side to an extent of about £2,000,000. This is surprising, because I include £90,000,000 exported in gold last year. I feel, therefore, that the Minister should see to it that an improvement is brought about in that position. We must try to increase our export trade and that can only be done by giving assistance to the farming population. We must assist them by way of a subsidy or by increasing their export trade, and that can only be done by means of the erection of cold storage plants and low freight charges. Take our meat trade. We have built up a fairly large meat trade overseas but what do we find? Farmers are not being encouraged sufficiently and they are not being assisted to improve their export trade. For that reason I feel very strongly that the Government should do more to encourage our export trade. If the Government fails to do so we shall gradually become half insolvent. But let me say that it will also go against us overseas as far as our currency is concerned if our trade balance is an adverse one. I am putting these points forward because I want the Minister to bring about a better state of affairs by fostering our export trade. If he is able to do so, particularly if he is able to assist our wool farmers, he will render a great service to a large section of the Union’s population which at the moment is suffering great hardships. I now wish to revert to the question of the gold mining taxation, and where I differ from the Minister on this subject is that I think he has not done the right thing in introducing this change in the system of taxation. According to his statement he wants us to understand that there will not be a great loss to the State, in other words that his system of taxation will produce more or less the same amount of money as the original system under which everything above 150s. per fine ounce was appropriated to the State. I think the Minister will agree that the pound sterling will depreciate in value and consequently the gold premium will automatically go up and we shall get greater revenue for the State. What I am afraid of, however, is that a speculative spirit is being created which is most unsound for the country, for it must be realised that if the price of gold goes up, the price of shares goes up, and people in this country cannot be blamed for speculating on this. But it is the wrong thing to bring about a speculative spirit. I also contend that the Minister in giving the figures he has given, has not placed the correct state of affairs before this House. Possibly it is impossible for him to give correct figures, and I feel that very few members of the House really understand this system of taxation. I do not blame them, because it is most involved, but we find that if we take the original statement made by the Government which at the time was in charge of matters, the additional gold premium would have given the Treasury an additional amount of at least £10,000,000. The Minister puts it at £9,800,000, and I am not going to quarrel with him about it, because the difference is very small. The special tax now may be £3,500,000 and the ordinary tax will be about £3,500,000. That makes a total of £7,000,000, but the Minister has told us that the other £3,000,000 will go into increased working costs. That is the point on which I do not agree with the Minister. We have the example of Rhodesia before us, which we think is very much more Imperialistically disposed than we are, and Rhodesia has decided to adhere to their own decision.

No, they have also raised the price now.

Yes, but they have maintained the old system. Even if the amount in respect of increased working costs should amount to £1,200.000, calculated at 2s. per fine ounce of gold, that does not make it £3,000,000. That is the way in which the Chamber of Mines gets the better of the Government. We are pleased that we have our gold mines, but we do not want all the benefits connected with the gold mining industry to go into the pockets of certain individuals, and we do not want a few individuals to have the control of that industry. I think the Minister will have to admit that he has over estimated the amount of increased working costs by about £1,800,000, and that again will go into the pockets of those few people who have control of the gold in South Africa. I also feel that at this stage something should be done in regard to the question of the farmers’ debts. I mention this particularly because we now have a new Minister of Finance, and I am drawing his attention to the fact because the farming population is in such a precarious position that if assistance is not forthcoming they will go under. I want to ask the Minister—I know he will tell us that we are at war and that for that reason it is impossible to do anything—but I want to ask him whether he does not think the time has come for a redemption of the debts of the farmers? If that is not done then I do contend that many of our people will go under. I want to ask the Minister to help them, and I particularly do so in view of the fact that large sums of money are being spent and wasted in connection with our national roads and war purposes. We find that a mile of road, even without tarring, costs almost £3,000. With that sort of thing going on, the Minister will surely admit that there must be something radically wrong with the administration of our roads, and that something must be done in order to improve matters. I want to plead with the Minister to do something for the redemption of the farmers’ debts, and for assistance to be given to the farmers, because if the farmers flourish, as the House knows, every section of the population benefits, and the country also flourishes. While I am on this point I also wish to refer to the necessity for a reduction in railway tariffs for the benefit of the farmers in far away parts of the country. I hope the Minister of Finance will assist the Minister of Railways by placing a certain amount of money to the credit of the Railway Administration for the purpose of coming to the aid of the farmers by means of reduced railway rates. There is an amount on the Estimates for that purpose, but I want that amount increased. I have on previous occasions expressed the hope that the Minister of Finance would use his influence with the Minister of Railways so that the latter would do his duty and come to the aid of the farmers, and that he should not expect the Treasury to take full responsibility for a reduction of railway tariffs. I should also like to draw the Minister’s attention to another matter, and I know that he is going to help that section of the population—I am referring to that section of the population living in the towns, in the dorps. We come to the aid of every section of the population but we have never yet done anything for that particular class, and they have to carry on and make ends meet on a very precarious wage. They have no opportunities such as other sections of the population have, of securing better housing facilities. It has been stated that they are able to get loans through the municipalities, but it cannot be expected of local authorities that they should take the responsibility in such cases. So far as I am concerned I regard this as a national matter, and I consider that it is the duty of the Government of the day to grant relief. I also hope that the Government will see to it, in regard to housing loans to local authorities for the building of houses, that the system will be changed, and that relief will be granted to the class of people I have referred to. The Minister of Lands is not in his seat, but I also feel very strongly that something should be done in connection with that part of the country along the Orange River, and that further help should be granted to the people living there. As I have said on previous occasions the time is long overdue for use to be made of the water on the Orange River now running away to the sea; the survey which the Government has been giving attention to, should be completed. The people are waiting. I can assure hon. members that if the Minister concerned were to realise what it would mean to the people in those areas to have a dam in the Orange River so that the valuable land there could be irrigated, steps would be taken at once—the Government would be rendering an invaluable service to people there and the whole country. There are other matters which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister, but as my time is up, I shall content myself by asking him to give his attention to the matters I have raised. I can give him the assurance that as he has a great feeling of sympathy for the poor—and I think he has —if he complies with my request, he will be rendering a great service to that section of the population.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be permitted to take a little part in the discussion of this, the first Budget of the hon. the Minister. It is no great pleasure to many of us, I suppose, to hear a Budget represented as a record Budget. We do not like it. We have had some experience of these record Budgets, and they have given us subsequently a pretty bad time. I prefer to express my opinion of this Budget, as indeed I think it is, as a good Budget. One hon. member has said that it may be a little bit like the curate’s egg. He meant, of course, the curate’s good egg, which is rather better. But it is an important Budget, the most important Budget ever presented to this House because of the position of the world to-day. And because of such outlook, no one knows what to-morrow may bring forth, or whether the Budget is mere guesswork, or whether it is not. Consequently, there is a great responsibility upon the Minister. Now someone has said in this House in my time that when there is a reduction, or large reductions in the estimates, it is the opportunity for rejoicing. There is no rejoicing now. There is not even a joyful feeling over the Minister’s Budget because the items are as old as ever. Well, we lost our 30 per cent. rebate on income tax which wé had clung to with such pleasure. That rebate was very much appreciated and I hope the Minister will bring it back very soon. Now I want to say a word or two on the gold mining position. The system which the Minister has decided upon is welcomed everywhere—there is just that little essence of gambling in it which pleases everyone. I think the Chamber of Mines likes it, and I think the Minister himself likes it. There are only two aspects which I want to put to the Minister. I shall deal with them separately and very briefly. The first aspect is this. I want the Minister and the country to remember that the gold mining industry is the greatest asset we have in this country. Then we’ must ask ourselves: “Is all well with this asset?” And the answer is, “No, all is not well.” In this country there is only one cash box—that is what was said by an old miner once—and that is what comes from the mining industry, and the more you leave in that cash box the better, the less taxation you put on the mining industry, the better it is for the country as a whole. Leave your producing mines alone to look after themselves. Our revenue from them is secure. But our nonproducing mines are retarding expenditure and are stopping work. Some of them are closing down, because their capital is finished. You have Palmietkuil, Molfontein, Welgedacht and Rietfontein, and others. There is no foreign capital available, and there is no capital available in South Africa. Rietfontein put up its case more than once, but there is no capital forthcoming. Although there is plenty of loose money in the country they will not put it in the mining industry. What is to be done? Are the employees in these mines to be allowed to be turned off? Something will have to be done in this regard. What is the Government going to do? Even with people going on active service you will never be able to utilise all the men if half a dozen or more mines close down. So the country is entitled to hear from the Minister what is going to be done.

You say there is money in the country?

Yes.

If these are good propositions the money will go to them.

South African people are difficult to please in their investments.

Do you want the Government to subsidise them?

There is no money for these propositions.

Are they good propositions?

Yes, very good propositions.

Why do you not put up the money then?

Take your Palmietkuil—200,000 tons of ore, 5 dwts. already in view. You will not get a more reasonable proposition than that. They made an anneal to the Minister I understand, but he would not give any help. The fact, is that you must keep these developing mines going. If you do not what is going to be the future?

What do you suggest?

I have no time to talk to you. Now I come to the second phase of this great taxable asset, the short-lived mines. Representations have already been made, but if the case as nut to me is correct, then there is a way out. We have some eight or nine mines, mostly on the East Rand. These mines are short lived. They will be worked out in something between three to nine years. That is a serious position. Now if the Minister were to release even half of the taxation at present paid by most of these mines I am informed they would be able to go on for long periods. Take Modders for instance. The life of those mines may be extended for another eighteen years or more. The ore that is now being passed will never be ultilised if it is allowed to be passed now. This is a matter worthy of consideration because by releasing a certain amount of taxation the lives of several mines may be extended for a long time. Around these mines there are small communities who own their own houses. It is said that it is better to open up other mines, but you cannot open up mines in the Free State to feed and maintain the people in Brakpan or Benoni or Germiston. The position of these short-lived mines must be taken in hand now, and I appeal to the Minister to give the question his serious and earliest consideration. I am informed that most of the ore of these short-lived mines is only slightly under 2 dwts. Surely something can be done. Now, I want to say a few words about the Minister’s taxation, and I want to say at once that I do not like it. It will bring us in £70,000. Is this taxation on powders and pills, scents and lipsticks, Eau-d’-Cologne and all the other dainties a protective tariff, or is it a revenue tariff. If it is a protective tariff then there is nothing to be said. If it is a revenue tariff then it is a bad distribution. It is a sort of a sex tax. Why do you pick out the women of this country to bear this tax?

It is a shame?

These little things which the Minister is taxing all tend to sweetness. Hon. members know something of these nicely scented powders. These things are passed on to the common male, and the Minister may be doing a great deal of harm by his taxation proposals, in preventing young people from coming together. He cannot tell me the result of that. The very things he is going to tax are the things which are probably going to create new homes in this country—there may be a reproduction of father. I think it is an injudicious tax. The Minister is up against a dangerous thing when he gets up against 2,000 or 3,000 women. I would say to the Minister that he would be very well advised to wipe out this little tax and to leave the ladies with all their decorations, to leave them as attractive as they are—feeling that what he is taxing makes the beautiful more beautiful and the attractive more attractive.

