Unless notice of objection is given on or before Saturday, the 14th September, the Report will be considered as adopted.

I move—

Apart from everything else there is one thing which strikes one in connection with the whole war condition in which we are to-day, and that is the dislocation which has been created in the different spheres of our national life. The Minister of the Interior is not present, and I therefore want to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to one of these dislocations. As a result of the declaration of war, there has been a concentration of troops at various points in the country. Thousands of soldiers are brought together, and this would have led to a dislocation so far as the splitting up of constituencies is concerned. If those soldiers were registered in the various; areas where they are concentrated, it would mean that those constituencies would get a large number of voters and there would be a dislocation so far as the splitting up of constituencies is concerned. Last session we passed a Bill in which it was laid down that the soldiers would not be registered in the places where they were temporarily concentrated, but that they would be registered in those constituencies where they had originally been registered. This matter, however, has another aspect as well. The concentration of troops at Potchefstroom, Pretoria and other places has also led to a concentration of the wives of soldiers and officers at those places. If the Minister fails to take steps now to see to it that the law is interpreted in such a way that the women cannot be registered there either, it will lead to an even greater dislocation. The registration of those women at those places is apparently going on. The electoral officers are confirming the fact that they are being registered there. My information is to the effect that the registration officer had to interpret the Act in that way at the moment, but that the Minister is in a position to see to it that the Act is so applied that not only the soldiers will not be registered there, but that their wives who have gone there will not be registered there either. I want to ask the Minister to give his attention to this matter so that those women will not be registered at Potchefstroom or Pretoria, but that they will continue to be registered at the places where their actual homes are. In view of the possible dislocation of constituencies this is a serious matter. During the course of the debate members opposite, especially members like the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) have continually been talking about feelings that are alleged to have been stirred up by members on this side of the House, and they have told us among other things that we have been trampling on the feelings and the sentiments of the English-speaking people, and that they are being hurt by the things which we say. I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not here at the moment, because I wanted to mention an instance which occurred at Grobbelaarsdal as the result of the attitude adopted by members opposite. In the month of July there was a large procession of women and girls in Pretoria to go and beg of the Prime Minister, almost on their knees, to put an end to this war. I am not going to talk now about the way in which the Prime Minister treated those women, but I am only going to speak about what happened at Grobbelaarsdal as a result of his attitude when a further insult was flung at the heads of those women and young girls by a certain individual by the name of Gruskin. I leave it to the House to determine to which race he belongs. He used these insulting words about the women and young girls—

I wonder whether the hon. member for Kensington and the co-religionists of that individual realise how deeply these things cut into the hearts of the Afrikaners? We have this position, that those people come here to enjoy our hospitality; they come here to make a living and they dare use language of that kind about our women and girls. If we had dealt with that man in the way the Klu-Klux-Klan in America deals with people of that type, he would have got all he deserved. The Afrikaner, however, does not act in that way, but he expects the Government to take action against such people. I have in front of me a petition signed by 600 people in the Grobbelaarsdal area of the Middelburg district. I cannot hand in this petition to the House, but I am going to send it to the Minister of Justice and I hope he will comply with the request of the petitioners and take steps to prevent a stranger who has come here to enjoy our hospitality adopting that attitude towards Afrikaner mothers and girls. If the Government fails to take action in this case and if the necessary steps are not taken to prevent this kind of thing happening, we must not be surprised if the people take the law into their own hands to stop that sort of thing, and to settle with people of that kind. I further want to draw the Minister’s attention to the position which has been created in South Africa as a result of his internment policy. The Minister of Justice first of all handled these matters, but I understand that the internment policy has now been handed over to the Minister of the Interior, who does not happen to be present in the House at the moment. But all this is the result of the war policy of the Prime Minister, and I therefore address my remarks to him. Time and again we have lodged the strongest protest against innocent Union citizens, apart from German or Italian subjects, being taken by the scruff of their necks and dragged to the concentration camps. I want to draw attention to a few of those cases. I have some correspondence in front of me which emanates from a certain E. Prozesky, a Union citizen by birth. He was arrested as an ordinary criminal on the 24th May, 1940, and taken to the concentration camp, where he was kept for two months. He was then released unconditionally as there was not the slightest evidence of his having been guilty of any offence. There is not the least doubt from what I have been told that that man was interned as a result of false and perjurious statements, as the result of perjury having been committed by the people accusing him, based on nothing but business jealousy. He was a thorn in the flesh of his rivals in Zululand, and those rivals were directly and indirectly guilty of having made false charges against him, and of having committed perjury in order to get this man interned. The fact that he was unconditionally released without knowing why he had been interned is proof conclusive of the statement I am making that he was interned as the result of false charges and perjury. Now what is the position of those people who committed perjury against him? Has any of them been prosecuted? And this is not the only case of its kind. There are numerous instances of Union citizens having been interned and having been released again, but there has not been a single case in which, any of those people who have committed perjury have been brought before the court and punished. Is not this an invitation to members of the Truth Legion to go along to their heart’s desire and make false statements with impunity in order to get Union citizens interned, knowing that they are indemnified against prosecution and punishment? I am anxious that the Prime Minister should give us an answer to this question. He must tell us why none of those people have been prosecuted so far. Then I have another case too, namely, that of Dr. Bokelman. He was born in South Africa and his ancestors have been in this country for the past hundred years. He has been interned and is still in the internment camp. He has been in the internment camp for a year already. He is a man who was fairly active in the wool trade, and I say here again, with the greatest emphasis, that he was interned as the result of business jealousy.

Does he come from Durban?

It may be that he has been there too, because he is interested in the wool trade. My information, however, is that he came from East London where he was engaged in the wool trade. I am saying that he has been in the internment camp for a year, and I say there is not the slightest doubt that if an impartial enquiry is made it will be found that this man was dragged to the internment camp in order to get him out of the way, out of the business in which he was engaged. If the Minister wants to contend that what I am saying is not the truth, and that there is good reason to keep Dr. Bokelman in the camp, then I say on his behalf that he is prepared and willing to be brought before any court, and to be prosecuted if he has committed any act in contravention of any of the laws of the country. This is a free invitation which this person makes to the Government. These people want the complaints that are made against them brought out in public. I also have the case here of Dr. Kranz, who has now been in the concentration camp for a year. He is a medical man from Durban, and is a highly-qualified person. Up to this day he does not know why he has been put into the internment camp. Also on behalf of Dr. Kranz I invite the Government to bring his case before the courts and to publish the charge or the accusation against him. He does not want to hide behind the excuse that it is supposed to be against his interests to have the accusation made public. He does not want to take refuge behind that, and he is not afraid of appearing before a court. Let those charges see the light of day, and do not let innocent people sit in the concentration camps, so that their businesses are ruined. This man has a wife and children who are now unprovided for, and his practice is being ruined. Why? Because the Government has not got the courage to come forward with the charges or the accusations it has against him.

Is he a Union citizen?

Yes, these are a few outstanding cases I want to mention. There are numerous other cases which we could mention of people who are begging and praying the Government to bring them before the courts, but nothing is being done in that respect. It does not suit the Government to come forward with these charges. These people are being kept in prison without being heard or tried and without then-knowing what charges have been brought against them — and yet we hear so much talk about democracy and freedom. Yet we are being told that we are fighting for freedom and for the rights of democracy here in South Africa. Have we ever seen a greater violation of democratic principles than the attitude adopted by the present Government? Now I also wish to refer to the question of German internees. Some time ago a serious assault took place in the internment camp at Baviaanspoort. When the police took that camp by storm a large number of the German internees were injured. I know that the Minister of Justice and the Government have denied the statement made on behalf of and by the internees in regard to the treatment they are receiving there. I am not in a position to say who is right and who is wrong, but I wish to draw attention to this fact. We are at war with Germany. If the Government wants to intern German subjects, it is fully entitled to do so in accordance with the usages of war. The Government has done so like a Christian nation and it has done so in a civilised country. In other words, it is an absolute essential that when we arrest and intern enemy subjects those people are treated in a Christian, civilised and decent manner. That is the first essential, and I do not say that they have been treated in any different way. The second factor is that we are dealing here with two powerful nations, namely, Germany and Italy, and I do not think that even the Prime Minister, with all the confidence with which he wishes to imbue himself, will say that it is beyond all doubt who is going to win the war. There is a possibility, and a very strong possibility at that, that he will not win the war, and then all the more, irrespective of our duty as a Christian and civilised nation, it is our duty to see to it that the interned enemy subjects are treated fairly and justly, because we do not know what may be the after effects of this war if those nations should be victorious. Now I want to draw attention to the fact that among the German internees in this internment camp there are 62 old men, men of sixty years and more, a number of whom are suffering from different diseases. Some of them are suffering from heart disease. Those people are sickly and they were also involved in the battle when this hunt took place. I do not know whether what is said is entirely correct, but I have a copy of a report before me which has been handed in to the Spanish Consul on behalf of those people. Serious allegations are made in this report. I cannot read the whole thing here, but I want to quote certain things so as to ask the Minister of Justice whether he realises the seriousness of the matter, and I want to ask him not to rely entirely and solely on what his own officials have told him about the events there, but I want him to have an impartial investigation made. I want to read the following extracts from that report—

I do not know whether all this is correct or not because I was not there, but it is so serious that it is the Government’s duty not to rely solely on general statements made by its own officials but to have an impartial investigation made. I particularly want to read the statement made by Dr. Obholzer. He is well known in South Africa and he is a man of high standing. He was a professor at the University of Stellenbosch and I am therefore disposed to attach importance to his statement on this matter. This statement cannot just be pushed aside, it must be taken notice of, and this is what he says—

When a man like Dr. Obholzer makes such a statement it is high time for the Government to pay attention to it and to have a proper investigation made into those events, but the complaints are not only in regard to the German internees. I have in front of me a statement from the internment camp at Koffiefontein where a large number of Italians are interned to-day, people to whom we not only offered homes here but whom we also welcomed for the sake of our trade. I was not there, but I am making use of the statements which I have. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein), who comes from those areas, assures me that according to very reliable information which he obtained from the camp the statements contained in the report I am now going to read are in the main correct. I go on to read—

Is this at Koffiefontein?

This is a report on the conditions in July. I do not say that they are still the same to-day.

I say again that I cannot answer for the correctness of this statement, but as these allegations are made in all earnestness they should be investigated. If they are correct, then we are dealing here with a very serious condition of affairs. I say the time has come for a thorough enquiry into the manner in which South Africa is treating the enemy subjects who are interned. Ours is a civilised nation and it behoves us to treat the enemy subjects whom we intern in a civilised manner, and what is more, it behoves us in view of the two nations against whom we have declared war not to do anything which may expose South Africa to a very serious danger in the event of the reckless action of the Prime Minister in declaring war against those two powerful nations, not being crowned with success. Now there is another matter in connection with the war itself. We have had the allegation made time and again that we on this side are “hands-uppers,” that we are not prepared to defend our country, that we are a fifth column. All those allegations are made against us because we take up the attitude that this is not South Africa’s war but Great Britain’s war, and that we do not want to have anything to do with it. That is why we are entirely in favour of attending to our own defence, but we are not prepared to help Great Britain in this war of aggression. That explains our attitude. We are opposed to these Estimates and to the Bill because we do not wish to vote in favour of providing enormous sums of money which are not being used as we feel for South Africa’s war, but for a war of the British Empire. This is a war of aggression and not a war of defence. But now hon. members opposite come along and say, “But if the Germans and the Italians should push through and really threaten South Africa, what then? Will you fight then?” Our reply to that is first of all again that this is a war of aggression and not a defensive war. But in connection with that point I want to put the position in this way: if it should happen that Germany and Italy should penetrate into South Africa, if they should reach our military borders—and the Lord alone knows where those are—or if they should reach the Union’s real borders, then we can imagine under what conditions that will happen. It could only happen under the following conditions: If Germany and Italy are so strong and have so many troops in the North that they are able to defeat the British troops and can come to the borders of South Africa, only then will it happen, and the position will then be that by that time they will have got past the British Fleet and past the British forces, and they will have achieved mastery ….

You want to hide yourself behind that?

Not at all, but I just want the hon. member to see what a foolish step it was to start this war. If that were to happen then it would no longer be a matter of defence, but it would be a case of suicide, and I am not prepared to advise the Afrikaner nation to commit suicide for the sake of Great Britain. If the position which I have just depicted should arise then it is no longer a matter of the defence of the country but of committing suicide, and we on this side of the House are not prepared to allow the Afrikaner nation to commit suicide for the sake of Great Britain. But there is another aspect. Apart from the fact that it would be suicide there is the other aspect of the matter. The Prime Minister of England has declared that even if Germany should conquer and occupy Great Britain England would continue the war in the Dominions. If that boast— because it is nothing but a boast—is seriously intended, the second condition under which we may be called upon to fight here in South Africa would be that the English forces would have been driven out of England and that they would have taken shelter in South Africa.

Save South Africa.

Yes, but we are not prepared to save the English forces which may take refuge here at the expense of our country.

This is not the only Dominion.

It is to be hoped that the position will not become such that they will come to South Africa, but I hope they will rather take refuge in Canada, for instance, but I say that only in those two instances is an enemy likely to threaten our borders, namely, in the event of the British forces being defeated and in the event of the British forces clearing out of England and going to the Dominions. In that event our Prime Minister would no doubt expect us to continue the war and to commit suicide. We are not prepared to do that. If the Prime Minister thinks, and if the Government thinks, that in those circumstances they can commandeer the Afrikaners to take part, then I want to tell them that the Afrikaners are not going to allow themselves to be commandeered for a war of that kind. The Minister of Justice has already stated at a meeting at Bronkhorstspruit that if the enemy should reach the military borders of South Africa it would become necessary to commandeer if the enemy crossed our borders. I say that to commandeer the Afrikaner people in those circumstances and to ask them to take part in an effort to commit national suicide is something which we are not prepared to do.

I want to repeat here what I said on the occasion referred to. The question asked was: “If enemy forces should attack the Union and threatened to cross our borders would I be in favour of commandeering people here.” To that I said, “Yes.”

Does that apply to this war as well?

I said that to my mind it would even be the Government’s duty to do so. We are going to take every possible step to defend our independence and we are not going to divert from that. What I further said was that commandeering would then take place in terms of the Defence Act. I also added, however, that the very large majority of the people would not wait until they were commandeered but that they would join up voluntarily long before that time. There is another point which the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has raised, namely the case of Dr. Kranz. His case was gone into fully and it was referred to the appeal officer where it was rejected.

Why do you not try him before a court of justice?

Under the regulations dealing with the question of internments he has a right to appeal and his appeal has been rejected.

Is that a private or a public trial?

All those appeal cases are heard in private. That is done in the interests of public security. It must be clear to hon. members that there is a great deal of information of a subversive nature which gets into the Government’s possession and it would not be in the public interest or in the interest of the security of the state to disclose where that information has been obtained.