After the amusing speech which we have just listened to, we no doubt all feel in a somewhat better humour. I must congratulate the hon. member on having scored over the Minister with the women. It would appear to me that the Minister has very little chance with the ladies, because he has not got the tact which the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) has. I should like to deal with a few of the points mentioned by my hon. friend. He differs very largely from the Minister. He first talked about a record Budget, and immediately after that he told us that the Budget was guess work. I cannot reconcile these two ideas, yet they followed immediately on top of each other. After that the hon. member referred to the thirty per cent. rebate on income tax which has now been taken away. The hon. member dealt with this question very lightly. I can quite appreciate that hon. members opposite who are very wealthy are quite prepared to see the war through, and are, therefore, willing to pay this thirty per cent.; but we, who are not so wealthy, feel that we would like to save this thirty per cent. for the middle classes. The hon. member further said that mining was a gamble. If mining is a gamble, then it is high time the Government saw to it that farming was placed on a sound basis. Then the hon. member spoke about the worked out mines. The Minister has told us that, particularly because of the fact that there were a number of mines which were worked out, he had changed the system of taxation. Yet the hon. member still complains. Does he want to suggest that there should be no tax at all on the mines? I wish to revert to the question of the prices of farming products. There are only two ways in which I feel that this difficulty may be solved, and the first way has already been turned down by the Minister of Finance, namely, the suggestion to assist the farmers with capital and cheaper money. Cheaper money and capital would naturally place the farmers on a sound basis. The other alternative is for them to get better prices for their products. As I have done on a previous occasion, I again wish to point to the index figures and shew what they tell us. Let me say first of all that gold in 1929 was only 84s. per ounce, and so far as gold is concerned, I can leave out the first few years until we went off gold; but in 1932 we went off gold, and the index figure for gold in comparison with 1929 is 200; the wholesale trade index is 95, the retail trade 92, and farming products 77. In spite of all this the first thing which the Minister did was to raise the rate of interest so far as the Land Bank is concerned, by ½ per cent. The people who have been hit hardest so far are the people who are now picked out for punishment. As against that the Minister goes along and presents the rich mining industry — an industry with which we have no quarrel — with an amount of £3,000,000 to provide for higher working costs. But when we come along and ask for something to be done for the farmers, our requests are not complied with. In addition, we are being taxed. The farmers are the poorest paid people in South Africa, and now they are being called upon to bear further burdens. I feel that I should also say a few words on the question of control boards. I am definitely not opposed to control boards, I am in favour of the principle, but it appears to me that those control boards are completely losing sight of the fact that the farmer’s production costs have gone up considerably, and yet they want to keep prices of farming products on the same basis as before the war. That is impossible. No farmer can exist to-day on that low basis. Even last year we told the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance that our costs of production were more than the money which we were getting for our products, and now the Minister still wants to keep the farmers on the same old basis. I see a great menace in those boards, and I shall tell the House why. The farmer’s old enemy is still on those boards. That side of the House consists entirely of wholesale dealers. They want to get their farm produce cheaply, and hon. members opposite see to it that the prices of farm products remain low. The large mining people and the commercial houses want to get their products cheaply, so that they will not be called upon to raise the salaries of their employees. For that reason I am beginning to get somewhat scared of those control boards, and I contend that it is the Minister’s duty to ensure that the prices of farmers’ products have a proper relation to the conditions under which we are living. And not only that, but one should also bear in mind that for the last, few years our Prices have actually been too low in relation to the cost of production. As we have now been dragged into this war we are also entitled to get a little more for our products. Money will naturally have to be made available for the purpose of placing the farmers on a sound basis, so far as their products are concerned. We all know that the boards cannot put up prices unless they have a certain amount of money at their disposal, and I again want to ask the Minister to grant us a subsidy in such cases where the prices are inadequate — a local or an export subsidy, with the object of laying down a sound basis. I do not want to say any more about the wool position because that has been fully discussed here. I feel that the 13.5 basis is adequate for the time being, and we feel that we are entitled to it. I again say that the only alternative is to get higher prices for farming products.

Mr. Speaker, during the recess I came in contact with a medical man who had had a wide experience of tuberculosis in Glasgow. He was associated with one of the foremost authorities on tuberculosis, a man who had devoted his own private fortune to the erection of a hospital which in time became so large that the Government took it over. I was very much impressed with the information that this medical man gave to me. He had been working in the native reserves and what he told me about the incidence of pulmonary affections amongst the natives made such an impression upon me that I decided to bring it before this House, and, therefore, before the country. With a little research, Mr. Speaker, I found that in 1912 a commission was appointed which drew attention to the difficulties in devising a scheme for combating tuberculosis in this country, owing to the vast extent of the country, the diversity of races to be dealt with, the ignorance of the native population, the absence of organised bodies dealing with local affairs in many parts, and the divided and dual control exercised over matters relating to public health by the Union and Provincial Governments. It suggested a scheme including machinery for the discovery of cases, the care of the patient at his own home, the prevention of spread, the diffusion of information concerning the disease and the improvement of general health conditions. No action, however, resulted, but as the years went by probably the public conscience or the Únion Health Department got busy and in 1934 quite a lot of work was done. Nelspoert was constituted and also something was done at Springkeld. In later years Durban erected a very large sanatorium and hospital, and still later some arrangement was made for the treatment of disease in the Transkei and the Ciskei. But all this work, Mr. Speaker, has not touched the natives and their diseases to anything like the extent it should have done. This disease amongst natives, in the words of our Year Book, generally runs an acute course and the percentage of recoveries even under favourable conditions is small. I say, what has been done has not touched the natives in the reserves. We have the fact that in the ordinary public hospitals of the Union tuberculosis cases are not admitted. Certainly there are times when these cases are so bad that they require urgent medical treatment and they are admitted, but on the other hand the great majority of these I cases are conveyed to their homes and the poor victims of this disease are left to die in misery and squalor. This aspect of the case is one which, I think, the nation as a whole should be cognisant of. The authorities, and the Government especially, are very much interested in this matter. This disease is not only a fell scourge amongst the native and coloured, and even the European population, but it is also going to undermine the whole labour supply of South Africa. Taking the statistics of notifiable diseases I find that in 1933-’34 7,693 cases were notified: in 1934-’35 the number was 8.896: in 1935-’36 8.755; in 1936-’37 10.961, and in 1937-’38 12,338 cases were notified. That is including Europeans, natives and coloured. So that there is a progressive increase in the number of tuberculosis cases which are notified, and it is feared that in the present year, 1939-’40, we shall have a record of something like 15,000 cases notified. And bear in mind these are only the cases that come under the notice of medical men who are compelled to notify. The number of cases which do not come under the notice of medical men must be very large indeed and must approach something like 100,000. Moreover the number is constantly increasing. It is for this purpose that I have brought the matter before the House. In passing I may say that in compiling these tables it is stated that the number of cases of notifiable diseases reported by medical practitioners during a period of years it is matter for regret that the prevalence of these diseases amongst the non-European population is impossible to assess at the present moment. I think I can do more good by reading a letter which I have received from this medical man than discanting on the position on my own. The letter is very illuminating and contains a suggestion for overcoming, or at least trying to overcome, the incidence of this disease—

Now, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion is that in the native reserves compulsory isolation should be adopted, and that this can be effected by the erection of native huts with modifications, to ensure good ventilation, and other amenities. The cost of such huts, I am led to believe, will not exceed 30s. per hut. and the inference is that should the patient who occupies such a hut die, the hut should be burnt to the ground so that no source of infection is left. But, the important suggestion is that there should be compulsory isolation in the reserves of these tuberculotic patients. We have an instance of what can be done in that respect by reviewing the leper problem in South Africa. There we have compulsory isolation. But the number of lepers that we deal with is out of all proportion to the number of tuberculotic patients. As a matter of fact, we have in the present estimates before us an amount of £131.577 allocated to 95 European and 2,170 non-European lepers. We have, in the same estimates, an amount of £125,386 to deal with 12,338 tuberculotics two years ago. The number this year will probably amount to 15 000 or thereabouts. I would ask the responsible departments, the Public Health Department and the Native Affairs Department, really to go into this matter and to see whether something cannot be done to reduce the incidence of tuberculosis in the native reserves. I am sure that if the problem were tackled in a proper manner, and with all the goodwill in the world to make a success of it, something might be done, and I am sure South Africa would thank both these departments and the Ministers if something could be done during the coming financial year, so that during the following financial year expenditure could be provided for.

A number of speakers have raised the question of a housing scheme and a redemption scheme and other schemes here this afternoon, and it is not my intention to cover the same ground again, but I feel that every member of this House must deeply regret the fact that one government after the other has ignored this problem of the deterioration of our people, and has allowed the position to go on, with the result that poor whiteism in the Union of South Africa has become greatly aggravated, notwithstanding the fact that our exchequer in the past has shewn substantial surpluses. I have on previous occasions laid great stress on this position, and I wish to do so again this afternoon. I feel that the public are no longer satisfied and have no patience with a system of alms and charity, such as we have had in the past. We are entitled to demand help, and I think the time has come when the Government should realise that its first duty is to see to it that the public which it rules in the country are made economically independent. If that is done the public can be taught to stand on their own feet. I said that I was not going to discuss these various schemes, but the position is so serious that it urgently needs the serious attention of this House. I am sorry that we have to speak here to-day to empty benches; only two Ministers are in their seats while we are discussing a position of such importance. I say again that the position of the farmers and the condition of the country is precarious. We have declared war and in spite of this the position of the farmers is so precarious that they are crying out for the attention of the Government every minute of the day, because if the Government does not help these people, they will go under. I recently visited my constituency, and I travelled through a large part of the Free State. Conditions in the Free State to-day are such that half the country might well be proclaimed a drought-stricken area. Our farmers are in such a precarious position that they are worse off to-day than they have been for years. We give our attention here to matters which to my mind are not nearly as important as the condition of the people in our own country. Now I wish to emphasise this—although statements have already been made by the different departments regarding the mealie crop to be expected. I want to say here this afternoon that we can think ourselves lucky if the total mealie crop amounts to 18,000,000 bags. We are a country which is at war, and every country which is preparing for war first of all attempts to obtain products to enable it to see the war through. I predict that with our uncertain weather conditions in South Africa we shall be overtaken by a serious calamity. Every farmer is discouraged because he is facing very dark days. Everyone is looking to the Government to see what assistance it is going to offer. The Government, however, has only one object in mind, because it has declared war, and its object is to see the war through and it does not concern itself with the conditions of farmers in the rural areas. I have been addressing a number of meetings and the Senekal farmers have instructed me to approach the Government and to ask them, in view of the precarious position in which they find themselves, and the threatening drought, and in view of the fact that Senekal will produce only about 25 per cent. of the mealie crop which it had last year, to supply them with the necessary seed-corn, artificial fertilisers and further assistance to see them over these bad times, particularly as they are faced with a dark future. I raised this matter with the Minister concerned, and he was most sympathetic, but I want to warn the Minister of Finance, and I want to tell him that other districts of the Free State will also put forward requests for assistance until such time as they produce a better crop. I hope and I trust that the Minister will give his attention to these matters and that he will come to our aid to see us through these difficulties which I have mentioned. The farmers of the Union of South Africa have since 1928 undergone serious hardships; in spite of that they have always had the courage to improve their standard of living. Surely the Minister does not expect a farmer in South Africa to lead a poor life and not to make any effort to improve his standard of living? We are experiencing great hardships in this country, and we must maintain our prestige and our status. One cannot blame the farmer for trying to get ahead, and in doing so he may sometimes get into debt, a debt which he may incur in his effort to improve his farm. Conditions over which we have no control have caused the farmers to be in such a precarious position to-day that they are becoming discouraged. I want to warn the Government here this afternoon that they must take steps to prevent the farmers losing courage, as this may result in their becoming desperate. The time has come when the farmers should be helped over the difficulties in which they find themselves. They should be rescued from the perils which are threatening them with complete ruin. Since 1933 farmers have been incurring obligations and liabilities in the hope that conditions would improve, that market prices would improve; they have made improvements to their farming operations, and as I said earlier on, it is the force of circumstances which has driven them to the situation in which they find themselves to-day. The farmers are pleading with the Government to-day; they are on their knees asking the Government to be merciful and to come to their assistance in respect of the high rate of interest which they have to pay.