The Minister of Justice has informed us that he had said at a meeting that if we were attacked the Government should in his opinion commandeer the citizens to repulse the attacking forces. The question was thereupon put to him whether that would also apply to this war, to which the Minister replied in the affirmative. Now we want the Minister and the Government clearly to understand that this side of the House, and the Afrikaner people outside, adopt the attitude that they will defend South Africa strictly in accordance with the spirit of the South Africa Defence Act, but the spirit of the Act is not that South Africa must go and look for enemies for itself in the North and bring those enemies here, so that in the event of South Africa being attacked the citizens of the country will be commandeered to defend the country. In this war it is not a case of our being attacked, because the enemy who may now come and attack us has not attacked South Africa on his own initiative; at the most such an attack would be in the nature of a counter-attack because South Africa had in the first place attacked in the North, and our Government had thereby attracted the enemy to come here. The Minister should therefore not refer to the provisions of the Defence Act when he talks about commandeering.. This war has been undertaken by the Government not in the interest of South Africa, nor has it been started in order to defend South Africa, but it is a war of British domination and a war for the preservation of the British Empire, and South Africa, which glories in its freedom and independence, should do nothing to perpetuate England’s domination. The Minister should understand clearly that the Government has already embittered and humiliated the people, and if the Government wants to divide and prejudice the people still further all it has to do is to pursue the course which they are now following. I want to warn the Minister. If the Afrikaners are not enthusiatsically in favour of the war to-day, is it likely that in those circumstances they will take an enthusiastic part in days to come? Parliament has been called together for two reasons; first of all to vote money for this war which has assumed fresh dimensions, dimensions which were originally not contemplated. In the second place Parliament has been called together for the purpose of passing the war measure which this House disposed of yesterday. Under that legislation powers of such magnitude are given to the i Prime Minister and his Government that in future we shall no longer have government by Parliament in South Africa but government by proclamation. We now have a complete dictatorship in South Africa. As I have already said before the distinction between the dictatorship in our country and dictatorships in other countries is that the dictatorship in South Africa is conducted not in the interest of South Africa but in the interest of England, while in those other countries there are dictatorships which are carried on in the interest of those countries themselves, and for that reason we again want to warn the Government that the people of South Africa cannot be reconciled to a dictatorship in the interest of England. The Government would very much have liked to have gone further with its War Measures Bill and it would have liked to have done away with even the necessity of calling Parliament together. Under the Act as it is at present there may perhaps in future be a necessity for the Government to call Parliament together if it needs more money. I suspect in anticipation that Parliament will only be convened for the purpose of voting money to see the war through. Other business will not be dealt with because other business can be disposed of by means of proclamation. Parliament will only be called together to vote money for the war. We are now being asked to vote large additional amounts for the conduct of the war. Why? Because the Government is now pursuing a different policy in connection with the war. When on the 4th September, 1939, war was declared against Germany they came into power without consulting the people as the result of a Parliamentary coup d’état, and when they passed a resolution to declare war a promise was made that we would only take a passive part in the war. We were to break off diplomatic relations with Germany but we were not to go beyond that. The Government has now changed its policy. The Minister of Finance intimated at the time that South Africa would not take an active part in the war, and he stated that the money would only be used to keep a watchful eye over matters in South Africa; but what is the position to-day? Is the Government still fighting for South Africa? No, they are fighting for Abyssinia; they are engaged in sacrificing our country in order to put Haile Selassie on his throne again, and as a result we are now spending not £14,000,000 for our own defence, but £48,000,000 for a war of aggression. Who has to bear those extra burdens? We are engaged in a war now which is being waged in the interest of Imperialism and one would expect in those circumstances that the Government would at least see to it that the imperialistic and capitalistic sections were the first to be effected in regard to the increasing expenditure on the war. But what do we find? Have those people been affected? No, they get off so lightly that they hardly feel it, and the people who have to contribute to the extra expenditure are principally the middle classes and the less privileged classes of our community. While the people in whose interest the war is actually being waged get off scot free to a very large extent. It is the income taxpayers who have to pay. The rich people who pay super-tax get off best of all. It is the poor person who is hit by the increased postal rates, it is the housewife who has to pay more for her yeast—it is mostly the poor people. The capitalists are affected very slightly. Another section which has to contribute heavily towards the extra burdens of the war are the farmers, notwithstanding the contentions put forward by hon. members over there. The farmer is that section of the community who is most severely affected by these provisions of the Government in regard to the conduct of the war. The contributions from the farming population amount to millions of pounds. The wool farmers feel that if we had not been tied on to the Imperial wool scheme, if we had had a free market, and a Government which was sympathetically disposed towards the wool farmers, they would have benefited considerably and they would have got a better price for their wool. They feel they are now losing millions in direct contributions to this imperialistic warfare. And what about the fruit farmers? We have been told that if we do not take part in the war our products will lie and rot in the ports of this country. But what do the raisin farmers, the sultana farmers, the mealie and other farmers say? They are unable to sell their products and all this goes to prove that this war is definitely not in the interest of the farmers. Millions of pounds which are now being used for war purposes could otherwise have been used to help the people if they perchance had been unable to find a ready market for their products. The money could have been used in many ways in the interest of South Africa, whereas it is now being wasted in the interest of England.

What about the high ideals?

That shows the way that hon. member looks at the matter. It shows in what a lopsided way he regards things. He is unable to look at matters from the point of view of South Africa. So far as he is concerned England is in danger and that is why we have to fight. Would he be just as willing to fight for China against Japan? He is not looking at China through English spectacles. So far as China is concerned he looks through South African spectacles, and that is why he has kept out of that war. But when England is in trouble he no longer looks through South African spectacles but through English spectacles. It is perfectly clear that he is no longer an English-speaking Afrikaner but an Englishman. That is the reason why we have so many Englishmen here in South Africa who have never become English-speaking South Africans—simply because they are satellites of England’s and English agents in this country. That is the position of affairs with which we are faced here—they are unable to look at matters objectively. They stand subjectively towards England and objectively towards South Africa whereas the Afrikaner looks at matters the other way round. He stands subjectively towards South Africa and objectively towards England. I say that rhe people who are paying for this war are the middle classes and the poorer classes and not the rich class. But in spite of all this it is flung at our heads that if England should happen to lose this war we are in danger of the whole of our gold mining industry being ruined. So it is of the greatest importance to us that England should win so that the gold mining industry as such may be secure. If England loses, the gold mining industry goes under. That is the argument used by hon. members opposite, and their own arguments go to prove that this war is of the greatest importance to the gold mines. But when money has to be found for the conduct of the war then we find that out of all the additional expenditure which the Minister of Finance has to provide for, that out of this total amount of £32,000,000, which he is now asking for in addition to the other amount which he has already had, he is not even asking the gold mines to contribute £1,000,000.

The hon. member cannot go into that question any further at this stage. The taxation proposals cannot be discussed under this motion.

This money is being asked for for the continuation of the war, and I say that the money is not being asked for from those very people in whose interest the war is being waged.

What the hon. member is now discussing relates to the next motion on the Order Paper, and I cannot allow him to pursue the subject any further.

I shall not pursue it any further; I only say that we could have expected the Minister to have obtained more money from those sources which are able to bear the burdens, and which according to the arguments used by hon. members opposite have the greatest interest in the war. But let us take the money which for the sake of England’s war is being taken out of the pockets of the people of South Africa—I say that that money is being spent in a most extravagant and wasteful manner. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) gave us instances the other day of the wasteful manner in which the Government sets about things with this money. It would be interesting if a commission could be appointed to make an enquiry into the money which is being wasted by the Defence Administration. We who stand outside can see how the money is being wasted in every possible way. I have mentioned the purchase of remounts, and I have shewn how opportunities are created for speculators to make large profits. Why should this money be wasted in this way? Because although we are opposed to money being used for the continuation of this war we know only too well that the money which we are being asked for now has to be paid by us, and for that reason we ask that as the money is being taken out of the pockets of the people it shall not be wasted in the way it is being done to-day under the management of this Government. But we do not only find that this money is being wasted; we also find that the people are being fobbed off in regard to important and essential services which are needed by them in the course of the ordinary administration of the country. We have already found that the Government has brought about economies on several votes. Irrigation works have been practically stopped. Certain irrigation works were matters of necessity, but the Government put a stop to them because it did not suit the Government to spend that money in the interest of the people — they preferred to spend it for the sake of seeing this war through in the interest of England. Settlement to all intents and purposes is a matter of the past. The Minister of Lands has recently stated on more than one occasion that he would not put any further money on the Estimates for land settlement purposes. All the preparations made for land settlement have now to be stopped, and the land has to lie idle because, so he says, he will require that land for the returned soldiers and he has also promised that the people who are to get that land need not necessarily have had experience of farming. There will be no need for them to have been farmers in the past. What he has in view, therefore, is not only to settle on the land returned soldiers of this country, but apparently also some of his friends from overseas. We can see with our own eyes how the interests of South Africa are being prejudiced. The object of our land settlement policy in the past has always been to give a chance particularly to the poor man who has gone under, or to enable the sons of the man who has a small bit of ground, insufficient to enable them to make a living on it — the object has always been to give those people the opportunity of securing land of their own. But those people are now being told that there will be no openings for them. If they want to earn money, there are opportunities for them to go and fight in North Africa. Another economy which the Government has introduced and which is being felt particularly by the platteland is the economy on the combating of soil erosion. We tackled this problem of soil erosion as a national matter, and as an essential service which had to be carried out in the interest of South Africa, because we knew that an enormous amount of soil erosion was taking place and that every year millions of tons of fertile land were being washed away to the sea, with the result that our country was being impoverished. There are people who have made calculations to the effect that every year a couple of hundred farms were being washed away to the sea in this fashion, and that was the reason why a policy was embarked upon to put a stop to such erosion. But the Government is now doing something else, and it no longer concerns itself with the interests of South Africa, but it uses the money intended for those purposes now to wage England’s war. It has stopped that work, and it prefers to use the money for the war in which we are now engaged. I again want to ask the Minister what he intends doing for those poor people who used to be employed on the erosion works and who are now being put off. In my constituency there are a large number of them. In many cases they are semi-fit people, people who are not fit for other services which the Government offers them — they are not fit to go and fight for Haile Selassie. I have large numbers of letters here from people who are in actual want, who are starving, and I am anxious to know from the Government what it intends doing for those people. Some of those people are actually starving, they are not able to look after their wives and children. They were suddenly put off, and I feel that the country is entitled to know from the Government what it intends doing for them. So far nothing has been done. The only excuse which the Minister of Finance could produce in regard to this war is that we should be grateful for the war, because it is leading to the creation of new industries in South Africa; large developments are taking place in industrial spheres which are putting money into circulation and people are able to earn money which they would otherwise not have been able to do. That is what the Minister has stated. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) quite rightly asked the other day: “If that is such a satisfactory position, are we not fools then not to wage war continually?” We know, however, that the industrial development which is taking place to-day is principally due to the war, and that those industries will languish and will disappear when the war comes to an end. That will bring economic dislocation in South Africa in its wake, such as we have never had before. We should have followed the very opposite policy. We should have kept out of the war, and these millions of pounds which are now being spent for the sake of England’s war could then have been used in order to combat South Africa’s real enemy — poverty and unemployment. We would then have been able to have used that money for industrial development which has nothing to do with a temporary war, and which will have to be closed down again to-morrow when the war is over; but we would have been able to use the money to render permanent benefits to South Africa by establishing industries in which our people would have been able to find employment not only for to-day and to-morrow, but permanently. We had the opportunity of doing so. Let me mention a few of those industries. Take the manufacture of oil and petrol. If industries like that had been started a lot of our money would have been kept in the country, and in addition we would have established by means of an industry of that kind something which South Africa urgently needs, and which it often is unable to get, particularly in times of war. If we had taken steps to bring about such manufacture of oil and petrol we would have been able to achieve economic independence in this country to a very great extent; but in view of the fact that we now have to import those commodities and in view of the fact that in times of war the importation of those essential commodities may easily be stopped altogether, we are in this respect far from being economically independent. South Africa would in this way have been able to have benefited permanently. Furthermore, steps could have been taken for the establishment of our own motor industry. If we had taken some of the millions and tens of millions which we are now spending on the war we might have built up an industry here as the result of which our own people could have been assured of a livelihood. We had the opportunity of using our money for those purposes, but i nstead of doing so the Government goes ahead and wages war for the sake of England, and it contents itself with the establishment of temporary industries which are not going to be to the permanent interest of South Africa. We can see how South Africa is being prejudiced by this Government in every possible direction. There is another matter which I also want to bring to the Minister’s notice and I hope he will reply to us—I am referring to the position of the wheat farmer. Money is being asked here for the importation of wheat. The Minister of Agriculture knows that the wheat farmer to-day finds himself in a particularly precarious position, not merely by reason of the fact that the cost of living and the cost of production have gone up very considerably, but also by reason of the fact that the wheat farmer is being threatened with a failure of his crop. During the past few years the wheat farmers have been selling their wheat at prices which did not pay them. A deputation waited on the Minister some time ago and submitted the requirements of the wheat farmer to him. They made it clear to him that as a result of prevailing conditions the costs involved in the production of wheat had gone up considerably. They submitted a tabulated statement to him shewing the estimated increase in the cost of production. As a basis they took the basis worked out by an official of the Government, namely, Dr. Pretorius, who is a man who has made a deep and thorough study of agricultural matters and more particularly of the wheat industry. His calculations shewed that wheat could not be economically produced in South Africa below an amount of about £1 1s. 3d. per bag. In view of the fact that the price of recent years was round about the figure hon. members will see that the price basis hardly covered the expenses of the wheat farmers and now the wheat farmers quite rightly contend that the costs of production have gone up considerably based on Dr. Pretorius’s scheme. They state that the cost of labour required for the production of wheat has gone up by 6d. per bag; the cost of draft cattle has gone up by 4d. per bag; agricultural implements 1s. 9d. per bag; artificial manure (fertilisers) by 1s. 6d. per bag; seed 1d. per bag; bags and rope 4d. per bag; threshing costs 4d. and miscellaneous expenditure 6d. In addition to that there are the costs of transport, insurance, etc. They have calculated these figures very conservatively and the result is that the increased production costs amount to at least 6s. 3d. per bag compared with the cost before the war. Now they come and ask the Government to add at least that amount to the price which the farmers got last year. According to Dr. Pretorius the costs of production even last year were higher than, or equal to the price which the farmers got, and as the farmers this year have to look forward to a poor crop, the average price for their wheat will be considerably less than it was last year. For that reason they are asking the Minister to take these factors into account, and to save the wheat industry from sure ruin by adding the increase in the costs of production to the price of wheat. If he does not do so he can rest assured that he will not only cause the wheat farmers to be suspicious of the Government’s actions, but he will allow them to become economically ruined. The Government on the Estimates provides for money which has to be voted in connection with the importation of wheat. The price of wheat in other countries has gone up considerably. In Canada the wheat farmers are getting a price which is higher than they have had for years. If the Minister were to grant a comparative increase to our wheat farmers he would have to give them more, considerably more than what they are asking for now. In the past the millers were able to import wheat for about 12s. per bag landed here. If they import wheat to-day from the Argentine or Australia it costs them 23s. 4d. per bag including customs duties. If they import it from Canada it would cost them 27s. per bag. The Government is at the moment allowing the Wheat Control Board to import wheat from Canada and Australia, and in view of the fact that that wheat is being imported at a price which is higher than the price laid down for the millers, the money has to be voted in order to cover the difference in the price. That being the case it is clear to us that the price in other countries has gone up considerably, and as I have said it has gone up more relatively than the amount which our wheat farmers are asking for. For that reason I feel that we are fully entitled to ask the Government to meet the position of the wheat farmers in the way they are asking that it be met. If the Minister fails to do so he will be neglecting the interests of those people and they will be deeply disappointed. As the wheat farmers have made out a very strong case we want to express the hope that the Government will comply with their request. I have already pointed out that this increased demand for money in connection with the war is due to the change in the Government’s war policy. That change of policy has been undertaken without the will of the people and the wishes of the people being ascertained, and even without Parliament being consulted. The Government’s war policy has been changed by proclamation. The war has spread, has extended. Now that the Government has asked for greater powers we do not know what it intends doing in future. It may possibly make fresh enemies for South Africa. This Government will do anything, and we know that they are not doing so in the interest of South Africa, and that is why we want to put a stop to this war, and now that we have reached the end of the session we want to raise our voices in protest against the Government’s war policy. We again want to assure the Minister that he is waging this war against the wish and against the will of the people. Although he may originally have induced people by deception and by misrepresentations to approve of his war policy I now feel definitely convinced that if the Prime Minister were to give the people the opportunity of registering their vote on this war, the Prime Minister’s policy would be turned down.