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

When business was suspended at 6 o’clock, I was dealing with the position of farmers who have incurred debts after 1933. I want, in all seriousness, to say to the hon. the Minister of Finance that these farmers did not enter into these obligations in an irresponsible manner, but incurred these obligations in order to extend their operations, and in that way to become an asset to the State. Unfortunately, subsequent developments placed these people in such a position that they are faced with the same difficulties the country is faced with to-day, namely, difficulties over which we have no control. We cannot accuse these farmers of having no powers of endurance. We, as farmers, try to become an asset to the State and for that reason we try to extend our operations, and we incur certain debts which we have to and want to meet. I, therefore, plead that these farmers should receive assistance from the State. That is all I am asking, so that these farmers will be in a position to adapt themselves to present-day conditions, and I trust that the Minister of Finance will give attention to this matter. At the outset I emphasised that we have had one Government after another showing surpluses, but it is of no avail if these surpluses are made whilst the nation is faced with dire distress and poverty. The people of South Africa will call the Government to book for this injustice done to them, and I advocate that the present Government should do something to save the farmers from ruin, because we are on the point of becoming beggars of the State, and it will be a great calamity of this industry, the farming industry, which is the biggest industry in the country, is reduced to beggary, so that the farmers will have to come to the Government and beg. To a large extent the farmers to-day are bywoners, part-sowers and tenants, and the majority of these farmers are dependent on the market prices for their produce. I notice that some hon. members on the other side are carrying on with discussions whilst we are dealing with such a serious matter. These people do not understand what we are discussing here, and perhaps we cannot blame them, they must be treated as they deserve to be treated. I say, however, emphatically, that this section of our population is deteriorating. To-day we have 500,000 poor whites in South Africa living below the bread line, and the number is increasing from day to day. Therefore, I ask what the Government intends to do in order to meet the situation. Poor farmers, bywoners, part-sowers and tenants are dependent on what they realise for their mealies and on their mealie crop, and I say that something should be done to assist these people in their distress. They are faced with difficulties over which they have no control. In whatever circumstances a man may be, he will usually try to rehabilitate himself. But where a Higher Hand is against him, as is the position in the Free State to-day, where we have a drought from one end of the Province to the other, and where these people have to make a living out of mealies, we find that they are suffering in such a way as a result of the drought that they cannot exist. I, therefore, once more plead that the Government should consider measures to help these people. Previous Governments have called into being relief boards. We do not want to criticise the good work done by these boards, but I want to emphasise that these boards will get into a tangle if we do not rehabilitate that section of our farmers in order to enable them to become independent. I am convinced, that even those people who have received assistance from the relief boards, people who have in many cases sold a portion of their land and who have to live on smaller farms, and other people who have been placed on the land, people who were down and out, I am convinced that these people will once more go down if nothing is done to assist them. I do not claim to be an economist, but I want to say that even if we have to stay here for six months, we have to wait till the Government does something to relieve the distress of this section of our population, because they are threatened with ruin, and we cannot allow this to happen. I said before that something must be done, and I repeat that to-day in the hope that the Government will give attention to this matter. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture was not in his place this afternoon when I spoke, and I want to repeat that not only Senekal is appealing to the Government, but that other parts of the Free State also appeal to the Minister to come to their assistance. Senekal has given me instructions, which I now want to repeat in the presence of the Minister, that in view of the conditions prevailing at present, the Minister should provide these people with seed-wheat, in the same way as they have assisted the farmers in the Western Province. The Minister has already informed me that he will make strong representations to the Government. I hope and trust that the Minister will assist us in that respect.

I regret that the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) who usually is fairly moderate in his speeches, spoke in a slighting manner yesterday, when he referred to the pleas in this House for the North-West. I cannot help expressing my strong disapproval of his slighting remarks. I can give the hon. member the assurance that I can only believe that he does not know what the position and conditions are in the North-West, otherwise he would not have spoken in such a slighting manner when referring to the interests of the North-West. Then I want to refer to a point raised by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell). I cannot agree with what he said. What he said amounts to this. He was referring to the large number of applications for telephones in all parts of the country, particularly the North-West, where in the past we did not get the necessary telephone connections, and the hon. member said, inter alia, “Farm telephone lines cause a serious financial loss to the Department, and it becomes a burden on the towns.” We cannot get away from the fact, which is generally acknowledged, that farm telephone lines as such do not pay. But we should view the matter from the broad point of view, because these farm telephone lines are the small arteries feeding the big arteries, and a large proportion of the income earned on these farm telephones is entered in the books as earnings of the main telephone lines, and not placed to the credit of farm telephones. Therefore, it is going too far to say that farm telephones are only a burden on the town telephones. I want to appeal to hon. members who hold that view, to take into consideration the fact that we, in these outlying parts of the country, need those telephones, and they should not begrudge those facilities, where people in the towns enjoy all kinds of privileges. I want to express my appreciation to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for what they have done during the last few years, for what they have done particularly in my constituency. I do not want to quote figures, but we have heard that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is making colossal profits, and it is surprising, in view of the large number of outstanding applications for telephones, that the Government does not face up to the position and does not make available sufficient funds to provide for the necessary telephone services, particularly in the north-west. Take a large tract of country like Brandvlei, Williston and Van Wyk’s Vlei, an enormous area, with hardly any telephones at all. I hone that part of the country will receive the attention of the Government. I want to refer to one or two important matters which have been raised during this debate, and which, to my mind, are of vital interest to the plattsland. I want to stress the requirements of the meat producers. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), and the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet), have urged a reduction in the cost of production, and on the other hand the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga), followed by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker), advocated an increase in the price of primary products. It goes without saying that the Government is in the first instance responsible for a lead. Has a lead come from the Government or not? No, it is an inexplicable fact that a lead was not given, that the opposite is the case. Take a concrete example. The Government has set a very bad example in that respect. We have heard that it is still possible to get cheap money, but the Government comes along and increases the Land Bank interest. That at once means an increase in the cost of production. Therefore, I say that the Government takes the lead in increasing the cost of production. But there is more. The Minister of Finance, though he did not specially mention that particular product, gave us to understand that as far as rebates which were granted last year in respect of railway rates are concerned, in the case of wool the rebate would disappear in future, or in any case would be considerably reduced. Therefore, once more the Government is taking a lead in increasing the cost of production. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister. Where he meets the gold mines to the tune of three million pounds in respect of increased overhead charges, where, with a stroke of the pen he grants them such a concession, I want to ask that, in view of the fact that the wool farmers are getting a better price for their wool at present, they should also be enabled to improve their position. At once, however, as soon as a better price is realised by the wool farmers, they are deprived of certain privileges which they enjoyed in the past. The Government should take a lead in order to reduce the cost of production, but that is not done. Let me mention in what respect for instance the Government should take the lead. The other day I attended a very interesting lecture by one of our Government experts. I believe he comes from Hungary, but is attached to the Grootfontein Agricultural School. In Hungary he was manager of a factory and he showed, by quoting figures, that a threshing machine is delivered free on rail by that factory for £180—that is the price he has always quoted in the past—but in South Africa that threshing machine is costing approximately £700. He showed with convincing figures that enormous profits are made by the middle-man. The Government should see to it that farming implements, which are essential to carry on farming operations, should be reduced in price, because it would bring down the cost of production. Just one other remark on meat. As far as meat production is concerned, the Government may perhaps argue that the price we get is not under our cost of production. Possibly, I may admit that point, but it is not possible for us to work at production cost or a small margin of profit. The farmers should be placed on a sound basis, they should be enabled to recover, but to-day that is impossible. We find that a farmer receives 5d. or 6d. per pound for first grade meat. What, however, do we pay in the towns?

For meat, which is not worth being bought at all, we have to pay 11d. per pound, and for decent meat we are charged over a shilling per pound. Therefore, we find that there is a gap of 100 per cent., consisting of profits and expenses, between the price realised by the farmer and the price paid by the consumer. Why can the Government not interfere and effect an improvement in the position? I want to suggest that the Government should take over the control of meat, which at present is in the hands of the municipalities, and that should be done without delay. To my mind that goes to the root of the trouble. The Government should take control of the meat trade, then there will be a chance for improvement. The consumer will be able to buy his meat at a cheaper price, and consumption will increase, if cold storage facilities are provided. I understand that the Government experts object to the erection of cold storage plants in the interior, but why should we always look overseas? Why should experiments not be made in our country? I suggest that the Government should start a experiment with a cold storage plant, say at Hutchinson, or otherwise at De Aar. You have all the facilities there. Then refrigeration trucks for meat could run direct to Cape Town and Johannesburg. That will enable us not only to supply cheaper meat to the consumer, but they will also get the quality of meat we eat in the Karroo, and the result will be that the consumption will be doubled, because the maltreatment of cattle on the trains, which spoils the taste of the meat, will be eliminated. I want to ask the Government not to neglect this matter. Start an experiment, and if it turns out a failure, tell us so. But it will not be a failure. Let us tackle this matter and improve the position. If we have refrigeration trucks we can convey three times as many carcases to the market at the same price as we have to pay to-day for cattle on the hoof. Consequently the freight charges will be reduced to the farmer by 60 per cent. as soon as we have cold storage plants in the interior, and better meat will be sold to the consumers. There is another point in connection with the bringing down of the cost of production, and the improvement of prices. As far as wool is concerned, we have heard that the Government had a finger in the pie. Now it is said that, as the farmers only received 8d. for their wool in the past, they should be satisfied, in view of the fact that they are realising 15d. at present. We contend, however, that the farmers should get the very best prices, because this is harvest time for the wool farmers, and later on we will have to pay when the unavoidable depression sets in. After the war we will have to suffer, and unless we get top prices now, we will not be in a position to face a depression. I was surprised to read a leading article dealing with the wool position in one of our evening papers to-day, because it is clear from that article that those people know nothing about the matter. They arrive at the conclusion that there is a large overproduction of wool in the world, but we know that that is not the case. Finally I want to refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet). I regret to say that hon. members on the Government side only view these matters from one angle, from the point of view of the city. He said that higher wages mean higher prices to the consumers, and that anybody advocating higher wages renders a disservice to the country. He argues that as soon as salaries are increased provisions will go up in price. Of course, it is a business man speaking like that. He speaks like that because, as soon as prices rise, he will no longer be in a position to reap such benefits as he has been reaping up till now. From the point of view of the farmer the position simply is that when the prices of produce rise, the increase in wages will only be a comparatively small matter compared with the advantages accruing from better prices. As was shown by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) to-day, the farming industry stands at the bottom of the list. To-day the industry is in distress, and we know that it will be faced with still greater difficulties in future, when depression sets in, which will come as certainly as day follows night. Then the farmers of South Africa will not be rehabilitated yet and will not be in a position to face adversities. Let us not begrudge the farmers the best prices possible at present. I also, plead again that the Government should undertake experiments in order to improve the markets and to enable the farmers to get, better prices. Let us get to grips with these problems. Only a government solving these problems will receive the lasting gratitude of the people of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the criticism which was made on the Budget by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) struck me as being rather half-hearted, but the justification which he advanced for having fixed the price of gold at 150s. was that he had eliminated speculation, and he pointed to the condition which arose on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange immediately after Budget day as a justification of his policy. We must admit that the fact of the fixing of gold at 150s. in this country would have completely eliminated speculation from the gold mining market in South Africa, but nothing could have been more disastrous for the development of this country. While reasonable speculation should be encouraged, nobody will say that wild speculation should be encouraged. Reasonable speculation must be encouraged, because otherwise there is no adequate inducement for a man to risk his money in gold mining ventures. It seems to me that the problem which the hon. the Minister of Finance had to face, was that while obtaining as much tax as possible from developed mines on the Witwatersrand he should, at the same time, allow a sufficient margin to induce the speculator to risk his money in the development of new areas. In my opinion he has very effectively and efficiently achieved that result. He has taken the maximum amount consistent with the future development of the Witwatersrand from the already developed mines, and at the same time in respect of the outside areas he has, by the simple expedient of reducing the amortisation period from ten years to five years, held out an inducement for the investment of capital in areas which have not yet been exploited. In consequence of that policy, which is simple now that it has been proposed, we can look forward to sufficient money being found in the future to develop those areas in the Free State which promise to become, in the course of time, a second Witwatersrand. As a direct consequence of his policy an amount of £1,625,000 has been found in order to enable the Western Reefs to reach the producing stage. It is true that the preliminary arrangements in order to obtain that money were completed before Budget day, but, according to the Mining Journal, had no inducement been given to mines outside the Witwatersrand, the preliminary arrangements to find that money would have been cancelled, with the result that the development of that area also would have been tremendously handicapped. In order to show that what I have suggested will result from the Minister’s statement one need only look at the effect on the shares. So far from there being a boom many of the developed mines show a lower price than they did before Budget day. For example, Crown Mines in January were 300s. each. They are now 277s. 6d. each. East Rand Props, which were 50s. 6d., are now only 45s. 6d. Government Areas, which were 28s. 6d., have gone up a couple of shillings. They are now 31s. Sub-Nigels were in January 197s. 6d„ but they are now only 186s. 3d.; and Springs Mines, which were 25s. in January, are now 26s. So that we see in the developed mines there has been nothing in the nature of a boom. But if we look at the outside areas there has been a substantial increase in prices in consequence of the inducement held out. Take, for example, shares like Western Holdings, which are concerned with areas in the Free State. They were, on January 8th 12s. and on March 15th 16s. 3d. Western Reefs were 14s. in January, and they are now 19s. 6d. So that what the Minister apparently had in mind has been carried out. I think that is a justification for his policy, because a fixed gold price, which had, the effect of confiscating to, the state a proportion of the gold, would have been, in my opinion, a disastrous policy. There are matters which affect agriculture to which I would like to draw the attention of the Government. The prosperity of the agriculturist in South Africa contributes largely to the prosperity of those towns which are not dependent entirely upon mining for their welfare. It seems to me that the prosperity of the agriculturist depends on three factors. First of all he should produce from his soil crops which are suitable to that soil; secondly he should have an adequate supply of cheap labour; and thirdly he should have cheap power. Cheap power to-day really is synonymous with the production of cheap petrol. The production of cheap power to farmers also would largely have the effect of solving the farmers’ labour problems. If the farmer could replace his labour by mechanical means that would enable him to produce his crops at a much lower price and use less labour. Such a position has arisen in Australia, and there the Government, in order to assist the farmers, has encouraged the production of producer gas plants to obtain cheap power. I may point out in that connection that in Europe, particularly in the French Army, lorries and other vehicles have been run on producer gas for many years, and it is estimated that in Europe, in Sweden, in Japan and in countries of that nature where cheap power is necessary, and where the country itself is not in a position to supply natural oil, the use of these producer gas plants has, to a certain extent, replaced oil, and it is estimated that there are to-day no less than 20,000 of them in use in Europe and Japan. That is not a great number, but the idea is comparatively new and now that the war is in progress, and the source of the supply of petrol has been threatened, it is anticipated that the production of these producer gas units will be very much stimulated. Australia is in exactly the same position as South Africa so far as its indigenous oil supply is concerned. The Australian Government, on the recommendation of a certain Professor A. F. Burstal, in order to test the possibility of these producer gas plants, has called for tenders for the production in Australia of 400 producer gas units for sale to the public. The Government will have no part in the sale of the units beyond ensuring their efficiency and sale at a reasonable price, and they undertake to buy from the manufacturer any unit which is not sold within a reasonable time. It is estimated that these units will cost the farmer approximately £50 each. These units have the effect of producing gas from waste materials or from charcoal and any farmer who grows wood is able, very simply and at very small cost, to produce his own charcoal. In Australia 16 pounds of charcoal, which can be bought for about 5d. (Australian currency), give the same haulage power as a gallon of petrol, costing in Australia approximately 2s. In South Africa where mealie cobs and so on are usually thrown away, these can easily be converted into charcoal or used for the production of gas to propel vehicles. An interesting article on the use of one of these producer gas units appeared in the Farmers Weekly of February 21st, 1940, in which a farmer in the Eastern Transvaal, described the success which he has had from his unit which he imported from Sweden. He says—

He also points out that, apart from the cost of the timber, the cost of making charcoal should not exceed three or four shillings per ton. He says that 12 to 14 pounds weight of charcoal should replace one gallon of petrol or power paraffin, and where charcoal is not available, charred mealie cobs make excellent fuel. He then gives details as to the use of these units in other parts of the world. I suggest that this is a matter that the Government should go into. It would provide an adequate and cheap supply of power to the farmers and it would also with little adjustment enable them to run their motor cars on this type of fuel. In the early designs of these units, the engine heated up, but these difficulties have now been overcome. We have the iron and steel industry in this country, and it seems to me that this is an opportunity for the Government to encourage the production of these units in connection therewith and thereby help the farmer to obtain cheap power. There is one other matter to which I wish to draw attention. The hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) stated that the Government ought to establish an oil industry in this country. An oil industry has been established in South Africa by the South African Torbanite Oil and Refining Company, which has its plant on the Witwatersrand, where it employs something like 105 white men, who to-day are skilled technicians in the refining of crude oil and the production of petrol. That plant will refine this year sufficient indigenous oil produced from torbanite, which is obtained from Ermelo, to produce 2,000,000 gallons of petrol. That is only a very small proportion of the requirements of the Witwatersrand. The Witwatersrand consumes something like 40,000,000 gallons of petrol a year. But with Government encouragement this production could be enormously increased. There are, for example, very large areas in the Wakkerstroom district which carry shale containing approximately 20 gallons of crude oil to the ton of shale. That shale could easily be exploited and millions of gallons of crude oil could be produced from it. The shale is situated about eighteen miles away from the railway. If the Government would build a railway and otherwise encourage the development of that area, as well as support the development at Ermelo, that would enable the Union to produce many million gallons of petrol from its own resources; but Government encouragement is absolutely essential. The Torbanite Company with which I am connected, has been through a very trying and difficult period itself during the last couple of years. In that time it has made profits, but those profits have all been used for the payment of debts, the establishment of this new industry and the building up of a necessary capital reserve. That also is a company whose position is such that the hon. the Minister of Finance should take it into consideration when he frames the details of his excess profits duty. The stimulation by the Government of the development of our shale industry and our torbanite industry is a much more economical proposition than the distilling of oil from coal, which can be done, but from an economic point of view is at present quite hopeless. It is far too expensive and will require the establishment, in the first instance, of units which will cost anything from £1,000,000 to £2,000,000 each. These torbanite and shale deposits, however, can be developed at comparatively little expense and are economically sound. But I go further and I say that this country which has been found to bo so rich in gold and diamonds should be prospected by the Government with a view to discovering whether there are not oil occurrences of a payable nature in South Africa. As far back as 1917 the Government appointed Dr. W. A. Rogers to frame a report on the prospect of finding oil in the Southern Karoo, and he examined the area and came to this conclusion. He said (this is on page six of Memoir eight of the Geological Survey)—

And then he goes on to say that it would require the sinking of a borehole of not less than 6.000 feet in order to test the question of whether there was oil there or not. That was only in one particular area, and I think all subsequent geologists have based their findings on this report of Dr. Rogers.

Was not that before they discovered the Laingsburg geological fault?

I don’t know about that, but it seems to me that at a time like this the Government, where it is spending millions on irrigation and matters of that nature, much of which will not come back….

You cannot say that.

It might at any rate consider putting a certain amount of money into the examination of the oil possibilities of this country. A commission should be appointed to take the necessary evidence, and decide where the most probable spot is, and have a borehole or boreholes put down, and so investigate the matter. In conclusion all I want to say is that if the people of this country with the prospects before them cooperate instead of trying to divide against each other, South Africa can be made, and will be made a country in which every citizen can find sufficient to ensure his happiness and prosperity.

At the outset I want to ask a question. In his budget speech the Minister of Finance said that the additional tax on gold-mining profits would not be applied to the diamond mines, and that an additional tax of two shillings would be levied in respect of diamond mines, over and above the three shillings paid by the diamond mines at present. I want to know from the Minister whether this additional tax will be applicable to alluvial diamonds as well.

That tax is not levied on alluvial diamonds at present.

I am very glad to learn from the Minister that that is the case, because the conditions on the alluvial diggings are such that they cannot pay this tax.

I only mentioned mines.

I am very glad, and I can leave this matter alone. I want to tell the Minister that we are really disappointed as far as the agricultural prospects, as outlined by him, are concerned. In view of the fact that he is a young Minister, and a new Minister of Finance, we live in great hopes. I was glad to hear from him that he admits that conditions on the platteland are not satisfactory, and that as soon as possible something must be done to relieve the position. He said: Of what use could a commission be, a commission which might sit for two years and then issue a report. If it is so serious now already, we cannot want another two years. That gives the impression that the Minister is of the opinion that something must be done within the next two years, and we expect him to do an enormous lot of work in order to solve the agricultural problems, the enormous problems in our country, caused partly by world conditions. But, Mr. Speaker, we are very disappointed. When we come to the budget speech we find that the Minister told us in the first instance that he is going to increase the Land Bank interest by ½ per cent. Later on in the budget speech he told us that he is also going to take away the tariff concessions on the railways, which were granted by the previous Government in order to assist the farmers in respect of agricultural produce, which was realising low prices, or at least that he was going to reduce the concession in cases where the price of these products has improved. Unfortunately, the Minister did not tell us what products will be affected. The only produce he mentioned, in respect of which enhanced prices are realised in comparison with last year, is wool. It is not clear from the Minister’s statement what exactly will happen to these tariff rebates on wool, and we would like to know from the Minister whether it is his intention to reduce those rebates or to discontinue them altogether. As far as wool is concerned there were three successive concessions. The first was a concession of 33 per cent. on wool in pressed bales. That concession of 33 per cent. was increased to 50 per cent. on all wool at a later stage, and last year it was again increased by about 40 per cent., up to almost 90 per cent. The wool farmers were paying a very small railway rate. I should like the Minister to tell us how, in his estimation, the wool position is going to improve this year. He indicates to some extent in his budget what he expects. He says that the income of the wool farmers this year will be approximately twelve million pounds. Let me remind the hon. the Minister that, when the tariff concession was increased from 50 per cent. to 90 per cent., we were selling 118,000 tons, at a total amount of £8,000,000. In 1937, when the second reduction was introduced, we sold 114,000 tons, and realised £11,900,000, almost £12,000.000. But the normal sale of wool, just before the depression set in, when prices were not abnormal, I am now referring to 1925—1929. was approximately 118,000 tons, sold for a total amount of £14,000,000. If the improvement of the wool position has convinced the Minister that the tariff rebate can be reduced, then I want to ask him whether he is going to take it away altogether, or only partly. In view of the fact that we have not yet reached normal conditions as far as prices are concerned, I want to urge that these rebates should not be abolished altogether. In times of stress we have sold wool to the tune of eight million to eleven million pounds, only one million pounds less than the total amount expected this year, and the total amount realised will still be two million pounds less than in normal circumstances. I want to leave it at that. I want to make a few remarks in connection with Vaal Hartz, and the new regulations being enforced there on the owners of plots. I regret very much that the Minister of Irrigation is not here, and I want to ask the Minister of Finance to discuss this matter with the Minister of Irrigation. When the Act, dealing with the development of the Vaal River scheme came before this House in 1934, serious objection was raised to the drastic expropriation clauses in the Bill, clauses which would be enforced in conjunction with the Irrigation Act. That Act amended the Irrigation Acts in such a manner, that the State would, have had at its disposal sufficient land to make a success of the scheme. We favoured that step in principle, but it was pointed out emphatically how drastic it would be for the Government to step in and to expropriate the land of these people, but we recognised that the Minister required certain powers and that the Government should be entitled by an Act of Parliament to acquire the necessary land. We added, however, that the Government should be as lenient as possible, and the Minister of Irrigation, our present Minister of Native Affairs, stated in this House, that he would be prepared to accept an amendment in order to relieve the position for the owners, if such an amendment would meet with the approval of his Department. Consequently the then hon. member for Queenstown (the late Mr. Van Heerden) moved an amendment to the effect that each owner under the Vaal Hartz Scheme would have the right to retain 100 morgen of irrigable land on certain conditions. That amendment was accepted by the Minister, and the majority of the owners kept out 100 morgen after the Government had expropriated their land or bought the land by mutual agreement. Now the Minister comes along and places a special tax on these owners, a tax which, if one knows the circumstances of the scheme, and if one takes into consideration present-day conditions, cannot be paid by the owners. The tax levied is a tax of £2 per morgen on irrigable land. The man who has retained 100 morgen, now will have to pay £200 per year, in the form of a water tax. That is a condition which is absolutely impossible to fulfil for those owners, and they will not be able to remain on the land which was left to them by an Act of Parliament. I am prepared to admit that certain difficulties have arisen, compelling the Government to take certain measures, but yet it appears to me that the Government is not going to attain its object under these regulations. I understand that certain people have sold their hundred morgen or a portion of their land to Asiatics, and that others are contemplating selling their allotments to poor people. My time is limited and I only want to point out these difficulties. The Minister is not going to attain his object under these regulations. The owners are prepared to meet the Minister and to assist him in every possible way in order to remove these undesirable conditions, which the Government is out to prevent. We are all prepared to assist the Government in order to make this scheme a model scheme. But we are not prepared, and the owners are not prepared, to be taxed in this way on the lands which have been expropriated, as pointed out by me, because then they will not be able to make a success of their farming operations. The punishment laid down is that water will be cut off, and the result will be that the Minister will not achieve his object and that the very thing he wants to avoid, will happen. We ask the Government to give serious consideration to this matter and to try and meet these people. If the Government insists on these regulations, these people will not be able to pay that water tax and the result will be that they will try to get rid of their land as soon as possible, and that is exactly what we want to avoid. There are property-owners there who are trying to cultivate their lands intensively, and they are irrigating their land, men who are an asset to the scheme as a whole, and these are the very people you are going to punish when you levy a high water-tax. I want to ask the Minister to meet these people. The regulations will come into force on the 1st July, and these people have already been notified that the new water-tax will be levied. We request the Government to consider the position of these people and to make arrangements which will remove these objections.