The hon. member cannot go into that now.

And has the Government the right then to ask us to vote millions and millions for this war? We are now being asked to vote nearly £50,000,000 for this war. We do not know what the eventual price is going to be which the people of South Africa will have to pay. The danger, the peril in which we find ourselves to-day is great. If the war is lost, an indemnity burden of hundreds of millions and more may be placed on the Union. That is the danger which we are risking as the result of the Government’s policy, and for that reason we want to avail ourselves of this opportunity to lodge a strong protest and to assure the Government that the people whom the Government has misled and plunged into this war in so iniquitous a manner, will call it to account.

The hon. member who has just sat down tried to create the impression that we on this side of the House did not want peace. He wanted to create the impression that we always wanted to make war, and I just want to tell him that the only difference between them and ourselves is that we are prepared to stand up for ourselves when we are pushed into a war and that we are not going to retire when it is our duty to prove our manliness.

Who has driven us into the war?

If the hon. member does not know that yet after all the speeches that have been made here, then it will be no use my telling him. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) told us that he was not in favour of our committing national suicide by taking part in this war. I could have understood him if he had spoken about political suicide so far as he and his party is concerned. The position to-day is that members opposite, however much they might like to do so, cannot possibly take up any different attitude to what they are doing to-day. It would mean political suicide for them. It is terrible to realise that those hon. members have now got to the stage where they even say that they are not going to defend their own country if an enemy were to attack us here. The hon. member did say before that he was not prepared to defend South-West Africa, but now we even hear that they will not defend the Union even if the enemy crosses our borders. I have never heard a thing like that before, and I never imagined that the Opposition, however low it has sunk, would have said a thing like that. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) spoke about our products and he told us that many of our products were lying and rotting in our ports. What the hon. member cannot deny is that a great many more of our products would have been lying ana rotting in this country if we had remained neutral. The question is not whether a few of our products are left to lie and rot but how many of our products would otherwise have been left to lie and rot. The hon. member knows only too well what is being done for the farmers, but no matter what is being done hon. members opposite refuse to recognise it. The hon. member spoke here about what he calls the temporary industries which are being created, and he tells us that those industries will die when the war is over. Has the hon. member forgotten the establishment of the Industrial Corporation? No, the hon. member is indulging in deliberate misrepresentation, and that is not the way to set about things. If we want to criticise here we should none the less recognise the good that has been done, and if there are any points which we want to criticise by all means let us do so. He has been telling us about the money that is being wasted on defence. Why did not the hon. member also tell us about the money that has been wasted in connection with these soil erosion works? He knows only too well how much money has been wasted on erosion works in the Cape Province. That, however, he simply ignores, that he does not criticise. The hon. member knows that heavy expenditure has to be incurred in the meanwhile in connection with the war, and that while that money is being spent, new spheres of employment are being opened throughout the country, where all those people will be able to find employment. But now I want to come back to the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), and I should like to know from him what really is the opinion of members opposite about South-West Africa. The hon. member denied in the past that we had any responsibility towards South-West Africa. What are his intentions now in regard to this mandatory territory?

Does the League of Nations still exist?

The hon. member is now trying to get out of the responsibility, but we should like to know what hon. members opposite are prepared to do. They were afraid even to defend South-West Africa. We know what the attitude of the Opposition is; they say that we have wrongfully entered this war, and they believe that this Government does not enjoy the support of the public, but our friends opposite also know very well how many people there are who used to be well disposed towards them in the past, and who today are voluntarily joining the army. There are tremendous numbers of them; they know it and we know it, and we know that more and more of those people are joining up in spite of all the incitement indulged in by the leaders of the Opposition. I now come back to the question of this political suicide which I have been speaking about. It is very interesting to cast my mind back to what happened here a year ago in connection with the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman), whom I now see in his place. We know that shortly after Parliament had been prorogued that hon. member was one of the first to go to the country and to start the policy of calling us names— a policy which hon. members opposite have been indulging in more and more lately. He was the first to start it. But what happened a year ago? There are several members in this House who were present when a certain discussion took place with that hon. member. After the voting had taken place in this House, that hon. member—and I hope he is going to listen because I do not want to say anything which he does not know about— that hon. member said that he thanked the Lord that Gen. Smuts had secured a majority.

That is untrue.

He further said that he was grateful that Gen. Smuts had obtained a working majority.

On a point of explanation I want to say that what the hon. member is saying is a “public lie”.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Then I withdraw it and I say that it is a “public untruth”.

I can bring several hon. members who were present to prove it.

If the hon. member denies it, the hon. member for Potchefstroom must accept his denial.

I accept that the hon. member says he denies it, but I wonder whether my friends who were present will also accept it. My friends who were present discussed the matter with me later on again and they said that they were flabbergasted at the hon. member having made that remark, and that they expected him to deny it. They told me further and they told me the same thing again yesterday, that the hon. member on that occasion said that if Gen. Smuts had not obtained the majority it would have meant the greatest welter of blood South Africa has ever seen.

On a point of order is the hon. member allowed to proclaim public untruths here?

Here we have that same point again which was raised by the hon. member tor Waterberg, of an individual being afraid of political suicide, and that is why they adopt that attitude. Hon. members on this side of the House expected the hon. member to turn. But the facts remain; they are definite facts. We are again going to get the position that they will hide themselves behind the Afrikaners who maintain the honour of South Africa, and later on they will glory in the bravery of the Afrikaner, and they will praise his bravery. After our sons have achieved the reputation on the battlefields they will say: “These were my fellow-Afrikaners.” We found the same thing at Delville Wood. They thank the Lord in their hearts that there are Afrikaners who keep the name and the honour of South Africa high, and they hide themselves behind that. But now, while many of our soldiers are not yet on the battlefield they are held up to contumely and contempt by most of the members opposite.

That is not true.

I do not say that applies to all members on the other side of the House, but as a matter of fact I do not take much notice of the hon. member who has just interrupted. But when the young men are fighting in East Africa hon. members over there will lean on the glorius achievements of our soldiers. They want to take refuge behind those achievements but they are not prepared to make any sacrifices. I still do not believe that our people and our country will have any respect for people who act in that way. The soldiers know them. We saw that sort of thing from 1914 to 1918. Our Defence Force knows what to think of those people. The Afrikaans-speaking section of the population sitting on this side of the House — a very large proportion — will do its duty. We know that the freedom which we enjoy today has been achieved by us by sacrifices and not merely by making political speeches. That freedom has been achieved by the shedding of blood, and if we want to enjoy that freedom in days to come we shall again have to shed our blood, and the Afrikaner people, whom we represent here, are willing to make those sacrifices.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) had a lot to say about the duties which hon. members over there are performing. I do not want to devote too much time to that point. I only want to say that if all of them do their duty in the way he is doing it, then I say “God spare South Africa.” The hon. member again came along with the hoary-headed old story that our products would lie and rot if we did not take part in the war. But by implication he did admit that products were lying and rotting to-day, because he said that if we had not taken part in the war we could have expected a larger percentage of our products to be lying and rotting here. I just want to quote a few facts and I shall be pleased if the hon. member will reply to them on some future occasion. I want to ask him whether he really believes that Great Britain would have refused to buy South Africa’s products if we had remained neutral. If he believes that nonsense — and I shall show later that it is nonsense — then I want to ask him whether he went to war because he was afraid that Great Britan would have punished us if we had remained neutral. If that is so, he must have less confidence in Great Britain than we have. We have always adopted the attitude that Great Britain cannot be blamed in regard to this war so far as bringing South Africa into it is concerned. Great Britain has not dragged us into the war. It is the other side of this House which dragged us in; it is particularly the Afrikaans-speaking jingoes on the other side, who are more jingoistically disposed than people in England, who have dragged us in.

What is a jingo?

Have a good look at yourself then you will know. It has often been stated that South Africa had to take part in the war because from an economic point of view the existence of our agricultural industry depended upon it. There is not a word of truth in that. I emphatically declare that if we had remained neutral Great Britain would have taken the same quantity of products from us as she is doing to-day, not because Great Britain is so fond of South Africa, but because she requires those products for the purpose of carrying on the war. In order to support my arguments I want to point out that Great Britain two weeks ago bought the whole of Egypt’s cotton crop in spite of the fact that Egypt has remained neutral. If the hon. member’s argument is correct that Great Britain has refused to buy from neutral countries, why then did she buy Egypt’s cotton crop? Turkey was one of England’s Allies, but she has refused to take part in the war. None the less we find the unheard-of position that England prefers to buy Turkey’s raisins while our farmers in the Western Province are unable to sell their raisins. Does not that go to prove that Great Britain in the first place buys what she needs, and in the second place buys in the market where it pays her best to buy?

It does not prove that at all.

It proves that it is nonsense to say that we would not have been able to sell our products if we had remained neutral. The contention that we had to take part in the war in order to get rid of our products and to save our farmers from ruin is in conflict with the facts. It is continually being stated that as a result of our taking part in the war the position of our farmers has been improved. So far we have seen very little of that. So far we have seen no signs of the flourishing position of our agricultural population. On the contrary we find, generally speaking, that the economic position of the farmers is extremely precarious. We find that prices have remained more or less stable in regard to what the farmer gets for his products, whereas the cost of production, the cost of living, has gone up considerably. That applies particularly to the wheat industry. I feel I have every right to say that the wheat farmers have never yet been in as serious a position, so far as their future is concerned, as they are to-day. The wheat farmers are not getting prices for their products to enable them to make a living. Now let me prove this fact by giving a few details. Let us compare the price which the wheat farmer gets to-day with what he got during the last war, from 1914 to 1918. From 1914 to 1918 the average price of a bag of wheat was 31s. 6d. I shall give the prices. In 1914 23s. 6d.; that was 1s. more than last year; in 1915 the price was 29s. 11d.; in 1916 it went up to 32s. 2d., in 1917 to 35s. 8d., and in 1918 to 35s. On an average they, therefore, got 31s. 6d. for those five seasons, which fell in the war period. Let us compare that with the price of a little more than 22s. which they are getting to-day. In addition to that we have to bear in mind the fact that since the outbreak of war the costs of production have gone up considerably. The co-operative societies of the Western Province recently had a very careful enquiry made and they have produced certain figures from which it appears that the cost of production of wheat since the outbreak of war has gone up by 6s. 5d. per bag. I have the details here. Labour has gone up by 6d. per bag; milling, 1s.; these figures apply to the Western Province; tractors, 3d.; implements in general, 1s. 9d.; fertilisers, 1s. 6d.; seed, 1d.; bags and rope, 4d.; threshing expenses, 2d.; housing, etc., 4d.; miscellaneous, 6d. Those figures together give a total of 6s. 5d., representing the increase in the cost of production. The people who made this investigation are responsible people and they have submitted those figures to the Minister. This goes to show that the wheat farmers have not been getting a living price for their wheat.

What is the increase in the Transvaal?

Those figures are not available. The figures which I have just given relate to the Western Province and to the Eastern Province, and also to parts of the Free State; they are still enquiring into the increase in the cost of production in the Transvaal. In any case the position is that there has been a considerable increase in the cost of production, although none the less the price of the product is very low. An investigation has been made by Dr. Pretorius, a professor in economics at the University at Stellenbosch, and he has come to the conclusion that the cost of production per bag for the years 1929, 1930 and 1941 must be put at £1 1s. 3d. Now, let me emphasise that the person who made this investigation has no interest at all in the wheat industry — he is not concerned with it. He has gone carefully into all the various aspects of the question and he calculates the cost of production for those years at £1 1s. 3d. If we, therefore, put the increase in the cost of production since the beginning of the war at 6s. 5d., we find that the farmers in the Western Province are not able to produce wheat at a price below £1 7s. 6d. per bag. At that price they do not even make any profit. We know that the Wheat Control Board will shortly meet again to consider the question of fixing the price of wheat for this season. I should be pleased if that board would take all these factors into account, because if some concessions are not made to the wheat farmers I am afraid that they will be facing ruin. Naturally the argument will again be raised that if the price of wheat were fixed at say £1 10s. 0d. per bag, which would give a profit of 2s. 6d. per bag, the price of bread would go up in consequence. But that does not necessarily follow. Even if the price of wheat were fixed at £1 10s. 0d. it does not necessarily mean that an increase in the price of bread must follow. We have found in the past that the price of wheat has sometimes been more than £1 10s. 0d. per bag, although the price of bread was cheaper than it was a year before. In 1915, for instance, the price of wheat was 29s. 11d. per bag average, and the price of bread was 3.20d. as compared with the price of 3.52d. last year. In 1916 the price of wheat went up to 33s. per bag and the price of bread then was 3.25d. — still a good deal cheaper than last year. In view of all these facts we are entitled to say that the price of wheat can be raised to £1 10s. 0d. without the price of bread necessarily going up. In view of the great increase in the cost of production I feel that the wheat farmers are entitled to claim a higher price. I hope the Minister will, when proposals are submitted to him, consider them most sympathetically, because he must realise that the future of the wheat farmers is at stake. Now I should also like to say a few words about the position of tobacco.

How does that come in under this particular Bill?

A new tax is being levied on tobacco as a result of which the consumption of tobacco will drop.

The hon. member will be able to discuss that point on the next Order.

Very well, I shall do so. I should just like to make a serious appeal to the Minister of Agriculture to ask him to place at our disposal as soon as possible the report of the enquiry in regard to the great difference between the price of wheat, the price of flour and the price of bread.

Do not those figures of Dr. Pretorius refer to the Transvaal?

That I am unable to say. An investigation is being made into the rise in the cost of production, also in the Transvaal. The Minister may, exactly as his predecessor did, differ from me, but I am convinced that the cost of production in the Transvaal are higher than they are in the Western Province.

No, that cannot be so.

I do not know whether I am allowed to discuss that matter here but one of the reasons which I have always put forward for making this statement is that wheat in the Transvaal is produced almost exclusively on irrigable land, while such is not the position in the Western Province. The Minister is aware of the fact that irrigable land in the Transvaal is very much higher in price per morgen than the average price of wheat land in the Western Province. It varies between £30 and £50 per morgen.

Not wheat land.

Definitely. I am speaking from personal experience in my own constituency.

Wheat should not be produced on that land.

I am not discussing the desirability of it being done at this stage, but the point is that under existing conditions the cost of production is very high, owing to the fact that in the Transvaal we produce wheat almost exclusively under irrigation. And irrigable land is very much more expensive than land which depends on the rainfall. The labour costs are also higher owing to the fact that that land has to be irrigated four or five times which, of course, does not have to be done in the Western Province.

Yes, but labour is cheaper in the Transvaal.

I do not want to argue with the Minister now, but I shall be pleased if he will supply me with the information and with the details to prove that the costs of production in the Transvaal are lower. The wheat farmers in the Transvaal contend that the costs of production there are just as high, and it will be in the interest of the Minister if he can show by means of figures that the costs of production in the Transvaal are not as high as they are in the Western Province. I have given those figures, however, to show that the price of bread need not necessarily go up as the result of an increase in the price of wheat. The Minister of Commerce and Industries cast doubt on my statement last year when I made the same statement, and he contended that if the price of wheat goes up it is almost a certainty that the price of bread will also go up. I naturally understand that the Minister as the representative of all sections of the population has to see to it that the consumers are not exploited, but the figures I have given show that the price of wheat can be raised without the price of bread necessarily going up too. I say again that I shall be pleased to see the results of this investigation which is at the moment being made.

We have repeatedly heard in this House, and outside of this House, and this morning again, that this is not our war.

Do you say that it is?