I would also like to associate myself with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) in the plea he made last night for the creation of better facilities for our Afrikaner boys—especially for boys on the countryside—to be trained as skilled artisans. While all countries have to deal with labour problems, we find that in South Africa particularly, the problem is being complicated because the white labourer has to compete here with the nonEuropean races. This competition is made keener because the white labourer has to maintain a standard of living befitting his scale of civilisation, and which is also required if we want to maintain the white civilisation in the country. What makes that training of our boys all the more necessary is the fact that since the beginning of the century, the urban population has increased more quickly proportionally, and that the rural population has decreased, and it therefore goes without saying that a large section of the country population, in their trek to the towns, have to find a living there. We find, for instance, that in 1904 the urban population consisted of 53.91 per cent. and the rural population of 46.09 per cent. Fifteen years later we find that the urban population had risen by 2 per cent. to 55.78, and the rural population had dropped to 44.22 per cent. But fifteen years after that, in 1936, we find a more considerable increase still in the urban population, which reached 65.24 per cent., while the rural population stood at 34.76 per cent. The influx into the towns from the country in recent years, especially to the Rand, can only lead us to the conclusion that at the next census we shall find that there has been a larger removal of the rural population to the towns. But this matter is becoming all the more serious when we see that notwithstanding the normal increase in the population, while in 1931 the rural population consisted of 708,327 Europeans, it had dropped five years later to 696,471. These figures, apart from the proof which they furnish that there is something radically wrong with farming, and that we in recent years, have had an increasing trek away from the farms because the farmers did not get a reasonable reward for their labour, nor reasonable prices for their produce—apart from that, I say it shows an astonishing influx of Europeans into the towns, and these Europeans are mostly unskilled labourers who have to compete with skilled labour in the towns. In that respect I feel that the Government dare not lose sight of that position. Therefore I feel that we, as a House, cannot neglect it. The department of industrial industries in South Africa, especially during the last 20 years, has created considerable room for more skilled artisans. A fully skilled labour force is absolutely necessary in any country, and it is all the more necessary in a young country like South Africa if we want to make the desired progress in industrial matters. We ought to see to it that our industrial development is not handicapped by a lack of skilled workmen. I go further and say that a gross injustice is being done to the lads, and the men in the country owing to their being eliminated as unskilled labourers, and owing to the fact that in consequence of their not being skilled, the work is given to men from overseas. The countryside boy is able, if he receives the necessary training, to become an excellent skilled workman. The lads in the country have shown, our boys in South Africa generally have shown that we can excel in sport and any other department if the boys only get the opportunity. We find, therefore, that the countryside boy does not have the chance to-day of enjoying a sufficient vocational training, and that they are therefore for the most part eliminated. We also find that under the apprenticeship system, enough apprentices are not being trained to provide for the requirements of the Union. Consequently, there is a shortage of skilled labourers, and we find that the shortage has every time to be made up by importing persons from overseas. We find, e.g. that no less than one-third of the skilled labourers in the engineering and building industries are imported from overseas. What we want is that an adequate number of tradesmen should be trained in the Union to provide for the needs of the country. Certain amendments in the apprenticeship system are necessary. In conclusion, I just want to say that an adequate number of skilled artisans is an indispensible asset in any country, which wants to uphold modern Western civilisation. That is especially true in a young country which is on the eve of great industrial development.

Mr. Speaker, owing to the congested condition of the Order Paper I had to withdraw my motion which, with your permision, I would like to read so that it will refresh the memory of hon. members of this House—

I am glad to have an opportunity to read that motion because it will serve to remind hon. members how important this matter is. Hon. members, I think, will admit that this is entirely an economic matter; there are no vote-catching stunts in it, and that is why I say hon. members can support it. While there may be differences of opinion about the methods I propose, there will be no disagreement about the importance of the general line of action I have in mind for the more successful exploitation of South African base minerals. The present war has created an economic situation favourable to the development of our base minerals, therefore, I think this is the psychological moment for a programme of development. In the first place I propose that the Government should financially assist in the exploitation of proved deposits. The principle of this has already been admitted in the yearly setting aside of a sum of money to assist the small mines, but not enough of this money has gone to base minerals. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I ask for increased technical advice by experts being made available to the public by the Department of Mines. Investors and industrialists should not be put off by lack of the fullest information. With regard to our overseas market the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) — I am sorry he is not here—but the hon. member, speaking from experience, has again and again drawn the attention of this House to the fact that we are not boosting our base metals sufficiently in Europe and America. I know the department has produced books and films in London and possibly throughout England, but, I contend, not sufficient has been done and more funds should be made available for this purpose. Then with regard to railway rates on base metals, this matter of the development of our base minerals is not altogether a matter for the Minister of Mines. Railway rates are an important factor, if not the most important of all. Unless railway rates on our base metals are reduced to a reasonable figure enabling the product of our mines to be marketed at a competitive figure then other schemes of assistance are not of much use. I should like to read this letter which I have received from the New Union Manganese Mines and Minerals, Limited—

Mr. Speaker, I have at least four or five other letters on the same subject, but I will not weary the House by reading them. In any case I am not allowed too much time in which to explain the position. I want to remind the present Minister of Railways and Harbours that the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) when he was Minister of Railways and Harbours definitely promised the industry that rates would be lowered. I sincerely hope that the present Minister will carry out the promises made by the hon. member for Gezina. I should just like to quote a short paragraph from the South African Mining Journal, which is a very important paper published in South Africa. It says—

It is very plain that I am not the only one who is convinced in regard to the necessity for the reduction of our railway rates. At present gold is our chief consideration, but what if anything happens to that special metal? I noticed a cable a few weeks ago from London which stated—

That shows the danger of our relying too much on gold. Let us therefore pay more attention to our base metals while we have the means to do it. There is another cable which is very important, and it comes from Canada. It says—

As hon. members know, Canada is not a great country for the production of gold, but £94,000,000 is a very large amount to produce. Let us therefore pay more attention to the base metals while we have sufficient money to do it. Last session I outlined the practical steps that should be taken as regards the development of our base metal industry. My scheme was that the Government should spend £1,000,000 a year on it. When you consider the amount we are spending on national roads, on agriculture and on defence, surely I say we could spend the amount of £1,000,000 a year in order to develop our base metals. Surely we can spend something on this all-important phase of our national economy. See what it will mean for our farmers if we can employ some 20,000 white men on this work. It would mean the solution of our unemployment question. It will mean that we can sell our wool and mealies, and it will be of great assistance to our secondary industries. Indeed, it will be the solution of our troubles. In fact, the Opposition will be so pleased with it that they will be coming over to our side of the House and voting on every subject with us. I have quoted that there are three great factors with regard to this matter. The first is development; the second is transport, and transport charges in this country are known to be high, and that is where the whole position rests as to whether we shall have success or failure. Thirdly, there is another matter. That is, money will be required for the marketing of our base metals. Publicity is necessary, and expert men who can speak to the manufacturer in technical, or rather in the mineral language. These men will be required. I may say that we have got such men in South Africa. We do not have to import them. Therefore I think we should give these men the opportunity to give benefits to our base minerals as far as possible. This is also the psychological moment for publicity, especially in the United States, where I understand on good authority they are prepared to buy from us some £10,000,000 worth of raw materials per year if we can supply it. Then there are our South African industries to be supplied with raw materials, so that we can also produce the finished article. It is a great pity that we have to send away our raw materials and have them returned to us as finished articles. We should take every opportunity to use our own base minerals and so exclude the importation of the finished article into this country. That would be a great assistance to the secondary industries, and also to the future welfare of South Africa. In conclusion, I should like to say that I hope to see in the next ten years a large production of our base minerals, a production of £20,000,000 a year. I hope that this prediction will come true, and I also hope that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Railways and Harbours will combine in this matter so far as base metals are concerned, and I am sure every hon. member in this House will agree with me when I say that it is most necessary in order to make South Africa the great success we all hope it will be.

I would like to say a few words to the Minister of Finance in connection with a certain section of the farming population to which I have already drawn his attention on a previous occasion. But although the Minister made a concession to one class of the farmers of which I made mention, he has not yet done anything for the other class. Some time ago I submitted a letter to the Minister from the Farmers Relief Committee of Heilbron in which a certain amount was asked for to assist the poorer mealie farmers who this year would have no income, and who have to make their living exclusively out of mealies, by giving them cows and heifers. The Minister was asked to make available a sum of £5,000 for general assistance by way of stock for those people who will have no income owing to the drought, but the Minister refused to do so. I sent the Minister’s reply to them, and they have asked me to bring the matter before the Minister again. They are so modest that they say that if the Minister will not give £5,000 then they will be satisfied with £2,000, but there is really great need amongst their families, and they must be given help. Now I want to point out that in connection with the different schemes that we used to have, a state advances recovery office was established. I find that the staff of the office consists of about 307 clerks, that is the joint total of the members of the staff. Now I cannot understand how that office was established exclusively in connection with the Farmers Relief Act, because I notice that it is here stated that the costs in connection with that are not very high. Nor can I understand that the cost of the administration of that office, where they have to administer the work of 1933, is caused by them having to maintain the staff for that purpose, because I notice that the costs of administration in connection therewith only amount to £1,900. I therefore assume that the underlying idea in connection with that office is that you always will have a state of affairs in South Africa amongst the farming population where you will have to give them state assistance. The poor farmers have only got one bank, and that is the Government, that is the only bank which these farmers have. The Minister knows that the landowner is entitled to raise a bond over his land in one way or the other. He can go to the private money lender or the Land Bank, but the man who should be kept on the land, the deelsaaier, the bywoner or lessee, have only one bank, and that is the Government, and if the Government closes the door to him where is he to go, especially in times like these? That is the man whom the Government must assist, chiefly because he has been hit by nature. We would not have come to the Government again this year to ask for help if it were not for the exhausting drought. There are some of those people who ploughed who will not be able to provide their families with breakfast porridge. There simply is nothing, no harvest in a large portion of the Free State. We ask the Minister again very respectfully, because the Government is surely the only bank which the people have which will open the door to give assistance to those people. The people are so modest that they only ask to be given cows and heifers. I want to point out that the Minister in his Budget speeches pointed out that the welfare services were not being reduced but extended by an amount of over £2.000. Those welfare services are mostly being rendered in the towns. We do not grudge them to the towns, and I assume that the man on the countryside also actually receives services by way of nursing, but the only welfare department which the farmer has is the office for the recovery of state advances.

But that is an office for recovery, not for payment.

But it is clear that they cannot recover if the people have nothing, and it goes without saying that you cannot shut the door of the farmers’ bank when they come and knock at the door, because nature has hit them. I hope that the Minister will give his serious attention to the matter, if not then the people will be driven into the towns, where they will then be in the hands of the municipalities, and the Government for care. That is the only grace that will be left for them. The second class for whom I want to plead is the class of man who is considered to belong to the so-called middle class. The term “middle class” is a very wide one. In this class there are people like shop assistants getting from £15 to £20, and in exceptional cases £25 a month, people who have to maintain families, and you will find that in times of illness those people go in vain to the magistrate or to the provincial administration for an order for assistance in connection with hospital treatment. They are told that they have fixed incomes and that they are not poor people and cannot be assisted. Under that class we also have the man who has no land, and only a small number of stock, but even the man who does have a small piece of land. I am thinking of a man who has a plot of Government land. He is practically at death’s door, and is suffering from a disease which could possibly be cured if he received proper treatment in a hospital. Now the complaint is chronic. He went to the magistrate for an order for hospital treatment, but he was refused and he was told that he owned land. The man cannot even pay his interest, and he has to maintain a family. With the bad times in farming matters, he is not in a position to do so. The result is that one of these days we shall have to carry him to his grave. I want to put the matter in such a way, that the Minister’s heart will be so much touched that he will just quickly tell me that all those things will be put right. There is another case that I want to mention. A man’s wife has been ill for years. He has already paid up all that he possessed. Some day he will inherit 150 morgen of land. He also went for an order after he had sold up almost everything he had, but he also was told that he could not get an order because some day he would be inheriting land. His father cannot give him the land now, because the land is mortgaged, and they have some day to take over the mortgage pro rata. There you have another life which is in danger, because proper hospital treatment is not available. These people come to me for advice, and I want to ask the Minister for advice to-night, which I can go and give to those people. I want to point out to the Minister another aspect of the position. The doctors sometimes say that there is not a specialist in the Free State for a certain disease. They recommend the people to go to Johannesburg. They then have to go across the big river, the Vaal River, but there is no chance of going to Johannesburg because the Provincial Council of the Orange Free State will give no assistance, because the people will then be going to another province, and those specialists, of course, do not work for nothing. That is one of the things about which I feel that I shall thank heaven when some day there will no longer be any provincial boundaries in existence. It seems to me as if a citizen can die on this side of the Vaal River, while on the other side there is the doctor who can save him, but he cannot get the help from the authorities to call in that doctor. I want to bring these cases to the notice of the Minister, and ask him to give his attention to these special cases, so that he can give a word of comfort, which I in turn can pass on to those people. Then there is another case. The man was a shop assistant; he contracted a chronic complaint and lost his job. He only owns an erf, and he went to the magistrate, but the magistrate told him that he could not assist him because he was a landowner. What is to be done in such a case? I want to tell the Minister this, that if he wants to perpetuate his name in South Africa as a benefactor of that section of the people, then he should give his attention to the middle class people who are suffering in our midst, and who are not poor enough to be assisted by a magistrate or the provincial administration, and who are not rich enough to be able to provide proper hospital facilities for themselves. There should be some scheme provided to assist those people. We all contribute to the building of our hospitals. When we built our hospital, we collected shillings and half-crowns from the people until we had got enough, so that the provincial administration should assist us. To-day we sometimes have to refuse people admission, because the rule has been so drawn that people who can only just make a living and who are living under the conditions that I have described, cannot get an order. People can possibly just make a living, but they cannot afford to lie up in hospital to save their lives. I say the state should commence showing some sympathy for that class of its citizen. I do not know whether this thought will give the Minister a lead. He will possibly ask us where he is to draw the line. We cannot quite draw a line strictly, but we surely do provide that a citizen who earns less than £400 does not pay income tax. My view is that a citizen who earns less than £400 cannot, when calamity afflicts him with a serious illness, afford to pay from £50 to £150 for hospital treatment. The state must make provision to assist that man. It is no use our only looking after one section of the population, namely the man who is absolutely hopelessly poor, when for the other section which has to pay for everything, the clerking section, for those people there is no grace. I have brought these two matters to the notice of the Minister because I hope provision will be made.