The position is that in spite of everything hon. members may say this House passed a resolution twelve months ago that South Africa would take her part in the war, and South Africa to-day is in the war. Our fate will be decided in Europe, and we have decided to do all we possibly can to bring this war to a successful conclusion. The sooner hon. members opposite realise it, the better it will be for all of us. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) said that it would have been better for the farmers if South Africa had kept out of the war. He ridiculed the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture that our products would have rotted on our shores if we had kept out of the war. Who would have taken our products away if we had remained out? Recently it has been decided that Japanese ships are not to come here to take our products. There is no other nation besides Britain which can take or would have taken them. Hon. members know perfectly well that we, and the farmers particularly, would have been in desperate straits financially.

The man who wrote that out for you made a mistake.

I was very glad to hear that the hon. member for Oudtshoorn was so keen on local industries, but we certainly did not see that keenness from his side of the House when the Industrial Development Bill was before the House last session. They opposed that at every turn.

You failed completely to understand our arguments.

That is what you say. It shows how little those hon. members know about industries. The hon. member argued that we should make motor cars in South Africa. Does he realise what that would mean? We would have to have the raw material, the iron and steel and other things, and the manufacture of a car costing us £350 now would cost at least £1,200. The Government is doing everything it can to encourage the assembly of motor cars and the fabrication of certain parts of a car in this country and that is all we can do.

Do you know anything about it?

The hon. member may know something about wool and he should stick to wool.

You should stick to medicine.

We have to take into consideration our consumption in this country and the consumption of motor cars in this country is not equal to that of a decent sized town in America. That being so, the production costs would be out of all proportion to the price of the imported article.

Yes, we have heard about that. We had the same arguments here when we wanted to put up an iron and steel industry.

Still, that industry had to come to the Government for protection afterwards.

Again you are wrong.

The hon. member for Oudtshoorn and other hon. members want petrol to be made here. From what? From maize and products of that kind? Hon. members do not know anything about that either. No deposits of oil and petroleum that can be worked as an economic proposition have been discovered in South Africa. If oil deposits of any extent are discovered in South Africa then the money will be forthcoming to put up the necessary plant—we shall require the proper distillation and refining plants. The only way we could get oil and petrol here in South Africa would be by the hydrogenation process and that is very costly. It would cost about £4,000.000 for a hydrogeneration plant, and our consumption of petrol in this country is not sufficient to warrant that expenditure. Then the hon. member for Oudtshoorn dealt with another subject. He asked how much we shall have to pay next year for our participation in the war, and how much is it going to cost us afterwards? He moans the terrific price which we shall have to pay. That is the sort of talk we get from an hon. member on that side of the House which always talks so much about freedom. Surely no price is too high to pay for the freedom which we are fighting for. Hon. members over there can talk about freedom—they are not prepared to fight for it. They are always talking about “ons vryheid”, at the same time shouting “vrede”. The people in England say, “No price is too high to pay for our freedom.” They are prepared to give their lives and everything they possess for it even to the last penny, and I am surprised that hon. members opposite are even considering the price. Let me say that the more they co-operate with us in this fight, the better it will be for them, for the future of this country and for the future peace of the world.

The hon. member who has just sat down may perhaps know a lot about deciphering doctors’ prescriptions, but I doubt whether he knows a great deal about the matter which he has been speaking on Let me remind him of the days when his side of the House tooth and nail opposed the establishment of an iron and steel industry. I am pleased to find that he is a convert now, but in those days we had to listen to the same arguments as the hon. member has now been using. So far as the war is concerned, I want to say that I agree with the hon. member that a decision will be come to on the other side of the water, and that being so, I fail to understand the hon. member’s attitude about the war. How is it that he wants our little South Africa to be brought into all these troubles if the matter is to be settled overseas? He reminds me of the story of the mouse—which has already been related—which drank some wine in the pantry and when it came outside put out its chest and exclaimed, “Now, where is that cat?” That is the sort of big talk and boasting which we have from members opposite. We have a small white population of only 2,000,000 people and we are poorly equipped, but hon. members opposite have gone forth to make war against big nations with millions of people, and very modern armaments.

And you just want to hands-up!

No, I do not say that we should “hands-up”, but I do say that it is wrong to stake the salvation, the existence of a small nation, by unnecessarily setting about provoking big nations and by going to look for enemies who have done nothing to us, and then, when they come to our borders, to tell us that we must now go and defend our country. The public of this country has been asking every night during the last few months what it has got for the £130,000 which has been spent that day.

Because that is what our daily expenditure amounts to. I notice that the introduction of the Bill, I notice that the long title of the Bill, reads as follows: “That an amount of nearly £33,000,000 be asked for for the services of the Union.” I object to those words. Those words should have been for the services of the Empire. That would have been more correct. We would then have known what we are really voting for. We are now voting a huge amount “for the services of the Union” and we know perfectly well that the amount which we are voting, or at any rate the major portion of that amount, is going to be used for the service of the Empire, or at any rate in that direction. South Africa is to-day placing itself in the service of the Empire. The hon. member states that no price is too big for him for our freedom. Of course not, and that is why we have picked a quarrel with the policy adumbrated by his side of the House. They want to destroy South Africa’s freedom, and in addition to that they want to impose a tax of millions and millions of money on the public, which eventually will have to be paid. The hon. member should cast his mind back to the days of Versailles, to the treaties which are invariably made at the end of a war. At the end of a war the losing side has to pay, and at the end of this war there will be another Versailles, and he knows what Versailles was. The side which loses will have to pay, and this is not the only amount which we are contributing to the war; it is not only this £46,000,000, this possible £50,000,000. We do not know whether eventually we shall not have to vote an amount of £100,000,000. We have to bear in mind that the day of settlement is coming, and when that day comes the victor will demand his pound of flesh. It is then that South Africa will have to make its principal contribution, and who knows whether it may not have to give up its freedom because, being a small nation, it has interfered in the quarrels of great nations. I am sorry that in our times matters cannot be so arranged that the people who are responsible for the sufferings of a nation through poverty and pain cannot be made to pay for a war with which they have no concern. I am sorry that those people cannot be compelled themselves to pay for the war. I see before me members who are fairly well off, and I should like to see that they who have put up both hands for this country to take part in the war, and who afterwards voted in favour of double salaries for themselves and their friends in this war, should be given the chance of having to pay for this war. But I know what the position is going to be. It is the poor man in South Africa, it is the people of South Africa who again through their poverty, through their sufferings, will eventually have to bear the burdens on account of the money which those members opposite are to-day spending on the war in such wasteful fashion. I want to repeat — it is not only the amounts which are being voted here — at the end of the war we shall be made to pay and to bear our heaviest burden. South Africa is going to lose the war, and when the war has been lost we shall have to go and sit at the conference table to make peace, and then we shall have to pay millions of money. And some of those people will then have to be tried. There will be impeachments in South Africa. Now I want to remind the Minister of the Interior of two things. Last night he gave two warnings to this side of the House; he did so uninvited. The first thing I want to say to him is that people who are young, as he and I both are, should rather not give warnings to older people. It does not become us to do so, and it sounds very bad. In the second place I want to point out to him that when Clive had made large amounts of money in England and had scored great victories on behalf of England he had many friends. But when he returned to England and when an impeachment was brought against him, none of those friends stood by him. The Minister of the Interior can talk very nicely now; he is surrounded by friends and supporters, but where will all those friends be when the day of settlement arrives? We hear that in France there are impeachments today against those people who were responsible for the war. I have no doubt that the public will demand that the same thing shall be done in South Africa. But what do the people get back then? Those people may perhaps get into gaol, and then we shall have to feed them at the expense of the state, but they are now doing a thing in respect of which they will never be able to repay us what we are losing. The millions which the people now have to pay for the war, the millions which after the war it will have to pay as compensation, and all the misery which has to be endured — those things the public will never be able to recover. The tragedy of it all is that people are put in a position where they can do untold harm and cause untold sorrow to the public, but the public can never recover anything from them. The public may bring them before the courts and may make them pay, but the tragedy is that those people can never repay all the expense and all the misery which they have inflicted on the public. I do not want to go into that any further. I only want to say this: Do not allow the Minister to abuse the powers which he was granted yesterday. I am only referring to that in passing. Do not allow him to abuse those powers for the purnose of inflicting further humiliation on the people. Do not oppress us any further. You can oppress a nation only to a certain stage, only to a certain point, but you cannot to go beyond that. Do not go so far as to force us to fight with our naked fists against the big guns. I sincerely hope that the Minister will not abuse those powers. I want to tell the Minister that he has already gone so far, that he has already provoked the people to such an extent that they will never forgive and never forget.

The Minister of the Interior is now in charge of the internment camps. He has given us to understand that he is going to use his powers and that he is going to call people to account. I do not know therefore how many of us will be here again when Parliament meets next year; I cannot say what will happen if the Minister is given free reign. But I want to say a few words to him. He must devise some scheme in regard to the slaughter which took place at Baviaanspoort so as to make good in some way or other what has happened there. He listens in to Zeesen. I also do so. The only difference is that I do it openly and he perhaps does it in secret. The Minister has heard what is being said about him there; he has heard their warning that he will be called to account in connection with Baviaanspoort. My point is this, that the Minister must not think only of himself, but he must also remember the reputation and the good name of our people, and he must have an investigation made into the slaughter which has taken place at Baviaanspoort. There is a German internment camp, namely Dachau, which for some reason or another has obtained a bad name in the world. I am not sure whether Baviaanspoort has not gained for itself a similar name in the international world. If we go to the library we find there a large number of books, so-called historical novels, the theme of which is the alleged atrocities which have taken place in the German internment camps. Whether those books are true or not, I only want to say that I am surprised that the writers of those books do not come to South Africa to get material at Baviaanspoort for that kind of historical novel. What happened at Baviaanspoort is known in Germany and is known throughout the world. The scandals which took place there were such that they cry to the heavens, so much so that the international world has had to take notice of them. Anyone should be ashamed of what occurred there, and we in South Africa especially should be ashamed because we have always had a good reputation, and we should particularly be ashamed because we have been taught in the past what concentration camps mean. If there is one nation in the world which has learnt to know what concentration camps are, and which should have seen to it that such things did not occur in its midst, it was South Africa. But at the first opportunity this Government cast a blot on South Africa’s honourable name in the international world. And now I say to the Government that the very least they can do is to have an investigation made so that the world may know who the guilty parties are, so that the world may know that we punish those people for the offences they have committed. I do not say that the Minister will be able to save his own face by taking steps of that kind, but in any case he will be able to save the reputation of this nation, or at any rate restore it to a certain extent and cleanse it of what has happened. I ask him to have these things enquired into, and an enquiry of that kind must be a public one. We here in South Africa have always been suspicious of secret enquiries. Let there be a public enquiry, and let that blot be removed from South Africa’s fair name. If those people are guilty of acts which they should not have committed they should be brought before the public courts and be punished. If that is done the Minister will have a slight chance. I am not talking of him personally, but he will have a slight chance of removing that blot from our name, so far as the reputation of South Africa is concerned. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) read certain statements here. They make one feel ashamed. Let us have a thorough investigation, a public investigation.

Do you realise what harm you are doing now?

It can do no harm if we have an investigation made into what has occurred, and that is all the Minister can do to save South Africa’s good name. Then there is another matter I wish to refer to. If we study the books in the library we find that one of the principal charges against the German internment camps is that people are interned without trial. The whole world has been called to testify that it is crying to heaven that people should be put into internment camps without knowing what they are accused of and without being tried. Here in South Africa we are now getting the same sort of thing. I accuse the Minister of Justice because he was primarily responsible, and I fail to understand why he has allowed himself to be deceived to such an extent that he has had people arrested and put into camps without being tried. If there was a possibility of state secrets being let out at such a trial, the Minister always had the right to have such evidence taken in camera. He knows it.

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

When business was suspended I was voicing objections to the attitude of the Government in placing people in internment camps without trial, and my argument was this, that objections were being made because the same thing was being done in Germany, and I was asking the Minister not to allow the same sort of thing to take place here in South Africa. The people who are being put into internment camps are being put there without a public trial. We are told that there is a private trial—that is so in Germany as well. I told the Minister that if there should be anything in the evidence which in the interest of the state should not be published, such a trial could take place in camera. Is it not possible for the Government to change its policy in this regard and not to do those very things which are disapproved of in Germany? People raise the strongest objections and declare that it is a violation of all democratic rights to put individuals into camps without trial. In Germany they are also tried in private but none the less that objection remains. It does not satisfy the population. It also violates the great principle of democracy because if a man is accused of having done something he is entitled to a public trial. I say that the Government should maintain that democratic principle in South Africa and lay it down that people who are accused are entitled to a public trial so that the world may know what the charge against him is. If the Government fails to do so it should never again point to Germany with indignation, because it is doing exactly the same thing here. We are so often being told that we must fight this war to an end for the sake of democracy and for the sake of democratic rights. I say that the Government is violating one of the first principles of democracy here and if it fails to comply with our request to give people a public trial it should never tell the world again that it stands for democratic rights. Not only is the Minister of the Interior locking up people without trial but other things are also taking place by which people are being deprived of their rights. Now I want to say a few words about the Public Service Commission. I am pleased that it is public property who the members of the Public Service Commission are, so that the public can know who the people are who dismiss officials without a trial. Probably this constitutes a breach of the Public Service Act, but it definitely is a contravention of the powers which have been given to the Public Service Commission. I want to mention one specific case to-day. I should also mention other cases, but I want to state this case of an official who, for a period of sixteen months, was in a permanent post from which he was dismissed without any reason being given. I shall give the man’s name to the Minister later on. To me, and to others who take note of the democratic principles which this country believes in, it is inexplicable that the Public Service Commission can so abuse its powers as to dismiss an individual without giving any reason for so doing.

Do you say that it has been done in contravention of the law?

The Minister can judge for himself whether it has been done in contravention of the law. I suspect it has. I want to put it this way, that the Public Service Act provides that an official may be tried when he is discharged for having done something wrong. I myself have acted on behalf of the Government in prosecutions in cases of that kind. In this particular instance the Public Service Commission did not have the particular man tried, and that is why I say that I suspect they acted in contravention of the law. In this particular instance they have committed a wrongful act.

What is this particular case — who is it?

I do not wish to repeat everything I said on a previous occasion. It took me ten minutes here to mention the details, and it goes to show how much notice the Minister of the Interior takes if he does not yet know what the particular case is.

You must give us the facts.

I am prepared to give the Minister the facts, but there is no need for me to repeat all the details. This case refers to a young barrister in the Department of Native Affairs who was dismissed. There are other instances where senior officers have acted in conflict with the law — I do not know on whose instructions. I am grateful that the names of these people are known, and I do not propose saying any more about them at this stage. I just want to say one word about the wheat question before I briefly mention another case to the Minister of the Interior. I notice that the Minister of Agriculture is not present; he knows that the wheat question is being discussed here, but he is more out of the House to-day than in the House. In company with other members I waited on the Minister of Agriculture the other day on a deputation of wheat farmers consisting of representatives of wheat co-operative societies. The wheat farmers explained to the Minister the difficult position in which they were, and I want to say at once that the Minister’s reply greatly disappointed me. After the wheat farmers had explained their position, and after they had told the Minister that unless the state came to their aid they were bound to go under, the Minister gave the reply which to me sounded more like an evasion. He said that he was glad to have listened to their representations and that he would take them into consideration. We have almost got to the stage and to the time when the price of wheat has to be fixed. One of these days the Minister will, on the advice of the Wheat Control Board, have to fix the price; yet when the wheat farmers come and plead their cause with the Minister all he says is that he will take their representation into consideration. What the Minister should have said was that he as Minister would see to it that not only the increase in the cost of living would be taken into account when prices were fixed; he should not only have said that last year’s scandal would not be repeated, but he should also have undertaken to take into account the increase in the price of implements and other commodities required by the wheat farmer. The time for the wheat farmer having to approach the Government on every possible occasion and then being sent away with all kinds of vague statements, has passed. I do not want to repeat the figures which the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) and the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) submitted to the House. I only want to say this, that he should see to it that last year’s scandal is not repeated. What I am saying here will be confirmed by every wheat farmer, and it is this, that if the state does not step in, a large proportion of our population will go under. The wheat farmers are going steadily down-hill, because they are getting less for their product than it costs them to produce. The hon. member for Brits rightly stated that the price of first grade wheat can be fixed at £1 10s. 0d. without the price of bread being affected. That is so, but assuming that the price of bread does go up, I still want to say that one cannot allow such an important section of the community like the wheat farmers, to go under. What is going to happen to the Western Province where so many millions of pounds have been invested in the wheat industry if such a catastrophe should happen? If the figures are correct, and I take it that the figures which have been submitted to the Minister by the wheat farmers are correct, then it costs about £1 8s. 0d. per bag to produce a bag of wheat. And if last year’s scandalous prices are going to be laid down again then my question is, what prospects have the wheat farmers got to look forward to? The wheat farmer is going down the hill. I know of people who a few years ago were well-to-do, but who are no longer well-to-do to-day. Their position is precarious on account of the fact that the price of wheat to-day is not a payable one. Every wheat farmer who knows what conditions are to-day will confirm what I am saying. Those people are getting less for their wheat than their production costs. I am sticking to the Western Province, because the figures for the Western Province are available. The wheat farmers cherished the hope when the Wheat Control Board was established that at last they would have people to look after their interests. They are deeply disappointed with the Wheat Control Board, and they are now feeling very uneasy about the future. They are uneasy because the Wheat Control Board left them in the lurch at the critical moment last year when the price of wheat had to be fixed. That does not mean that the wheat farmers are now expecting three or four pounds per bag for their wheat, which they used to get during the last war.

All they are asking for is their costs of production to be covered, together with a small profit, to enable them to look after their families, and to lead a decent life. Then they will be satisfied. They are only asking for £1 10s. per bag, and if their costs of production are £1 8s. 6d. it will mean that they have 1s. 6d. left to keep their families and themselves. It has already been pointed out that there is no need for the price of bread to go up if the price of wheat is fixed at £1 10s, 0d. We waste a lot of money here. People ask every day, “What have we got for the £130,000 which we have spent on the war to-day?” The public get nothing out of it. The money is wasted on the war but we allow the wheat farmers to go down more and more, year after year, and the time has now arrived for us to pay a little more attention to these people. I do not want to repeat what other members have already said, but there is one other point which I wish to raise, and that is the question of bringing children to South Africa. We must keep our hearts open for the children who are suffering, but none the less love for one’s own must come first. Schemes are now being devised to bring 20,000 children to South Africa. I do not know what kind of children these are; we do not know whether they are not nearer 21 years of age than one year of age. I am rather uneasy. What kind of children are they? Where do they come from? I hope the Minister will tell us and will give us some information as to which country they come from and to which race they belong. South Africa is interested to know what kind of children these are, if 20,000 of them are to be brought to this country. We always believe ourselves to be a very hospitable nation, but one of the Government papers has already stated that we require fresh blood, and that we are now going to get that fresh blood. I should like to know whether that is the idea at the back of this scheme. Is it correct that these children are being brought here to introduce fresh blood? I hope those people who are prepared to help those children will realise that if they have to go back afterwards they will have to take all responsibility.

The Minister has already said so; he said that those children would go back.

If that is so then the Government papers should not say the very opposite. We are hospitable, but we want to know what is going on, and we must be logical if we are so hospitable. Here we have the Minister of Lands. He announced some time ago that the sons of settlers could no longer be allowed to live with their parents. Is that hospitality? Our own flesh and blood, people who are old, are not allowed under this new Minister of Lands to stay with their children. They can be kicked out. What kind of hospitality is that? On the other hand we have children whose ages we not even know—we do not know whether they are 1 year old or 21 years old, and they are being imported and we do not know where they come from or what race they belong to. It would be as well if the people who are so anxious to adopt those children understood two things, namely, that if there are any costs connected with this scheme it will not be South Africa which eventually will have to pay for it, and secondly, that the expense connected with the sending back of the children will devolve on the people who take the children and that they will be responsible for payment of those costs. I accept the position, for the time being, that those children are to be sent back, but I should like to have a clear statement from the Minister. I understand that people who already have four children now want to take four more little Jews into their homes. The people who want to incur those expenses should be given to understand that they and nobody else will be responsible for the expense. We are incurring tremendous expenses here, enormous expenses, and I am grateful for very little in that respect. There is only one thing I am grateful for, and that is the inspiration which has been given to our people in days like the present. Perhaps a nation first of all has to pass through the shadows, first of all has to be trampled on, before it can hope to emerge victorious on the other side. If there is nothing else we can be grateful to the Government for, we can be grateful to it for one thing, and that is that our nation has been given inspiration and hope for the future. There is no doubt that a nation first of all has to pass through the shadows before it can hope to emerge victorious on the other side. The Prime Minister by practising oppression has given the people hope. On the horizon we see a new day dawning for South Africa. While we are passing through deep shadows just now we may come out cleansed on the other side and we may have learnt to appreciate and enjoy the things which we are hoping for. In that respect therefore I am grateful that the/Government has opened our eyes and that our people are looking forward to the greater things to be. When the day dawns, the day when in South Africa we shall no longer have this incitement of race against race in consequence of the things which are now binding us—when that day dawns we shall be happy. Then those things which are keeping the nation apart and which are setting up the one race against the other will have disappeared. I am grateful that that day has come closer. I can see the day coming when we shall no longer be British subjects in South Africa, because if there is one thing which has put up race against race, nation against nation, and Afrikaner against Afrikaner in South Africa, so that they have persecuted each other over the plains of South Africa, it is this British subjectship. The second thing I look forward to is the day when khaki uniforms will no longer be worn in South Africa.

The hon. member, I am afraid, has now diverted from discussing the Bill.

I only meant to have said this in passing and I should like to put it in a few brief sentences—I am glad that South Africa is approaching the day when we shall never again see khaki uniforms. I should like to have told the Minister of the way in which his troops behaved in Durban, but I am not allowed to do so on this occasion. It almost looks as though a khaki uniform in South Africa to-day constitutes a licence for hooliganism. The behaviour of the troops in Durban almost links up with the behaviour of the Australian troops in Cape Town. I am glad that the day is dawning when we shall have only one military uniform—not khaki. I am glad that the day is dawning when we shall no longer have the Union Jack to involve Us in difficulties. I conclude. I hope the day is close at hand when we shall achieve those things and also the day when we shall no longer be kicked and insulted if we refuse to stand up when “God Save the King” is sung.

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that, despite your stern ruling, the hon. member has had just sufficient opportunity to show clearly that his leader, the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan), was wrong yesterday, and that his leader was speaking for himself alone when he envisaged a future in South Africa in which English-speaking South Africans could combine with Afrikaans-speaking South Africans in his republic. I am glad we have had these few personal revelations, not, of course, relevant to the debate; but these few irrelevancies which slipped past your ruling, sir, are most significant.

I referred to co-operation between ….

I know what the hon. gentleman referred to. When we once again read the speech made by the hon. member for Piquetberg, in which he made an appeal to English-speaking South Africans to combine with him, that appeal must now be modified in the light of the very interesting revelations which have been made about the hopes and ambitions of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) and those for whom he speaks. But I want to deal with the important question of internment policy raised by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) and the hon. member for Moorreesburg. Before coming to this matter, however, I want to deal in passing with the serious and deliberate charges which the hon. member for Moorreesburg has just made against the Public Service Commission. He has stated that members of the public service, state servants, have been dismissed without a proper enquiry. That charge has been made deliberately, and when challenged by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, to give details, the hon. gentleman said he had not the details.

I said I had given the details.

Well, I hope my hon. friend will give those details. I can only say this, that when a charge of this sort, a grave charge, is made against an impartial body, such as the Public Service Commission, one would have thought that the hon. gentleman would have come here with chapter and verse in support, that he would have been in a position, in answer to an interjection, to supply details.

I have got chapter and verse. I gave it the other day.

I am sorry the hon. gentleman was not able to repeat it. I can only deplore the fact that serious charges are made, and that there is no attempt to support those allegations and those charges with evidence to back them up. I ask the hon. member whether these state servants, to whom he has referred, were dismissed in accordance with the law.

I am not a judge of that.

Either they were or were not. If they were dismissed in accordance with the law then he has no complaint.

Are you prepared to investigate these cases?

If the persons concerned were not dismissed in accordance with the law, they have their remedy. Unlike the friend whom the hon. members opposite are so keen on supporting, unlike Germany, we have free courts at the present time. We have our courts of law, and if a state servant is illegally dismissed he has his remedy in the free courts of this land. However, the hon. gentleman says he has evidence; let him bring it, and I will have it investigated. I can only deplore the fact that a responsible member of this House, or an irresponsible member for that matter, can get up and make a charge against persons who have no opportunity of defending themselves here, and without bringing evidence in support of it. Then the hon. gentleman has asked questions about evacuee children. He has, he said, read in the newspapers that South Africa is to receive 20,000 children from overseas, and he wants to know whether this is correct, the type of children that are coming, and from where, the cost, and he has rather suggested that we are embarking upon something which is inimical to the interests of South Africa. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that South Africa is willing to co-operate with other portions of the Commonwealth in a scheme to give refuge, temporary refuge, to children from Great Britain who are in danger or have been in danger of suffering from the ravages, the nerve-racking experience, of modern warfare and all that it means. South Africa is prepared to give a haven to such children for the period of the war. Combined with that scheme is one in terms of which orphan children, not merely from Great Britain but from Allied countries, Holland, Belgium, France and the Scandinavian countries, will be afforded an opportunity of being adopted by persons willing to take them in this country. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that this idea of receiving children from overseas arose spontaneously in South Africa, and the Government, long before this scheme had become Commonwealth-wide, received requests from persons in this country to have an opportunity of affording a haven of refuge to such children. At the outset the chief persons making that appeal to the Government were members of the Afrikaans-speaking community.

Nonsense.

The hon. member says nonsense, but he knows nothing about the matter, and the interjection shows it. After the rape of Holland by Nazi Germany hundreds of applications came to the Government from members of the Afrikaans community asking to adopt children from Holland. That rape of Holland shocked the Afrikaans people, and, despite the indifference shown by certain members of the community at the present time, South Africa is going to give a haven to these children from Holland, Great Britain and other places, these unfortunate, innocent children, who, through no fault of their own, have been placed within the range of the horrors of modern warfare, of the beastliness of Hitler’s methods of waging war. When those children come here South Africa will open its heart to them and they will get a warm welcome, despite the petty objections raised by some persons. I want to be perfectly fair to the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus). Certain objections were raised the other night by the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys), and I said his sentiments found no answering chord even amongst the ranks of the Opposition. The hon. member for Moorreesburg has certainly not gone as far as the member for Prieska. He has asked me some perfectly fair questions in regard to the arrangements about these children. There are two categories of child evacuees. Those who will be here temporarily from Great Britain will be brought to South Africa at the expense of the British Government, which will provide their passages and escorts on the voyage. When they arrive they will be the charge of the South African Government, but, sir, thanks to the spontaneous and natural, traditional generosity of the Afrikaner people….

What do you know about them?

The bulk of the cost in connection with these evacuees will be borne by private enterprise. Sums are being raised throughout the country, sums are coming in rapidly, the most generous offers have been made, not merely in the Cape Peninsula, but in other parts of the country; houses are being placed at our disposal as temporary hostels and private firms are giving food, equipment and other necessaries. The result will be that the state will not have to bear a very large proportion of the cost. So far as the adoption scheme is concerned it is not practicable at present for a very large number of children to come, but it is hoped that as facilities are improved we shall be able to get children from Holland and Scandinavian countries.

Is that permanent adoption?

That is for permanent adoption. Applications will be received from families in South Africa who wish to adopt children. It is entirely separate from what I have termed the temporary evacuees scheme in respect of children from Great Britain. The responsibility of bringing them out rests on Great Britain, and taking them back as well. And my colleague, the Minister of Social Welfare, has undertaken through his department to make the necessary arrangements in order to see that the interests of these children are safeguarded.

Will the Immigration Act be applied to these children?

So far as the evacuee children from Great Britain are concerned there is no difficulty because they are British subjects, and responsibility is undertaken for them by the South African Government, so no immigration difficulties arise. If we have orphans from Holland and Belgium and Scandinavia …

And Poland.

I have said to the hon. member that we are going to have orphans from allied countries.

Poland is an Ally.

And if orphans are adopted then the immigration regulations will have to be regulated.

Poor South Africa.

Now I want to deal with the serious charges made by the hon. member for Waterberg in regard to the Government’s internment policy. I took the opportunity a few nights ago to deal with the general internment policy of the Government, and I was then interrupted by the automatic adjournment; but I did have an opportunity of giving an outline to the House of the Government’s policy in regard to the internment of German nationals, Italian nationals and Union nationals. It is not necessary for me to go over that again to-day. I would say a word, however, to the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus), who has complained bitterly that persons are cast into our internment camps without public enquiry, and that this conduct was condemned in Nazi Germany—he said that we were not merely emulating Nazi Germany but going a great deal further. I would remind the hon. member that when writers wrote about the concentration camps in Germany they were writing about Germans, German nationals, in Germany, being put into concentration camps while the country was in a state of peace. And I would also remind him that despite the fact that we are at war, we have only interned approximately 180 Union nationals, of whom only 50 were born in South Africa, while the rest are naturalised persons who were formerly nationals of a country with which we are at present in a state of war.

And we give them beer too.

And I would remind the hon. member that where a Union national is interned he has the right of appeal. We have an elaborate appeal procedure. He can make not only written representations, but he can make verbal representations — he can be legally represented, and his representatives can make representations on his behalf.

It it a public enquiry?

I now come to the general charges made by the hon. member for Waterberg relating to the alleged conduct of internees in our camps. A number of charges of a startling nature were made. It was alleged that the conditions were analogous to those existing in the black hole of Calcutta—food, sanitary conditions, general amenities, all were appalling and a blot on the fair name of South Africa; and the hon. member for Moorreesburg appealed to the Government to remember the reputation of South Africa, to bear in mind that the conduct of South Africa was at stake in this matter. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Moorreesburg—the reputation of South Africa is at stake. We have to consider our status, our reputation in the international sphere. But, if hon. members on the opposite side of the House are so solicitous of the welfare and good name of South Africa, I would urge them before making these charges, these very severe and very startling charges against the administration of the internment camps in South Africa, to make some attempt to find out whether their charges are correct or not. They have made charges oblivious of the fact whether there is any truth in them or not. They have made allegations without any attempt having been made to obtain from the authorities information whether these charges have any truth in substance. These charges are made in the House to-day; these allegations, this advocacy of the cause of German internees, become known overseas, and I would remind hon. members that there may be Union nationals in Germany who may be under detention and if the idea is created in Germany that we are running some monstrous form of concentration camps here, I have no doubt that our Union nationals there will reap some form of retaliation.

You should have thought of this before.

It is obvious that that sort of thing should have been carefully enquired into before making charges.

You seem to forget that this information has already been sent to Germany.