The Minister of Agriculture received the information this afternoon which I got over the telephone last night, and which the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Fullard) also got, and I hope that he will see the Minister of Finance with that information, so that when we ask for assistance for the smaller mealie farmers, we shall not do so in vain. I think that the other cases which I have mentioned are so obvious that the Minister cannot do otherwise, and that his heart will be so moved that he, at the conclusion of the Budget debate, will put a little money on the estimates for the relief committees, and that arrangements will be made with the provincial administrations in connection with the hospital treatment which those citizens require.

I would like to associate myself with the congratulations extended to the Minister of Finance on his first Budget which is sound and cautious and calculated to consolidate the great mineral resources of the Union. But whilst doing so, I fear that I must also express my disappointment that the parlous state in which the farmers in this country, exclusive perhaps of a section of those producing wool, find themselves, has perhaps not been sufficiently dealt with by the Minister and an indication given of the policy of the Government in connection with those hit hardest by the outbreak of the war. This could inter alia very effectively be given by a policy which will enable the Farmers’ Assistance Act No. 48 of 1935 to cover liabilities incurred up to the date of the outbreak of the war when, as a result of such outbreak, with the exception of wool, other farming products fell to disastrously low prices whereas they have to face increased expenditure on production, marketing, etc. I contend that this will be assisting farmers in a sound way and they will be the means of them eventually making a success of their farming operations on its own merits. I therefore make no apology for once again referring to the serious conditions in which the citrus industry in the Union finds itself. This industry which, after gold and wool, is the next largest export industry in this country, is a national one and economically sound. Millions of pounds have been sunk in the industry and employment given to thousands of people. Amongst the main setbacks up to the present have been Brazilian depreciated currency. Californian dumping, the lack of more trade agreements, high freights, etc. Now, however, with the outbreak of the war this industry is faced with very serious other problems and unless very substantial and immediate relief is forthcoming ruin is staring most of the growers in the face. It, is therefore essential that in addition to whatever financial assistance may be given by the Government to citrus growers, that we should look further ahead with the prospect of big industrial pansion in the Union as visualised by the proposed Industrial Corporation Bill, it is desirable that the question of the utilisation of citrus by-products by way of establishing an industry in the Union to utilise citrus by-products should now be seriously and definitely considered by the Government. In certain other citrus growing countries this aspect has already received practical support. The forthcoming citrus season is viewed with much apprehension. It is hoped that satisfactory arrangements will be made enabling the shipping and marketing of the forthcoming citrus crop at remunerative prices. It is, however, clear to me that the possibility may arise that the whole exportable crop may not be shipped and thus it is highly desirable that plans should be prepared for the more economic utilisation of the unexportable crop both by measures to increase the local consumption of fresh fruit and juices as well as by the introduction of new by-products industries. The position of the citrus industry, however, must remain one of great difficulty so long as normal marketing conditions are not restored. I therefore urge on the Government that relief should be granted to growers, and furthermore that the Government should actively co-operate in arranging wider loan facilities to alleviate distress amongst the growers’ community, and preventing neglect of the groves which would inflict loss on the country’s economic fabric. I therefore urge that the Government Research Departments should investigate the development of a large scale citrus by-products industry. With the expected loss in shipping space and consequently less citrus exports this season, the unexportable surplus will remain for disposal. The economic utilisation of this surplus fruit thus becomes a major concern of such an industry. The already established industries for the production of juices, jams, etc., can only take up a very small portion of the unexportable surplus, and there is very little scope of further expansion along these lines to be expected. Although it is a well-known fact to scientists that citrus can also be utilised for the production of alcohol, there will no doubt be serious objection to this use, and it is therefore advisable to diversify the use of citrus byproducts. For instance, yeast could be obtained and also citric acid isolated. The production of yeast is of importance as it represents a source of vitamins especially valuable when food supplies and diets are below normal. The peel can be used as cattle feed. Amongst the minor possibilities are the manufacture of vinegar, low-grade cardboard, etc. In conclusion. I am convinced that if immediate practical effect will be given to these views the Government would not only reap benefits itself, but it would earn the deep gratitude of a large and ifluential section of our farming community.

I would like to say a few words in connection with the question of native farm labour. Senator Rheinalt Jones insulted my district the other day by saying in the Press that the Bethal district was one of the districts where natives, and especially hired natives, were treated the most severely in the Union. I want most strongly to deny that that is so. There were, as a matter of fact, a few bad cases some years ago which I can recollect, but that was in the past, and since that time I can give you the assurance that Bethal is treating its natives, especially its hired natives, well. We hire about 10,000 imported natives in the district of Bethal, and we pay them good wages and they are treated in a first-class way. The only motive which led the hon. Senator to libelling our district was the resolution of the Bethal Municipality refusing to allow him to address a meeting on the Sabbath in the Bethal location. I am very glad that that attitude was taken up by the municipality, because it is nothing less than a scandal for the Senator to want to desecrate the Sabbath. If he wants to come and address meetings in the location there are enough other days to do so. In the second place I am also glad that he remained away from there because he only comes to spread Communism among our natives. We cannot tolerate it, and I dare not allow this opportunity to pass without saying a word against it. This is the Senator’s revenge, and it is pure revenge, and I hope that he will take notice of what I have said here. The Minister of Native Affairs said that there was a shortage of native labour, not merely in the farming industry alone, but also so far as mining was concerned. I can only say that if there were to be a better distribution of labour it would go a very long way to solve the difficulty. If the Government allows imported native labour to be used in the mines, as well as for Government work, and it allows the natives and casual labourers to be restricted to work on farms, and it goes and turns our post offices into recruiting offices, and it opens native bureaus for us, in order to provide us with the natives who desert from Mozambique, Rhodesia and Bechuanaland, then the problem will be solved. To-day those deserting natives have to be arrested in the neighbouring territories at the expense of the state, and they have to be handed over to the different territories, which costs thousands of pounds. If the natives are distributed amongst the farmers there will be no diffiulty. There will be enough for the mines and for the farming industry. But the department will not agree to it, and if you do not try to get something you cannot expect anything either. I say again that there is a solution. It is only necessary for us to have a better distribution of the labour, then you will find that the Union, with its 6,500,000 natives, and about 50,000 natives from Nyasaland, Bechuanaland and Rhodesia, and the Union, and 110,000 Shangaans from Mozambique, will be provided with sufficient labour so far as the mines and farming are concerned. But if you go to places like Springs, Brakpan, Benoni, Boksburg and other places on the Rand, then you find at the post offices that the natives there wash with nice toilet soap supplied by the Government, and they sleep in the post offices. I can say that I know certain natives who have been loafing around there for three years. They do not look for work; they do not want to have a master. They get a pass for fourteen days to look for work, and then walk about from one village to the other, and then get a new pass. I went the length of offering a native of that kind £5 a month, but not even for that amount could I hire him. The Government must intervene and turn the post offices into recruiting offices, so that the natives will not have the opportunity of wandering about and being a nuisance to the town dwellers and of no use to the farmers. Then the Government went and withdrew the exemption which bona fide farmers enjoyed under the Road Transportation Board of carrying natives over the road, with the result that the concession which we had of recruiting natives along the Limpopo is now valueless. In the past we transported the natives at a cost of £3 10s. a head, including the fee that we had to pay. To-day the farmers are compelled to transport the natives by rail at an extra cost of 30s. a day, which now brings the amount up to £5 a head. The natives are glad when they reach the Transvaal. We in the Transvaal Highveld have on one side the coal-fields, and on the other the gold mines, and the farmers cannot pay the prices which the mines pay. The result is that the natives desert from the farms, and in consequence of the shortage of native labour at some mines, those mines are only too keen to take the natives at the expense of the farming population. I can give hon. members the assurance that the position of the farmers is very critical, mainly owing to two reasons. The first is the shortage of farm labour, and the second is the increased cost which is connected with the growing of mealies. The increased cost is chiefly caused by the increased price of fertiliser. When I speak of fertiliser I mean—what has already been mentioned by other hon. members—that superphosphates have gone up by 60 per cent. If we have recourse to other fertilisers which we use, such as sulphate of potassium to grow potatoes, muriate of potassium for the growing of mealies, bone-meal and ammonia, then we find the prices have risen tremendously and cannot be afforded. Superphosphates to-day cost £5 15s. to £6. while a year ago they cost £3 4s. I want to make the prophecy that next year we shall only get half a mealie harvest in the Union, and the reason will be that the farmers are unable to pay the high price for fertiliser. Consequently they will have to carry on without the fertiliser, and then they will not be able to expect 50 per cent. of the harvest. On the other hand the labour position is so difficult that the farmers will not have native labour to do their work. The Government can prepare itself for the news that next year there will not be a surplus of mealies. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture will be glad about that, because then he will not be left with the difficulty of a surplus which has to be exported. But the new harvest which is still unreaped will probably produce a surplus of 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 bags, and the drought about which I spoke the other day is still continuing. I therefore want again to propose to the Minister of Agriculture to allow an inland minimum price of 10s. a bag to be paid at the grain elevators, and that he will export the surplus which there will be, and that he will pay a subsidy on the exports. There is a war going on, and this is a good way of assisting England in the struggle she is having, because in that way she will be able to keep her glucose factories going. They have a great need for glucose. I want to put another alternative to the Minister. If he is not prepared to export the 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 bags, and to give a subsidy on them, I want to ask that the Government should retain the mealies for its own war purposes, because it will need them. A large number of colonial troops are going to be concerned in the struggle, and we know that the Defence Force from Mozambique consists of Shangaans, and in the states along the East Coast there are Askaris in the Defence Force. Those territories like Kenya, Tanganyika and Rhodesia have black troops, and will inevitably require mealie meal. Let the Government make use of the opportunity to buy the surplus for its own war purposes. The fear of weevil will also disappear, because science has now succeeded in eliminating it by treating it with ant oil. By increasing the size of the grain elevators the Government can store all the mealies which it needs for its war purposes. All the other belligerent countries have taken precautionary measures and are spending millions in order to see the war through. I want to ask the Minister what he has done to carry on the war, what provision he has made to feed the troops. Is he going to allow the small surplus which still has to be exported, and then to let the country run dry, so that we will not have enough foodstuffs? In the second place I want to point out that if this war continues, as we expect it will, that there will then be a shortage of petrol, and the Government will then only be too glad to have the mealies in order that spirit can be distilled out of them for its lorries, tanks and aeroplanes. We have a factory at Germiston which is distilling alcohol. The Government should consider whether it is not best to buy up the surplus and to use it for the distilling of spirit for war purposes, or otherwise keep the mealies for foodstuffs for the colonial troops—possibly the mealies could still be sold at a profit to the neighbours, because they will require a large amount. I, however, come back to the point that owing to the farmers not being in a position this year to buy fertiliser, for which they have to pay cash, that they will suffer great loss in consequence. Not only shall we have half a mealie harvest, but a great deal of damage will also be caused to the land, which cannot be kept in the physical state necessary without the help of fertiliser, which is required to maintain the productivity of the soil. The land is the only asset the farmers have, and it cannot be allowed to depreciate in value. The physical condition of the soil must be maintained, and the land cannot be exhausted into becoming a piece of derelict land which we will be passing on to our children. We have not yet heard from the Government and from the Minister what the policy will be. We notice from the budget that the Minister of Finance has assisted the mines very well, but what is he going to do for the farmers? References have been made by hon. members here to what the state of things is, how a large part of the country has been so stricken that mealies will have to be bought for that area, and the natives will once more have to be fed. I wonder whether the Minister will not consider my warning, that he should buy up the grain for his own purposes especially with a view to the war.