I know, and the very fact that this has been sent to Germany gives me ground for asking hon. members opposite to be more responsible in their statements. This information which has gone to Germany was the result of a report which appeared in Die Transvaler of the 11th July. And in that report this appears; I have not the time to go into details, and so shall just give the extract [translation]—

The allegation made in this report which appeared in Die Transvaler is that 500 police arrived with loaded rifles and stormed the internees. This report was published without attempts having been made to check the facts. No approach was made to the Minister of Justice or to the Control Officer. The report was published as having come from an internee, from an anonymous source. The report goes on—

There you have this report that, first of all, 500 policemen arrived with loaded rifles and fixed bayonets, followed by another 400 in charge of a major — he came from Durban — a nice little racial twist to colour the report. The interesting part is this, that almost immediately afterwards from Zeesen we find a report was sent as to what had been happening in South Africa, and Zeesen’s broadcast said this—

Exactly the same as we find in the report of Die Transvaler—

Hon. members will see, exactly the same account as appeared in Die Transvaler. Now, here was a report on the 23rd July, which was almost entirely the same as that which appeared in Die Transvaler. The Zeesen report was ten days after Die Transvaler’s report — his master’s voice repeated the news which had been published. It is a typical example of irresponsibility at the present time.

Was Die Transvaler prosecuted?

I appeal to the hon. members opposite not to emulate this example. These things can do the name and the reputation of South Africa a great deal of harm. The truth of the matter is as I explained in reply to a question the other day. As a result of refractory conduct on the part of the internees — the refusal of the internees at Baviaanspoort to allow two men to be transferred — the police had to be called in.

I have a verbatim report of what happened that day, Sunday, 30th June, when the Director of Internment Camps asked the camp leader to hand over the men concerned. This report, which I have in my hand here, shows clearly that there was a complete refusal on the part of the internees to do so.

Why ask them?

Someone said: “Why ask them?” Exactly. If ever there was an attempt to palliate, to deal tolerantly with the internees, this document which I have in my hand shows it.

May we know who wrote that?

Yes, it was a verbatim report taken at the time by an officer accompanying the Director of Camps.

Who was the officer?

If hon. members opposite prefer to take the word of a number of anonymous German internees in preference to the word of a South African officer, they must do so. The officers were Lieut.-Col. Blankenberg, Maj. Lorentz and Capt. Pepler. They are welcome to take the word of the German internees if they wish to do so. I prefer to take the word of my own fellow-Afrikaners.

Why not have a public enquiry?

I have not the time at my disposal to read the whole of this document, but I shall see that the public have an opportunity of seeing this.

Will this man be put on trial? Will there be a public enquiry?

Did they steal the property of the internees?

Zeesen has done more to the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) than I thought possible.

Never mind about that. Did they steal the property of these people?

Your own courts say that they stole their property.

No, that is not so. The court has convicted one man but I shall come to the question of the stolen property later. This document shows that a number of attempts were made during one day to induce these internees to see reason. They refused to do so. It became necessary to send a contingent of police in. 250 police went to Baviaanspoort. 100 remained outside the camp and 150 went inside, 50 of whom were armed with batons, and 100 with rifles. Those with rifles never came into touch with the internees at all. The 50 with batons after they were molested were ordered to charge and they did charge. And let me say this, that the attitude of these internees was provocative throughout. Let me quote one or two statements from the report of the officer in charge. He said this—

These things were quite noticeable. As a result of events in Norway, Holland and France, and Hitler’s spectacular displays, the temper of the camp had changed. They thought Hitler would march into London on the 15th August. But Hitler has not only let hon. members opposite down, he has also let these internees down. During the whole of this affair their attitude was based on the fact that they thought Hitler had already achieved victory and that they were going to be released in a very short time. The result was arrogance, truculence, defiance of the authorities in time of war. No government worth its salt would stand for that. Well, sir, the Government did not stand for it. But these allegations of savagery are pure fiction. The hon. member for Moorreesburg said that we would not face a public enquiry. Let me just say this: quite recently the Red Cross in Geneva asked the South African Government whether it would allow a representative of theirs to enquire into the conditions in our internment camps. They are appointing similar delegates in Canada and Egypt. The South African Government readily acquiesced in that. A representative of the Red Cross has been recognised by the South African Government and he will be investigating all conditions and circumstances in our internment camps, and we have nothing to fear, nothing to hide, nothing to be ashamed of.

They will not investigate the actions of the police.

Now let me deal with the allegation that vast amounts of property valued at a fantastic amount were stolen. A large number of claims were certainly put in, claims alleging that articles valued at high amounts were stolen, and also alleging that large sums of money had been stolen. One police constable was found guilty of having stolen money and goods to an amount of £25 and he was immediately prosecuted and sentenced. The rest of the claims are from the very nature of the claims quite fantastic. Let me quote another report—

This report goes on to show that cameras were banned. Notices had been placed on the boards in the camps, sometime before, making it clear that no internee was allowed to have cameras, limiting the amount of beer and money in their possession at any time. No internee was allowed to have more than £5. Fantastic claims have been put in, such as £25 for a camera. It is clear that internees keeping cameras clandestinely and then claiming £25 for a camera which was taken custody of by the police, were putting forward claims which were out of all proportion. What effrontery! The police in the camp discovered a great many things. Among the articles found were binoculars, a large quantity of photographic material, 25 cameras and three wireless receivers. And these things were found in an internment camp where all these things are forbidden!

Is that why you had them beaten up?

And those people who were so carried away by the thought that Hitler was going to march in in three weeks time, had the effrontery to demand that the Government should compensate them at fabulous prices for these goods which were legally taken. The charges made by the hon. member this afternoon again shewed the House an extreme degree of irresponsibility. We take every precaution to see that our internees shall be properly looked after. At the start, and later as a result of the intervention of Italy into the war, we had to make hurried provision for the accommodation of internees, and admittedly when the camps were opened all the amenities such as one might have wished for might not have been available. But the suggestions which have been made here are entirely without foundation. Complaints are received from time to time and are investigated. I personally visited Andalusia and Koffiefontein recently, and I never heard the complaints which the hon. member for Waterberg made when I met the internees. At Andalusia the temper of the Germans from South-West Africa was certainly also in accordance with the idea that they would soon be released, but the complaints which the hon. member for Waterberg spoke about were not made to me. I appeal again to the hon. members opposite to remember the good name of South Africa and not for party political purposes to indulge in these reckless accusations, accusations made with a complete disregard of facts, without any attempt to check them. If there are mistakes, if there are faults, those mistakes and faults will be dealt with. The Government wants to show that although we are at war and are at enmity with these people, we want to treat them along humanitarian lines, in accordance with our international obligations. That will be done. Before I sit down I would like to make one further reference to the hon. member for Waterberg. The hon. member said this morning, “We are not prepared to defend South Africa, even within South Africa’s boundaries in this war”. He said that Afrikaners would not allow themselves to be commandeered for this war, even for service within South Africa. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn supported that statement of faith. Well, that statement of the hon. member for Waterberg recalled a debate to my mind which took place in this House in April, 1939, when there was a question of sending troops to South-West Africa. The hon. member for Waterberg then also intervened and took the line that he and those with him were not prepared to lift a finger for the defence of South-West Africa, and this is what the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) said on that occasion. “The hon. member for Waterberg said that he would not move a finger. The Leader of the Opposition will probably not do so either. Several hon. members opposite have already said to me that if the Germans take South-West Africa they will do nothing; they would rather go to gaol. Can one get anything stronger? Can one get better evidence of the Nazi tendencies among hon. members there”. That was in regard to South-West Africa. And what did the hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé) say? That hon. member was so incensed at this attack that he said—

And then the former Prime Minister said this—

Then it was a question of merely running away from South-West Africa —now they are prepared to run away from South Africa!

At 3.15 p.m., on the conclusion of the period of three hours allotted for the motion for the Second Reading of the Additional Appropriation Bill, the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with paragraph (2) of the resolution adopted by the House on the 2nd September, and the motion for the Second Reading of the Bill was put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—75:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Cadman. C. F. M.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet. H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll. A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—52:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus. F. C.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time; House to go into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee:

Clauses, the Schedule and the Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment; third reading on 13th September.

When this debate was adjourned on a previous occasion I was pointing out that during the past three years we had allowed an amount of not less than £7,000,000 to leave the country for the purchase of petrol. I have in my hand the statistics for commerce and shipping, and the actual amount was £7,068,000. Hon. members will agree with me that this is a huge amount, and on account of it being such a huge amount everyone will also agree with me that we in South Africa should do our utmost to try and manufacture petrol so that we may in days to come become independent so far as petrol is concerned. There are two small companies in our country, the one in the Transvaal and one in Natal, which are trying to manufacture petrol, and if there is one thing the Government should foster and encourage it is that industry. We therefore expect the Government at least to be sympathetic towards these companies. But now we find on the contrary that those companies have been languishing from the very day they started. The one company started with £ shares; it thereupon wrote down its shares to 5s., but in spite of that it is still unable to make its enterprise into a payable proposition. We often used to hear a member in whose constituency petrol is manufactured pleading with the Government for encouragement for that company. But now that that same member has become a Minister he does nothing to help those companies.

The hon. member should not make all kinds of insinuations.

I am not making any insinuations, but I expect an hon. member who has always stood up for certain interests, now that he has the opportunity of helping those interests, to do something for them. We find, however, that he sits still, and you will agree with me that one is entitled to wonder what has induced him to come to this new conviction.

The hon. member must not pursue that point.

But we are dealing here with a company which is affected by this tax.

But the hon. member is ascribing motives to the Minister.

No, I am not ascribing any motives.

The hon. member must now leave that matter and proceed with his remarks.

I am making an appeal to the Minister of Finance, and I want to ask him not to kill those companies which are at the moment doing good work, but I want to ask him to encourage and assist them, and that my reason for making that request is this: An amount of £7,000,000 is leaving our country and going to other countries, and to that extent South Africa is being made the poorer. I am not ascribing any motives, but it is a striking fact that of the £7,000,000 which are sent out of the country, £3,598,746 go to companies which are controlled from England. Now I feel that that is not right and not fair, and I say that this again is an amount which we have to pay for our British connection. I think I am entitled to refer to it, because I believe there are very few members in this House who know what tremendous sums of money go to England. Let me point out that last year we bought petrol to an amount of £2,651,380, and of that amount no less than £1,500,000 went to England. This money goes to English companies. If that is so everyone has to admit that South Africa has to do something to see to it that the petrol industry in this country is encouraged and assisted. But I want to come back to the gold-mining tax. In passing I just want to say this — I have a telegram here from the particular company in the Transvaal reading as follows—

I have just mentioned this, because it goes to show that I have been specially asked to raise this point. But, to revert to the goldmining taxation, I want to say that the taxation proposals of the Minister of Finance are very unfair and do not impose an even burden on the different sections of the population. The gold-mining industry is in a flourishing position, and we find that they do not contribute their rightful share. I have already pointed out that last year an amount of £20,000,000 was paid out in dividends. One finds that the dividends increase from year to year. If one looks at Hansard (Vol. 33 of 1939, column 458) one finds that the amount in 1938/’39 was £17,400,000. The next year it was £19,819,000, and now it has gone up to almost £21,000,000. In 1938/’39 the money paid out in dividends to people in countries outside the Union — to people living in other countries, mainly in England, was no less than £10,353,000, and in the Union £7,047,000. So that the amounts were divided on the basis of ten against seven. If we take that basis for this year in which the dividends amount to almost £21,000,000, we find that £12,000,000 will have to be paid out to people outside this country in dividends, and about £8,500,000 to people in South Africa. One feels that the person who draws his dividends in England is very much better off than the man who draws his dividends in South Africa, and I feel that that is not right and fair towards the person in South Africa who has invested his money in gold mines, and who now has to pay more than the man who lives in England, because under the Income Tax Act of 1925 (Act No. 40), I notice that in clause 33 special provision is made for people drawing dividends overseas. The Act says this—

I think I am entitled to urge the Minister that the man who lives in England or in another country and who draws dividends in South Africa — and the major portion of these dividends go overseas — should be taxed on those dividends. That man pays tax in England on the amount which he gets. Is it right that England should get the benefit and not South Africa, where the article is produced? Is it fair that that person should not pay anything to the state here? I think the Minister should take into consideration the question of levying a tax on the dividends which leave this country. If he treats that source of revenue on the same basis as the basis on which income tax is levied and if he imposes a tax of 5 per cent. it will mean that the Minister will get extra revenue amounting to nearly £750,000 from that source. The Minister taxes the poor man in South Africa. The poor man has to pay 50 per cent. more for his stamps on his letters. The income taxpayer is being taxed very much more heavily. Superficially it looks as if the income tax is raised by only 20 per cent., but that is not a correct representation of the position. If one takes into account the fact that the Minister has already suspended the 30 per cent. rebates, one gets the following position: the man who has to pay £100 on the normal basis over a number of years only pays £70 as a result of the rebate. To-day he has to pay £100 plus £20, so that in his case it makes a difference of £50. That is a huge increase, and it is out of all proportion to the tax which is being imposed on other groups of the community. I admit that the man who is able to pay income tax should pay it, but under these proposals the middleman is being taxed particularly heavily in comparison, for instance, with the mines, and it is for the middleman that I am pleading to-day. In passing I want to refer to this paper “Mining and Engineering Services”, in which it is stated that a record amount of £10,351,512 is available for distribution for the half-year, which brings the total to £19,819,000, an increase of no less than £2,711,700 in comparison with the figures for 1938. If the mines are able to pay out so much more in dividends, millions of pounds more, it appears clearly from that fact that it is an industry which can stand a heavier tax. It is a tremendous increase to the shareholders, and I think everyone will agree that it is not right and fair to the other taxpayers that the Minister has allowed the mines to get off so lightly. [Time limit.]

My objection to these proposals of the Minister are first of all in regard to their contents, the things which are contained in these proposals, but principally the things which are not contained in them. I am pleased the Minister of Commerce and Industries is also present, because I want to raise a few points which perhaps may also interest him. These taxation proposals affect certain things: my bread is being taxed more heavily as a result of the tax on yeast; on my letters I have to pay ½d. more; liquor, cigarettes, petrol, motor tyres, all are taxed more heavily, and naturally a higher tax is also imposed on the income of the individual. All these things are taxed more heavily and these taxation proposals are nothing but an attempt to get £5,000,000 from the public. There is nothing constructive in these proposals; all they do is to draw money from the public. Hon. members will remember that we in South Africa have since 1924 been pursuing a different policy, and we have done so successfully. Before 1924 customs duties were levied based purely on the needs of the Exchequer — they were imposed in order to make money. But since 1924 we have been following a different policy, and what has that policy been? We have been following a policy of building up our own industries by means of protective duties. Constructive work has been done, but what we are dealing with here is nothing but exploitation. That is my objection to these proposals, that there is nothing constructive in them. With your permission I should like to explain why I am against these proposals for the reasons which I have given. Nobody will deny that this war — because in the long run we are also dealing with a war measure here, and that is why I naturally come back to the war — nobody will deny that this war is first of all, like many other wars in the past, a war for business. We naturally talk about democracy — we believe in it, while others again believe in Fascism or Nazism, but the basis of everything is nothing but pure business. If one takes that into account, especially in the peculiar circumstances of this country, then the Minister of Finance should avail himself of the opportunity by means of the powers which he is able to obtain, to build up business and to expand industries. Several hon. members in previous debates have gloried — and I am pleased to hear this — in the extension of industries as a result of the war. During the dinner hour I visited the public gardens where I stood still for a moment at the statue which stands there in between the young vigorous green trees. With a little bit of optimism one might regard those green trees as a symbol of our young nation. I looked at the expressive face of the statue and I was glad that it was stated at the foot of the statue in expressed terms what it conveyed, because I am afraid that otherwise some of those warm super war patriots might have come to the conclusion that the statue was a glorification of the “Heil Hitler” greeting, with possibly fatal results to this work of art. In actual fact, however, this statue should be an inspiration to the Minister and his colleagues as also to the Minister of Commerce and Industries in regard to this matter now before us, and more particularly in regard to this matter, because that statue indicates the direction in which we should develop, especially so far as the expansion of our trade and industry is concerned. Instead of devoting all our energies and all our money solely to the conduct of the war, instead of using us here merely as a taxation machine to exploit the people, the Minister should have availed himself of the opportunity to expand our trade and industry with Southern Africa.