We have heard a good deal in the House about agricultural difficulties, and I think everyone will admit that the only way to solve them is to get a good price for agricultural produce. The war will, of course, to some extent have provided those prices for certain produce, but on the other hand I think that what is required in South Africa is a permanent solution, and we, the Government in our country and the hon. members, have long been struggling to find a permanent solution. The permanent solution is that we must have a larger consumption. We have adopted the policy by which the farming population is asked to go back to the countryside, but I hope that we will not lightly adopt such a policy, because if the farmers go back it will not be for one day, but they will remain there for centuries, and the greater we make our production the greater will the difficulties be. We must make the consumption greater, and the only way in which we can do that is to put the countryside into the position that when the farmers go to the market there will be buyers there. Therefore I think that factories on the countryside will assist more to solve the difficulties of the farmer than other things such as subsidies and assistance which is temporary help. Therefore I hope that the report of the commission which has gone into the possibility of rural factories, will come out shortly, and that the. Government will give its attention to it. That will give us a permanent solution, and it will give the farmers the opportunity of continuing with agriculture, although at the moment it is not a paying industry and we will also by means of the factories provide work for a considerable number of people. We heard that the Government was going to make an amount available for industrial development, and that shows that the Government is taking the matter up very seriously, and that a solution may be found in that way. But I listened with astonishment the other night when the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) said that the industries, especially the mining industry, belonged to aliens and not to Afrikaners, and the idea was held that the Afrikaners should deprive the aliens of those industries.

Hear, hear.

The hon. member says “hear, hear.” We now have an opportunity of developing industries, and will the hon. member who calls out “hear, hear” in that way take that opportunity and assist in developing new industries, or will he wait until others who come from abroad do so? If those people do it, will we then be so grudging as not to allow them to do it, or will we give them an opportunity of developing new industries? It is wrong to take up such a short-sighted attitude. We are a young country, and we must find capital, because we have not got any. In the first place, we have not got the necessary knowledge, and moreover we have not got the necessary capital. To introduce Socialism into our country to-day seems to me to be a wrong thing. If we say that we are going to adopt a socialistic system, then I am certain that we cannot get the extension of our indusries which we all want to see. I agree with the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) in his statement that our boys should find places in the industries, and I agree with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) that we must train people to take their proper place in our industries. That is the right and sound thing. But until such time as we can do it we must see to it that people who may establish industries are made welcome. I just want, as a Western Transvaaler, to congratulate the Minister of Finance in connection with the policy which he has laid down in regard to the mining taxation. I think that other hon. members, such as the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Jan Wilkens), will get up later on, but I am glad…

Shame.

When you are glad that a living is béing provided for our people, then it is said that it is a shame. The developing mines in the Western Transvaal are getting an opportunity by this new method of mining taxation, and anybody who knows anything about it will admit that. I think that hon. members over there ought rather to remain silent, because they will cause inconvenience to their own districts. The developments in the district of Klerksdorp, and possibly later on in the Free State, will create great opportunities, and this tax has made that possible. I want to contribute my share in congratulating the Minister on the alterations he has effected in the mining taxation. When on a previous occasion I spoke about the loyalty of the burghers and what their obligations were to the country, strong protests were made, especially by the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost). I have thought seriously about it, but if ever I was certain that I was right on a point, then it is in this matter. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) thought that in time of war it was not the duty of every citizen to be loyal to the policy of the country. I think that there is only one possibility in war time, and that is to ask a man: Are you for me or against me, and if you are not for me then you are against me. There is no other choice.

Who is the “me”?

I am referring either to you or to myself, whichever side is in power, is in command.

We are all in command.

Now there you have the thing. That is what hon. members have blamed us about all the time, that although they are in a minority in the country, they think that they are governing. That is where they make a mistake. It is all idle chatter, the majority sits on this side. I remember that when the deputyleader on that side was leader of the Opposition he only had 28 members behind him, and then he also behaved as if he were in power. In a few years’ time the country will show who has the confidence of the population. We will then count the votes together, and there will be a considerable number of members on the other side who will not be here. I think if we want to carry the point about the loyalty of the citizens to extremes, then I must ask the hon. member for Pretoria (District) how he will uphold his freedom, the freedom of a citizen of the country, if martial law is proclaimed? No, if you are opposed to the policy of the country, which has declared war, then you are unfaithful to the country. In the Transvaal in the republican days, we had during the last election for the state president, many charges made that things had gone wrong in connection with the voting, and we have the complaint again now that we are not sitting here by virtue of the votes of the people. At that time we also had cases of people who were opposed to the Government, but who nevertheless fought for their country. But hon. members on that side are still opposing the Government to-day, and we blame those hon. members over there very much. They are trying to belittle the people who want to join the defence force. It is said that we are playing at soldiers, that we are not serious, and yet on the other hand they blame us for them being in the war. Will they now tell us whether we are to send soldiers overseas to prove that we are really in the war?

No, we want peace.

I think in the case of many of the hon. members on the other side who want peace, a neutrality peace, that we must actually take care that the neutrality movement is not used as a sheltering place for the nervousness of hon. members on that side. We must see that the neutrality movement is not abused, by shielding behind it out of nervousness of the power of Germany. It is said by the other side that we must see that our children are not sent to fight overseas. I want to ask hon. members, if they say that our children must not go and fight, whose children are they talking about?

South Africa’s children.

I am really glad that the hon. member admits it. While they will not recognise that we are South Africans, they do at least recognise that our children are South Africans. I am very thankful that the hon. member admitted that. Then it has been said by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) that if one wants to see the world, then you must join the naval reserve.

Hear, hear.

We hear “hear, hears” from that side. Are there some of them who are prepared to do what the naval reserve are doing, seeing that they are exposing themselves every day to bombs and mines? Do not try to get the idea to take root amongst the people that those people have joined up to go and see the world. Why talk like that? If they are sons of South Africa, why then try to disparage them? A few days ago we were told here all about the speeches that were made by the hon. member for Gezina, right through the country, in which he tried to intimidate members of the defence force. I and many hon. members on this side can clearly see that what he was engaged on was to try to affect connecting points with the officers and men. He does not have them now, but he is trying to get them. I want to say that in the circumstances which we are now living in, if an officer of the defence force has a point of contact with the hon. member for Gezina, then we are entitled to regard that officer as a spy.

The hon. member is going too far. If there is any charge against another hon. member of Parliament, then he must introduce a motion.

I bow to your ruling. I did not make a charge. I said that if there were such a point of contact then we can lay a charge against the officer.

You only made an insinuation.

On a point of order, should not the hon. member withdraw what he said there?

The matter is disposed of. I warned the hon. member, and he can proceed.

Will you say it outside?

Yes, I will.

Very well.

The hon. member for Gezina did a lot of talking at the meetings in the country. It is clear to me that that bombast was the effect of a guilty conscience. We hear from him at every meeting that he will give a lead. Those of us who have already done some hunting know that there are saltish patches where the buck go and lick. That lead which the hon. member for Gezina is giving looks to me like the kind of lead which provides a licking place for the disloyal citizens of the country. The consequence of that is that a snare is being laid for loyal and true fathers and mothers in the country, and the result may further be that some of those people will fall into the snare. That is the fatal part of the speeches of the hon. member. I want to say this, that the storm troops about which he speaks so much, are merely the last gasp of a politician who has got into disfavour. I just want in addition to say this, that we on this side of the House are accused of having a hoi polloi (raap en skraap) government.

That is the first true thing, you have said.

There are people sitting in this House who took part in the Boer War, and they will remember that there was a time when the burghers who served along with the Prime Minister were so worn out, that it was said that the Prime Minister had a pick-up commando behind him. Well, this hoi polloi Government will have just as much success as the Prime Minister’s commando had.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) has been talking all round the subject in such a way that if we were to throw everything that he said in his speech into one receptacle, it would just about amount to nothing. He tried to defend the mines. One would have thought that all the people in the country were working in the mines. He is defending the mines for the sake of the few people who work there, but he forgets the rest of the people. He says that there will be an election in two or three years. When that hon. member thinks about an election, then he is one of the people whose legs tremble. If we were to give Potchefstroom the opportunity of having an election now, and the hon. member can give that opportunity to Potchefstroom, then we should not see him here again next year.

How many votes did you get in by? Two!

My position is much stronger than the position of the hon. member to-day. He said that we had insulted our boys who were serving with the British Navy. We did not say anything about those boys themselves. We said that these South African boys were commandeered for duty by the British Navy, and we have to pay. That is what we most object to.

We do not pay for it.

This war is nothing but a marionette show. Everybody can make war in that way. If hon. members opposite mean it seriously, then I say that the war will not be decided here, and if they axe honest then they must as quickly as possible try to send troops overseas to places where they are required. Do not come and boast here, but go over there where the fighting is taking place.

Where are they fighting?

On the Western front.

What about?

Now imagine the position, that a responsible Minister who is a member of the War Cabinet does not know why they are fighting in Europe.

Have they started fighting yet?

We heard on the 4th September last year that they were fighting, but we do not as yet see anything that has happened there, unless things are being kept secret so that we should not know what is going on there. What struck me was that hon. members opposite are so much concerned about defending this Budget. Why are they defending something that is good? Everyone praises the Budget, and subsequently defends it. I want to tell the Minister what the people in the country are saying about his Budget. In the first place they want to congratulate him on his new appointment, but in the second place I want to tell him that they regard the Budget as a rotten Budget, if I may use that word. It is a poor Budget. There is nothing in it for the public in the country, except for the mining magnates. We know that that is not the opinion of the Minister, and that is a thing which has been forced on him, and that he has introduced this Budget against his own wishes and views. But we are disappointed with one thing, and that is that the Minister cannot stick to his guns. He said at one time that if it was a question of principle, he would leave the Cabinet. This time he did not stick to his guns. Another hon. member opposite said that we must be careful about paying out, so that the cash box should not become empty. I fear that we cannot compare the mines to a cash box. We should compare them to a cow; the more you milk a cow the more milk she gives. If you stop milking then the cow dries up. Even if it is a cash box then I want to tell the hon. member this, that if he wants to distribute out of that cash box, as is being done in this Budget, then it is a very one-sided distribution. I can give him the assurance that the public in the country will not find any satisfaction in that kind of distribution. The question which the public would like to have answered is: What is being done for the working man and for the officials by way of additional pay in this time of a higher cost of living? Nowhere do we see anything about it in the Budget. Provision has been made for nobody other than for the mines. I have year after year pleaded for physically semi-fit people who get 5s. a day. I asked that 1s. 6d. a day more should be paid to those people so that they could pay their house rent, and I hoped that the Minister of Finance would make provision for it. Not a word has been said about it, but the mines have benefited by millions of pounds.

How have the mines been benefited?