Do you not mean to the North?

I do not mean the khaki war manner, but the business manner. While the war is going on, while there are opportunities for better and greater markets for our products, especially in times like the present, in Southern Africa, the Minister should avail himself of those opportunities. If he works in that direction he will carry out the dream which is expressed by that statue in the Gardens. A dream also of greater men than he, in whose memory that statue has been erected, greater men like Kruger and others. Let me mention a few figures. Sometimes figures may be rather dry, but sometimes they are rather interesting. I am quoting from a document which has been published—there is nothing secret in it— to show what the position is in regard to our trade in the North. In 1939 our exports to the North were a little over £5,000,000. The countries are mentioned here to which our exports went: Kenya, British West Africa, Nyasaland, Tanganyika, Uganda, Southern Rhodesia, the Belgian Congo ….

How much to the Belgian Congo?

I am coming to that in a moment. Further to French West and Equatorial Africa, Portuguese East Africa, Angola, Northern Rhodesia and South-West Africa. If we leave out South-West Africa for a moment—and I think we can do so, because it already practically is one economic unit with South Africa—it means that our exports to the whole of Southern Africa, including Kenya,, the Congo and all these countries amount to less than £4,000,000. That is without gold—gold naturally is a separate export commodity of a separate nature. Consequently, of our total exports of £34,000,000 £4,000,000 went to Southern Africa. Would those figures not help the Minister to set the right course? Now I must say that there has been a little progress here and there. In comparison with 1938, so far as Kenya is concerned, for instance, the position has improved; as regards British West Africa too, but as regards Nyasaland there has been a falling off in our exports. Tanganyika has increased somewhat, and so has Uganda. Our exports to Southern Rhodesia were £2,374,000, a little more than £2,250,000 and an increase of £100,000 compared with 1938. My point is that while the war is on and we have these great opportunities at the moment we should avail ourselves of them. The Government has stood up like a bantam cock and has challenged the great powers, but in spite of everything we are failing to pick up a little grain which we are able to pick up. If I am wrong I hope the Minister will put me right, but I understand that the itinerant trades representative who has constantly been travelling up and down the west coast and who has undoubtedly done good work has been dismissed—has been taken away from there.

This is the best time, a time which will never come back to extend our trade relations and instead of doing so we go along and we remove the man who has been doing our work on the west coast. I admit that the man who we had at Nairobi and who probably also has done good work is still there, but instead of expanding our connections by legislation and administrative activity, and by real business activities, so that we might have become the real kernal of Southern Africa in trade matters, we sit still and do nothing. We concentrate all our energies on the destruction of our fellow-beings, instead of helping South Africa along. And now I come to our imports from those areas, and here the position is still more unfavourable. The total imports from those areas in 1939, including South-West Africa, amounted to £2,250,000. If we leave South-West out of our reckoning — £706,000 worth of goods having been imported from there — we get the unbelievably small amount of £1,500,000 for all the countries I have mentioned. Our total imports from that big country, “our hinterland,” is £1,500,000 and what is the Minister doing to increase those imports? Nothing at all. Can he expect us to expand our exports to those areas if our imports from those areas do not increase? One cannot continue selling things to a man if one does not buy anything from him. Those countries will get tired of us. I cannot but strongly disapprove of the lack of initiative and the lack of real patriotism displayed by the Government in this matter. Now I want to give an instance in which I was personally involved, and the Minister of Commerce and Industries knows about it. I know of a company which for more than ten years has been busy building up a new industry, and doing so successfully. This new industry which is already giving employment to a large number of people, and which is spending ten thousand pounds per month in wages, etc., relying on the professional policy of the Government, has tried to extend its trade relations with the North, with our hinterland. After great difficulties, and after having incurred great expenses—because it is a difficult and expensive enterprise to find a new export market for a new product— they have succeeded in getting a footing in Rhodesia; but on the very same day when the first orders were to have been exported a telegram was received from Rhodesia in which it was stated that a proclamation had been issued no longer to allow certain products to enter the country, and the product of that industry was also prohibited so far as its import from South Africa was concerned. On the same day a similar notice was published in Pretoria. Fortunately, and I am grateful to the Minister, the Minister assisted us and we were able to get a permit for a certain quantity at any rate. I am mentioning this, however, as an example, as a reprehensible example shewing that instead of our availing ourselves of this golden opportunity to give our industries a stimulus, instead of our strengthening our connections and our markets and building up the country, and establishing permanent markets not dependent on the old decrepit, struggling war in Europe—instead of our availing ourselves of that opportunity, we are neglecting our chances. If hon. members want to wage war—and I am opposed to it—let them do so. I cannot stop them; but they should not waste all their initiative in doing so; they should avail themselves of their opportunities to promote South Africa’s interests. Judging by the Minister’s proposals they have not given any thought to that aspect of the matter. These proposals are nothing but an attempt to impose more taxation on the people of South Africa and to draw additional millions out of the people. I hope the Government and hon. members opposite will think over the few words I have said; I hope they will realise that I have not spoken those words in a spirit of hostility but that I have spoken them because I really believe that the time has come when we should tell each other that if we really want to develop South Africa’s trade and industry, and if we want to expand the necessary connections with the North and want to become a great South Africa, then we and particularly the Minister of Finance, should constantly bear this in mind and not neglect our chances.

The hon. member who has spoken last has raised the interesting subject of the effect of the war on our industrial life here, and he has brought forward the question of the trade that we did with the north ten years ago, and compared it with to-day, and he has stressed the point that now is our opportunity to expand our industries. He has forgotten the fact that ten years ago we did a much greater trade with the northern territories.

To a point of explanation, Mr. Speaker, I did not mention ten years ago, but I mentioned 1938 and 1939.

Well. 1938 and 1939 have no bearing on the point, but I do agree with the hon. member that the war is going to give an enormous impetus to our industries and afford opportunities to us for expanding our export markets in the hinterland, and that is not the only advantage that we have. The develoment of our industries which the war has brought about will enable this country to become self-contained. In 1913 we had no industries at all, and the birth of our industries here dates from 1914. None of our agricultural industries would have reached the stage that they have to-day if it had not been for the impetus given to them during the last war. Your dairy industry, your wool industry, and everything else was built up as a result of the last war, and now we have again an opportunity of strengthening our industries in this country. Another advantage that this will bring about is that more employment will be created for our growing population and more especially for the men who will be returning from the front. These men who go north will know that when they return greater opportunities will be offering than ever before, so it is our duty to build up these industries. Coming to these taxation matters, I think the country was surprised at the very little money that is required, and the country was relieved at the very fair way this new taxation has been distributed. I say that the only people who escaped taxation are the agricultural people. They pay nothing at all.

What about the wool people, they pay.

They are making profits on wool and there is no taxation. We have heard a great deal about the increase in the Excise on brandy. That is about the only thing, but they have overlooked the fact that in this country the Excise and the duty on spirits is the lowest in the world.

Where do you get that from?

Anyhow, that is no argument.

And I do not think that the 2s. 6d. per gallon which has been imposed is nearly enough.

And they can afford to pay it.

The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) said that an amount of £500,000 in extra profit was being made by the retailers and the distributors.

Exactly, that is true.

I do not suggest that it is not true, but if it is true that these people are going to make an extra profit of half a million, then the Government can look forward to get a lot of money out of them under the excess profit duty. But in the discussion on the Excise duty, when a comparison was made between the 2s. 6d. additional Excise on colonial spirit compared with the increased duty on whisky, the percentage of increase on the local Excise was said to be greater than that placed placed on the imported spirits. And none of the members referred to the fact that the Excise on brandy at 15s. per proof gallon is subject to a rebate of 9d. per gallon on matured brandy, so the actual Excise that is being paid under the new duty is only 14s. 3d. per gallon and not 15s. And the nett increase of duty is 3s. 10d. per case of a dozen 24 per cent. under proof. Two gallons, a dozen bottles of brandy, produce 22s. 10d. per case revenue, against 90s. per case on whisky. So that while local brandy is taxed to the extent of 22s. 10d. per case, the tax on imported whisky is 90s. per case. If that difference is not sufficient to protect the local industry, I do not know what will be sufficient, and I claim that the Excise on brandy should at least be 50 per cent. of the duty paid on imported spirits. So I say that there is still room there for the Exchequer.

Why do you drink imported whisky?

I do not drink either. I do not think the wine farmers should have any objections to that Excise because as a matter of fact they do not pay it themselves, the consumer does. I remember when first the Excise was imposed there was a great outcry and people said, “The whole industry is ruined.” But what happened? The greater the Excise, the higher the price, the more it tends to the production of a better acticle.” You will never increase the consumption of your South African brandy until you improve the quality.

The quality is excellent.

What is wrong with it?

Everything is wrong with it. The hon. member over there may be an expert on quantity, but he is not an expert on quality.

I know what the views are of the well-known authorities overseas.

Perhaps, but these well-known experts do not taste the quality of what is sold here for local consumption. The brandy sold overseas contains a minimum of 60 per cent. of matured brandy, while the stuff that is sold locally contains a maximum of 25 per cent. That is the difference. We definitely export a much better quality than what we use for local consumption, and that is why the export market has been maintained, and will be maintained, if we continue to do so. I hope there will be no interference with the quality that is being exported. Apart from the increased Excise that has been imposed and which I claim the farmers do not contribute to the tax, nothing has been done to affect the agricultural section of the country. I just want to say that on the whole the new taxation is evenly distributed, and is not going to fall heavily upon those who cannot afford it—it will not be felt by those who will be called upon to pay it. Those who are called upon to pay it do so willingly, and will even be prepared to make greater sacrifices in order to see this war through to a successful issue.

Under the taxation proposals which the hon. the Minister of Finance has placed before the House, he wants to raise an amount of £4,825,000. Now I first of all want to say a few words about these taxation proposals. Out of this £4,825,000 the Minister will get an additional amount of £858,000 from the mines. In the Minister’s own words this constitutes an increase of about 2 per cent. The Minister, when speaking about these taxation proposals and also when introducing his Main Budget stated that he wanted to emphasise that his taxation proposals had been drafted in such a manner as to obviate an increase in the cost of living. The Minister also expressed another view, namely that it was sound policy to impose these taxes because, as he said, a lot of money was being made now, and it would have a sound effect in the direction of keeping down the cost of living and stopping people from having too much money to spend. Those are the principles on which he based his taxation proposals. He further said that he needed this money, and that he wanted to get it from the taxpayer because in imposing these taxes he was protecting the taxpayer. Now I want to point out to the Minister that when he introduced his Main Estimates he imposed an additional taxation burden on the community amounting to nine million seven hundred and seventy-four thousand pounds (£9,774,000). Now he comes along and he imposes an additional tax of £4,825,000 on the community. So that the total amount imposed during the course of this year is £14,990,000. I at once want to say in order to remove any misapprehension that the mines are not contributing to the taxes, that according to the figures given by the Minister the mines are contributing an amount of £7,959,000. This leaves an amount of £6,640,000 to be paid by the ordinary taxpayer. For the borrowing of this additional £6,640,000 the Minister attributed three sound reasons which I have already mentioned, namely first of all that he does not want the cost of living to go up, secondly that people must not have too much money to spend, and for that reason he has to impose a tax on them, and thirdly that by doing so he is actually protecting them. These are the three great principles which the Minister laid down, and these are the three reasons why he has to exploit the country to an amount of £14,990,000 in extra taxation, none of which is put back into the country, because that money is levied for war account. Now I want to go a little further, and I want to show who are the people who have to pay this tax. Petrol has been charged with an additional 3d. per gallon, which has to produce £990,000. Is the Minister going to tell me that the poor man who has a lorry, and has to pay this additional 3d. per gallon on his petrol, does not have his working costs increased in the business enterprise in which he is engaged for a living? It has been systematically stated in this House in the past, and the Minister has admitted it, that motor transport has come to stay, and there are numerous poor people in the country who are making their living out of lorry work. That is their sole means of livelihood, and the Minister in this manner is taxing the livelihood of the poor man. In spite of that he says that he is taxing them because they will otherwise have too much money in these times of war. As a result of the very poor living which people are making in the building industry and in other industries, a great many of our poor people who have been making their living out of lorries, are to-day, so to speak, on the streets. They are no longer able to make a living out of their lorries, and the Minister is now taxing the little bread they are still able to make, the little bit of work they have to the extent of an additional 3d. per gallon in petrol. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) is so cute that he tells us that they pass the 3d. on. He does not know that in these war times every man on account of the scarcity of work, is out to exploit his employees. We heard a similar argument from the hon. member over there who has just spoken, and who told us that the farmers would not bear those taxes. He said that the farmers would not pay the taxes, because they would pass them on to the consumer. That is his argument, but he forgets that the trader does not only add the 3d. on the 1s. 6d., but he adds another 3d. or something more, so that even on the tax he may make an extra profit. Tyres and tubes have been taxed to the extent of an extra 3d. per lb. Retreaded tyres are taxed an extra 2d. per lb., and this according to the Minister, will produce an extra £100,000. Now I want the Minister to consider this point — is it the rich man who has his tyres retreaded or is it the poor man who has to make his living out of a lorry or a motor car? And then I want to remind the Minister of what he said that he did not want the cost of living to go up. Cigarettes are taxed with an additional ½d. per ten cigarettes. From this tax the Minister expects £460,000. It is the poor man who smokes cigarettes, while the rich man smokes cigars. Cigars are not taxed, but the cigarette of the poor man is taxed. I have no sympathy with whisky. So far as I am concerned the Minister could have put more on whisky, because if he had done so he would really have hit those war heroes, those people who support this war policy. They are the whisky drinkers. And now we come to beer; here 2d. and 1d. have been put on and from this tax the Minister expects £40,000. I again want to say that it is the poor man who drinks beer. He cannot afford to drink whisky. It is the big men who have declared war who drink whisky, and it is the poor man who drinks beer. Now we come to the next tax, 1s. per lb. on yeast. The Minister has told us that he does not intend applying this tax to bakeries. They are the people who make the big money and they are to get a rebate. The people he really wants to tax are the skokiaan queens. He wants to tax them to such an extent that they will be wiped out. But where is the Minister in that event going to get the £175,000 which he expects to get from this tax. And now we come to the greatest crime of all in connection with these taxation proposals— the 20 per cent. increase on the normal income tax. The Minister when he introduced the Main Estimates, took away the rebate of 30 per cent., and now he comes and he adds another 20 per cent. The man who pays the ordinary income tax is not the man who declared war, nor is he the man who benefits from the war. They are the people who generally speaking are against the war, and they have to pay an additional 20 per cent., and if we calculate what they have to pay and compare it with what they had to pay last year we find that the normal taxpayer will this year be paying 71 per cent. more than last year. But the Minister goes further, and he tells us that the mines will make a special contribution. We know that the Minister cannot go very far with the mines. We have every sympathy with him. On the other side of the House there is an imperium in imperio. The Minister of Mines sits over there and he will never allow the mines to be too heavily taxed. He is the tail who wags the dog. He will not allow it, and that being so, we can well understand that the Minister, in spite of the fact that the mines are paying higher dividends than ever before, and have a higher production than ever before, dare not impose a heavier tax than 2 per cent., while the ordinary income taxpayers, as I have shewn, have their tax increased by 75 per cent. in comparison with the basis before the war. But there is another tax in this series, and that is the 1½d. per ounce on our letters. I again want to know from the Minister why he has not also put an additional postage on accounts. Trade and commerce do not bear this additional burden now. If he had made them pay more on their accounts the public might perhaps have received fewer accounts. I want to point out, however, that it is particularly the poor man who has to write letters, because he cannot afford to speak over the telep hone or to send telegrams. If a relation of his dies he has to write a letter, and he has to tell them that oom Piet or oom Sarel has died. It is the ordinary people who are taxed by this additional taxation from which I believe the Minister expects to receive £210,000. I want to ask the Minister again whether he still adheres to what he said when he emphasised that this tax was intended and had been drafted in such a way that the cost of living would not be increased. That it would see to it that there was no inflation and that it would help the people not to waste their money? Those were the views expressed by the Minister in connection with these taxation proposals. I want to say that we who voted against the war are opposed to all these taxes which the Minister is imposing, because all these taxes which are now being levied, and I want to emphasise this fact, are levied with no object except to glorify British sentiment in South Africa. That is why the people of South Africa have to be exploited, and have to have these amounts taken from them in order to give satisfaction to that section of the population which stands for British sentiment. I want to mention some figures and to refer to the speech which the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) made here only yesterday. He said that 40 per cent. of our population was English-speaking. We must assume that the great majority of the English-speaking people hold British sentiments. And then we also have the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) who said that he would go to hell for British sentiment. I want to say this to him, that in hell he will not get any ice cream, and he must be careful in saying these things.