You explained it yourself. The Minister told us that £3,000,000 was being given to the mines in respect of additional development costs. What is he giving to the farmers? I do not want to put up a plea here for the farmers. They have done it themselves in a competent manner. The hon. member for Bethal (Mr. C. J. van den Berg) has just done it and mentioned how the price of implements, fertiliser, etc., had risen, but that the wages of the labourers remained the same. I do not see how the Minister can tell me that this is a just and fair Budget with which these people who draw such a poor wage may be satisfied. On the other hand the Minister goes, and without turning a hair, he is prepared to spend £14,000,000 on the war. I admit that we are at war, and we can understand that money is required, but then the Minister must not merely give to one and forget the other. If we can spend £14,000,000 on the war then we can surely also spend £1,000,000 on our poor people. The Post Office makes £500,000 a year profit. Does the Minister of Finance also think of those people who get 8s. a day and who are capable men, and give them an increase of wages? Does he take up the attitude that these profits have been made, and therefore he is prepared to give additional pay? That money is added to the revenue of the country in order to make the surpluses still larger, and that surely ought not to be. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is not here to-night, but there is a matter that I want to bring to his notice. I want to ask him whether it is not possible, more particularly in view of the large profits which the Post Office is making, to have separate telephone call offices for natives and Europeans, especially in the Transvaal, and possibly throughout the whole of the country. There are some instances I know of where natives used the telephone boxes, and immediately afterwards Europeans had to go into the same box to use the telephone. I need not give the reasons why we should not allow natives and coloured people to use the same telephone boxes as the whites. The profits of the Post Office are large enough to be able to afford that small additional amount to provide that extra facility. Another matter that I want to bring to the notice of the Minister is that there are so many complaints by the fanners who have taken good wheat to the millers and then got bad flour back. I know of some cases where people received flour, and after a week the housewife was dissatisfied because the flour would not rise. They took it back to the miller, and then an argument took place, because the miller said that it was not the same flour. Even if they get different flour then it is always precisely the same thing. Is it not posible then for the Government to put up a laboratory and to have instructors to go to the millers and to see that a decent class of flour, or the class of flour that the wheat should produce, is given back to the people? Then I want to talk about something which does not affect me, but which refers to the mealie question. I hope that the Government will abolish that system of levies this year. I hope that, with all my heart.

Are you speaking on behalf of the farmers?

I am speaking on behalf of my constituents. It causes considerable trouble to my constituents, some of whom are poor people who are working at 5s. a day, and who cannot pay the increased cost. Why must we send our mealies abroad and allow our people in our own country to starve or to pay dearly for mealiemeal? As the Government is already paying a subsidy of 1s. 6d. on the export of mealies I cannot understand that the Government will not add a few shillings or a few pence so that the poor man in our country — where the Government will not in any case increase the wages—so that the poor wage earner may get his mealie porridge cheaper than he does to-day. I think that that is a reasonable request to the Government to see at least that things this year will be provided more cheaply to the people. Then there is something that I want to bring to the notice of the Minister of Lands. It has struck me that for the last five years the drilling machines have drilled no less than 2,827 boreholes, which were entirely without water, or did not produce more than 100 gallons of water per hour. It came to my notice that the Department of Mines kept special officials to “divine*’ water by means of instruments, and also at the same time to say what the nature of the rock underneath was, and I cannot understand why they are no longer used by those officials, because then a great amount of time and money will be saved which is spent at present on dry boreholes. I estimate that it amounts to nearly 3,000 holes which cost £100,000. How long did it not take the drills to bore those holes? If we can prevent it, or if we only eliminated 1,500 dry holes, then it would mean a saving of £50,000, and our drills would have been made more quickly available for other purposes. To-day it takes eighteen months, possibly two years, before you can get a drill. If more use is made by the Department of Irrigation of the officials of the Department of Mines, then I feel that great expense would be saved, and that it would be easier to get hold of drills. With reference to a question which I put to the Minister of Mines, it has come to my notice that there are 216 farmers who made application for the use of those officials to point out water, who had not yet been given the assistance. That is a large number of applications to be outstanding. I hope that the Minister will enquire whether the work cannot be expedited in that way.

I just want to begin by referring to a statement of the Minister of Native Affairs recently made in this House in connection with the question of native farm labour. The Minister frankly said, and we are grateful to him for his frankness, that there was definitely a shortage of labour in the country. Now I hope that the Minister, or the Minister of Agriculture, to whom also all our farmers have to look in this connection, will take part in the debate and will say what they are prepared to do in connection with the question of farm labour. The farmers cannot continue in the way things are at present, and we have to get help and assistance from the Government. I do not want to dwell on this point, but merely to urge the Government again to remember that the farmers expect bureaux to be established, and that the necessary labour will be recruited for the farming community. The farmers cannot do it themselves, but the Government must assist. Otherwise the Government must lay down that the old policy prior to 1917 will be reintroduced, that natives may only be recruited for the mines in certain territories, in other words, that all natives outside of those areas will be available for farm labour. I hope that we, as representatives of the farmers, will not allow the session to go by without getting a definite assurance by the Government that something will be done to meet us in connection with the farm labour question. Another matter that I want to bring to the notice of the Minister is rural housing. I spoke about that in the past. We had the bywoner system which was excellent. It is a monument to the Government which was in power; thousands of houses have been erected, spread all over the country, and it means thousands of families who are thankful that they are living in a decent little house which is small, possibly, but tidy and clean. I do not want, at the moment, to plead for the continuance of the same scheme, because I think that the scheme, to a certain extent—I may be wrong—is obsolete. As much as possible has been done in that direction. But I am speaking on behalf of a rural housing scheme, for a class of landowners who are not able to build a house for themselves. Thousands of pounds of public money is being spent in urban areas to solve the housing question. We admit that it is necessary, and although we have more poverty on the countryside to-day than in the towns, I hope that the Government will place money at our disposal. We do not want it for nothing, but on the same conditions as it is made available at in the towns. I am thinking of the type of farmer who possibly has a plot of land but cannot afford to put a decent house on it. Let money be made available on the same conditions as in the urban areas at a low rate of interest.

You have the platteland housing scheme.

The Minister is misunderstanding me. I am not speaking of the villages, but of the platteland, where there is a housing scheme only for the bywoner type.

No.

I know that provision has also been made for a small number of farm owners, but the condition was that they had to prove that they were dying of hunger before they could come in under the scheme. The fact is that the scheme, when it was extended to small landowners, was drawn up so strictly that it cannot be carried out in practice.

Many of my constituents got it.

I know it. I have possibly had more to do with it than the hon. member. When he entered the House, yesterday or the day before, I had already assisted in getting thousands of these houses built. I am here bringing forward a matter of the very greatest importance, and I have a mandate from my constituents, not merely belonging to one party, to ask the Government to do something in connection with housing on the countryside. We hear day after day that the conditions on the countryside since 1928 no longer make normal progress possible, and in consequence of the oppressive conditions, housing has to be given up by the people, because they need every penny to fulfil their financial obligations. Proper housing cannot receive the necessary attention. I think that this is a reasonable proposal which I am making, and I hope we will get a satisfactory answer from the Minister. I would even like to put in a word for the people in Potchefstroom also to be included under the scheme. Seeing that the Minister of Agriculture is in his place to-night, I do not want to go into the mealie position again as I have already done twice or three times, but I want definitely to ask the Minister whether he is in the future going to continue the policy that was followed last year, namely, to assist the mealie farmers on the inland market so that they can get payable prices—in other words, is the Government which is now in office going to continue the alternative scheme which was put into effect for the benefit of the small producer? The question is of the greatest importance to all of us. On the other hand, I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture: He is probably aware of the fact that the belligerent farmers have got hold of as many mealies as the world produces. There are the Danube states where about 143,000,000 bags of mealies are produced. So far as I can find out the Allies have gone and bought up everything in order, e.g., to prevent Germany getting them. We know that the British Government went deliberately and bought mealies in the Argentine. We are caught in the trap, but mealies are being bought from the Argentine because the Argentine can sell to whom she pleases. This loyal Union just has to wait and see what will become of it. Is the Minister also to use a little of the increased price of gold in order to assist mealie farmers in the difficulties they are passing through? The prospects are extremely bad. I can give the Minister the assurance that the surplus this year is going to be so small that the Minister will be able to assure mealie farmers of a reasonable price, and we expect it of him and the people are expecting it of him. We consider that it is our right. We had a big harvest last year, and had to take a starvation price. We were forced to take a price like that, and so the farmers to-day are worse off after the large harvest, than before. Now I do not want to blame the Government for the position. I myself had to deal with this matter, and we know we have to handle a big harvest with astonishingly low export prices. But as that is the position, and as before the war broke out we always hoped to get an increased price for the last part of our harvest, although that hope also disappeared on the outbreak of the war, the Government should consider our case sympathetically. To-day there are still thousands of bags of last year’s mealies lying and rotting at the station, as the Minister of Agriculture prophesied would happen if we remained neutral. Now it happens, notwithstanding that we are at war, because if we remained neutral then possibly England would also have had to take notice of us and to have bought our mealies, as she now buys the mealies from the Danube countries and the Argentine, because otherwise they would probably be afraid that our mealies would get into the hands in some way or other, of Germany or Italy or other countries possibly. This is the first payment that we, as farmers, are paying for the participation in the war.

Do you believe what you are saying?

I am stating facts, and I can tell the Minister, in addition, that although England ordinarily buys our dried fruits, she has now bought them from Turkey in order to get a new ally.

Do you not know that England has taken more from us than she did last year?

I know that they have bought from Turkey. How much they took from us I cannot say, but hon. members at my side who know about the matter, tell me that the Minister is wrongly informed. When, however, I talk about mealies I am talking about facts that I know. The Government must do its very best to get the mealies away that are lving and rotting at the railway stations. If I may advise the Minister, then he should see whether he can get some neutral ships to fetch the mealies. He has already applied to the Italians for shipping facilities. The Minister knows just as well as I do that he can get some of the neutral ships, and that they have already taken away a large part of our mealies in neutral ships. But my hon. friends opposite cannot realise it. Their spectacles are too red to look at things on their merits. As the Minister of Agriculture is in his place, I want to make an appeal to him on behalf of officials who have done very good work, and I refer to the stock inspectors. Their allowances were reduced a few months ago by a few pounds.

When was that done?

I cannot precisely say in what month it was done, but it took place recently.

Then you know more than I do. I know nothing about it.

I want to say that if the allowances or pay of those men has been reduced, and they have in addition to pay higher living expenses which are pressing hard on them to-day, then they are being doubly taxed. But I am glad to learn that the Minister says that nothing has been deducted from their pay. How long has that been in force? Is it for the last twelve months?

In any case, since I have been Minister of Agriculture.

Well, I am very glad to hear it, because I received information that the allowances of those people had been reduced. If the Minister says that is not so then I am very glad for the sake of the individuals. I want to ask the Minister, seeing that considerable provision is being made here in the estimates for the increased cost of the mining industry, that he will also provide for the increased costs to the man who works at 5s. 6d. in comparison with the wage earner, in comparison to the public servants in our country. It is incontestible that those people have to pay much more for their requirements, and I hope that the Minister of Finance will see that a concession is made to those people. I think it is a right which they are justly entitled to claim.

You should advocate an increase in the price of produce.

The hon. member says that I should ask for an increase in the price of produce, but it would be unfair if I only pleaded for an increase in the price of produce. We have a large section of the population there which has to buy the produce, and if we do not see that their incomes are in proportion to the increased cost, then we are taking up an unreasonable attitude. As the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) was a right-minded man in the past, he must see that. Then I just want, in addition, to bring to the notice of the Minister of Finance that something shocked me very much recently. I think that it was due to the fact that we have a wrong Government in office to-day. What shocked me was that in England to-day non-Europeans can be promoted as officers to take command over European persons. I ask what the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) thinks of that.

I have no control over England.

The hon. member says that he does not know about it but there are many things that he does not know about, and that is why he is so happy. I have an extract here from the Daily Mirror, and there I notice a big report of Mr. Malcolm McDonald having had an interview with a certain Moodie, a native of Jamaica, and he assured him that his son who was training to be an officer, could become an officer. He says here—

Then he comes to the English, and he describes how he had an interview with the Prime Minister and Mr. McDonald. Mr. Moodie was accepted for training, and it is Moodie Junior, the son that he speaks about—

Now it is the young Mr. Moodie—

What are we facing? Is this the thing which is going on in England to-day because the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) is no longer in the Prime Minister’s seat? I want to say that if it is the policy of the British Government to take away any colour bar, and if it is the policy of the British Commonwealth of Nations, then I would like to see how happy hon. members opposite are about it.

Is that what Zeesen tells you?

No, the Minister without Portfolio can read it, it is not from Zeesen, it is the Daily Mirror, in England, which writes it, and surely that is the nearest thing to the Bible that you can give to the Minister. There is nothing hid in this, and South Africa wants to know more about the matter. We want to see what becomes of this Mr. Moodie. We want to see whether British young men will allow themselves to be ordered about by Mr. Moodie. I wonder whether our lads who disappear without trace, and when their mothers hear of them they are overseas, whether our sons will also come under the command of that Mr. Moodie.

At 10.55 p.m. (while Mr. Labuschagne was addressing the House), the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 13th March.