I said that I would even go to hell if it meant fighting for my country.

Does the hon. member want to contend that he is now fighting for his country and his people?

Yes, absolutely.

If he says that then I say that he is wearing a red imperialistic pair of spectacles through which he is looking at everything, but I want to add this, that I believe it is this British sentiment which will eventually drag South Africa into the hell of bankruptcy. The population of this country is being systematically exploited. I am not at this stage allowed to speak about the Loan Estimates, but the public is being exploited, because we find that in one year taxes are being imposed to an amount of £14,599,000, and that simply to give satisfaction to British sentiment in South Africa. Is it to be wondered at that stage by stage we have had to fight these proposals, and that we shall continue fighting until the day dawns, and it is dawning fast when even the children of the people who are so strongly imbued with a warlike spirit, will vote against taxes of this sort, and against the neglect of the interests of South Africa.

I feel that as a merchant of fifty years’ standing in South Africa, I owe it to the House and to the Minister to say a few words about the taxes which are now being placed on the people. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg) has rightly pointed out how unsound the direction is in which the Government is going, and how dangerous are the increases in our cost of living. We know that there is a spirit of extravagance prevailing to-day; we know that the war psychology is dominating everybody, and now the Minister comes along here and bases his taxation proposals on the assumption that trade will continue as usual in normal times, and that, therefore, he can expect the results of his taxation proposals to be what they would be if trade were what it usually is. But the spending power of the people, and with it trade, is undergoing tremendous changes, principally as the result of the £14,500,000 which is being levied for war expenditure. That amount has to be covered along with normal expenditure, and how is it to be spent? Is there one penny which is going to be productive? The Minister of Finance is responsible for sound management and for the protection of the people, and now I want to point out that the taxes which he is proposing directly affect the less privileged portion of the community. I can well understand that he is worried about the condition of the mines, and that he taxes them so lightly; the public are taxed by increases in the customs duties, and by other imposts. If the Minister would use his sound commonsense in the administration of the country he would know that whatever may happen, whether Great Britain wins the war, or whether Germany wins it — I am not concerned with that at the moment, I am only concerned with the future of the nation — we shall eventually have to pay for what is being spent at the moment. We are spending enormous sums of money in this first year of war. And then the Minister comes along and in imposing his taxes bases his expectations on normal conditions. He says: “If I have a normal year I shall get so much and so much.” I am convinced that he will be deceived and be disappointed in his expectations. There are two large industries in this country, the mining industry and the farming industry, and he depends on those two industries. The mining industry is one unit, the farming industry is the industry which represents the biggest investment of capital in South Africa, and a large proportion of our population is dependent on our farming industry. If this war were to last two or three or even five years, and if we carry on as we are doing this year, then we, whether we win the war or not, will have to carry such a financial burden that the result will be chaos. The strength of the people is being exhausted by these heavy burdens. The Minister is particularly basing the customs duties on normal trade conditions, and he is expecting to get a certain amount from those customs duties, but I want to point out that the great distribution force, the great consuming strength, is not situated in the few towns along the coast, or in the north, but it lies in the hinterland. That is the great country of the consumers. Take my own constituency. What is the position there? Let us first take the Railways which are dependent on their transport as a result of trade and consumption in the country. And what about passenger traffic?

The hon. member cannot discuss that question at this stage.

But surely I am allowed to point out that the Minister is basing his taxation proposals on wrong suppositions. I know that you will call me to order if I discuss railway matters here, but in my capacity as an old merchant I know the extent to which the Railways are dependent on their traffic.

We are now considering the question of taxation proposals.

The taxes are based on the question what revenue the country will have. I want to show that a number of the sources from which our income is derived throughout the country will the amount which the Minister expects. In times like the present the state is transporting tremendous quantities of people and materials, there is an increasing use of our postal facilities by means of the telephone and the telegraph, and all this is taking place at the expense of the taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, you and I are going to clash. I do not blame you, because I am not a lawyer, but none the less I know the mode of living of our people over the last fifty-three years, and that being so, I fail to understand how the Minister of Finance can so far as the future is concerned, base his taxation proposals on the theory, “We are going to make so much out of this and so much out of that,” while he does not take into account the fact that conditions are becoming totally abnormal. If we pause at this position for a moment, there can be only one conclusion to arrive at, namely, that these tremendous amounts of expenditure, and this tremendous waste of money, must lead to curtailment. The Minister’s expectations are not justified; he will not be able to balance his accounts at the end of the year because his basis of calculation is unsound. The Minister is not taking into account the fact that he is living in abnormal times, but we who have gone through the mill of previous wars, and of financial crises, we know that his calculations are wrong. I am opposed to this war expenditure because this war expenditure is un-Afrikaans.

I should also like to say a few words about our industries. To a certain extent I agree with what the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) has said, but I wish to make a few comments on his remarks. He said that the farmers were not being taxed under the Minister’s taxation proposals. He naturally speaks as an industrialist or as a capitalist, and he starts at the same time to protect the wholesale dealers, the wine and brandy people, and he wants to protect them against the producer of that product. He says that 2s. 6d. on a gallon is not sufficient so far as brandy is concerned, and he disapproves of 7s. 6d. being imposed on a gallon of whisky, and then he goes further and says that it does not make any difference if the wholesale dealers make £500,000 out of the state. I say that that £500,000 should go into the pockets of the people who produce the product and not into the hands of the wholesale dealer. I also want to ask whether the farmers have not during all these years had to pay for the protective tariffs so far as industries are concerned? Has not that been a tax on the farmers? The farmers have paid for the protection of industry; in addition to that we have the fact that the farmers have had their wool taken away from them by a measure of compulsion, and that means that the wool farmers are coitributing about £2,000,000 by way of tax for the war. The farmers pay a great deal more than any other section of the community. Now I want to say this—that to my mind the time has arrived when we should take steps to establish a proper woollen factory. If the iron and steel industry in Pretoria is a success why then should it not be a sucess for the Government to undertake the establishment of a woollen factory in the central parts of South Africa where wool is produced. It is quite easy to get the farmers to become shareholders in such an industry. The Government can take a share and the farmers can take shares by imposing a tax on each bale of wool—a small amount. If that were done the factory could be established during the present period. Australia, a country with about 7,000,000 people, turns about 300,000 bales of wool into various materials every year. In our country with 8,000,000 people we are manufacturing goods from no more than 20,000 or 30,000 bales of wool. This is the time for the expansion of industries and for the establishment of a woollen factory. If that were done it would also bring about further development. In the northern provinces there is a large black population which is steadily becoming civilised, which is earning more money and which is beginning to use more clothes. This is the time, while other countries are out of the market, to establish a factory of that kind, and I hope the Minister will give his attention to the matter and that he will give his assistance to get a factory of that kind established. I also wish to say a few words about the wheat farmers. It has been stated here that, 30s. per bag is too much for the wheat farmers, but if one takes into account the fact that bread is sold at 7d. and 8d. per lb. one must realise that the price of 30s. per bag for wheat is perfectly reasonable. During the last war wheat went up to £3, and in spite of that the price of bread was only 7d.

Which particular part of the taxation proposals is the hon. member dealing with now?

I am only trying to point out that 30s. per bag is a reasonable price for wheat.

We are now considering the taxation proposals.

I only wanted to make these remarks in passing. I attended a conference of wheat farmers the other day and it was clearly proved there that the costs of production in the “Boland” are 21s. 3d.—that is about the average price which the wheat farmers obtained last year.

The hon. member cannot go into that.

I only wish to express the hope that the Minister in the circumstances will see to it that certain sections of the population are properly protected. I want to mention for instance the farmers of the Western Province. They earn their livelihood out of wheat farming.

The hon. member must discuss the question of the taxation proposals.

They will not be able to pay the tax if they cannot get a decent price for their wheat.

I am afraid that that does not fall within the scope of this debate.

I should like to emphasise the point that 30s. is a reasonable price. That will not have the effect of raising the price of bread. The Minister of Agriculture should at least have statistics to show what the costs of production are. I want to go further and I want to ask that the Government shall not curtail the irrigation works. In our parts of the country there are ….

Under which heading does the hon. member wish to deal with that?

Under Economies.

That question can be discussed on the Appropriation Bill, but it cannot be discussed under this question of taxation proposals.

I only want to say that if the Minister does not see to it that the farmers are protected they will not be able to pay these additional taxes.

The Minister of Finance has undoubtedly succeeded in keening the taxation pressure this year considerably lower than what the requirements are in connection with the expenditure for war purposes, but whether the Minister will succeed in doing so, in future is more than doubtful. I feel that all of us are entitled to claim that the future does not look too rosy, especially if we take into account the fact that the taxes which are being imposed this year in connection with the conduct of the war only provides for a condition of affairs under which we are actually not directly involved in the war. If it should happen that later on we have to take a more active part in the war then there is no, doubt that the Minister will have to impose heavier taxes. But there is a second factor which has enabled the Minister to impose less taxation than what the war expenditure really requires, namely the fact that he has been able to bring about considerable economies on the ordinary estimates as well as on the loan estimates, amounting to £1,000,000, and £6,000,000 respectively.

That has nothing at all to do with the taxation proposals.

May I be allowed to explain my point. The Minister will agree that unless he proceeds next year to curtail very essential services he will not be able to save this amount of money again, and consequently that amount of money will have to be found by means of taxation. If the Minister saves £6,000,000 to-day on the Loan Estimates, it does not follow that he will next year again be able to get money from that vote. In other words the Minister will next year most probably not ony be faced with more taxation in connection with the expansion of the costs of the war, but he will also have to get in the money which he is saving this year. It means, therefore, that very much heavier taxes will be imposed. Much has already been said about the taxation proposals, and I want to refer only very briefly to the petrol tax. It has been stated here that the population of the platteland is not really being affected by the Minister’s taxation proposals. That statement is not fair. The additional tax on petrol is 3d. per gallon. On the platteland to-day practically one farmer in every four has a motor car. Now it may be said that a motor car is a luxury article, but motor cars and motor lorries have become indispensable means of transport for the pursuit of farming activities. Consequently, the farmers will contribute a considerable amount in the shape of petrol tax. If a farmer only uses four gallons per week — and that is very little, because the farmer who takes his products to the market has as a rule to cover long distances, then it means 1s per week or £2 12s. per year which he contributes in the form of taxation on petrol alone. Therefore, to contend that the platteland population will not also contribute its share to the Exchequer is unfounded and unfair. If we take into account the way in which the Minister has allocated his taxes we are entitled to say that the petrol tax is an unfair tax. It affects the poorer people who run motor cars and lorries for transport or farming purposes. Then I also wish to say a few words about the tax on tobacco, cigarette tobacco. It is a generally recognised principle thát as soon as a tax is imposed on a certain product the danger arises that the consumption may drop considerably. We have every right to assume that the consumption of cigarettes will drop in future; in other words we are entitled to say that the market for the farmers’ tobacco will become smaller especially as regards tobacco for the manufacture of cigarettes. On the other hand we have the peculiar phenomenon that the production is increasing considerably, and is not only increasing as the result of the private initiative of the farmers themselves, but particularly as the result of the Government’s irrigation policy. The Government is busy creating’ settlements, where in days to come only tobacco will be produced to a large extent. I have on a previous occasion directed the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the fact that the production of tobacco, especially of cigarette tobacco, is at the moment just sufficient for local consumption, and that if the Government contributes in that way to thé production we shall get overproduction, and consequently a number of difficulties. I ask the Minister whether he did not consider it advisable to appoint a kind of advisory committee consisting of officials of his department and officials of the Department of Lands to go into the question and to consider whether it would be advisable to encourage the production of tobacco on new settlements, and what did the Minister of Agriculture reply? He stated that there was already such a committee and that such consultation was taking place. I take it that there is such a committee; I am sorry, however, that that Minister is not here just now, because I would have liked to have put this question to him — whether he has had before him the correspondence between the Department of Lands, and the Central Tobacco Co-operative Society. I doubt whether the Minister knows what are the contents of the correspondence which has taken place between the Department of Lands and the Tobacco Co-operative Society. I doubt whether this correspondence has been submitted to the Consultative Committee and the Minister of Agriculture, because the contents of the letter from the Department of Lands is without doubt in conflict with the interests of the Department of Agriculture. We find, for instance, that the Department of Lands writes to the Tobacco. Co-operative Society that they are unable to do anything in connection with the matter. If the Minister of Agriculture had been aware of everything contained in this letter from the Department of Lands he would have been failing in his duty if he had not taken action in regard to that letter. Now I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to what is stated in these letters. First of all it is said in the letter from the Department of Lands that that Department is obliged to see to it that the settlers on their land grow products out of which they can make the best profit. In the second place they say that they will train the settlers to produce better tobacco. The position, however, is this, that the Tobacco Co-operative Society has already taken steps only to encourage the production of good cigarette tobacco; for instance, by the way in which prices are fixed, and the fact is that there is already a surplus of good cigarette tobacco. Where it is going to end if the Minister of Agriculture does not take steps to deal with this policy of the Department of Lands — this policy of simply producing tobacco everywhere where the ground is most suitable for that purpose—is difficult to say. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture is not going to poke his nose into the affairs of the Department of Lands, but I contend that the tobacco farmers are fully entitled to demand that he should discuss the matter with the Minister of Lands and that they between them shall see to it that a state of affairs shall not be created in the tobacco industry which is going to prove a menace to the existence of that industry and which will threaten the producing farmers with ruin. We are going to get a condition of affairs which will have the effect of the consumption of tobacco dropping and for that reason the Government must see to it that the production of tobacco does not go up with leaps and bounds. In the letter which the Tobacco Co-operative Society has written in answer to the reply from the Department of Lands, they say the following, inter alia, and I should like to quote this to the House because it is a clear statement of the condition of affairs which may arise. This is what they say, inter alia—

That is to say the settlers. And then they go on to say this—

This letter then ends with the following conclusion—

I say, therefore, that if the Minister of Agriculture has so far not yet entered into communication with the Department of Lands in order to discuss this important and extremely dangerous position, it should do so immediately. We find throughout the length and breadth of the Transvaal farmers with small plots of land, on which they find it impossible to make a living with practically any other line of agricultural production, while they can make a decent living out of growing tobacco. These people have never yet asked the Government for assistance—they have not hung around the Government on every possible occasion; they are able to make a civilised existence, and to keep their families decently and properly. If the Department of Lands continues with its policy of simply allowing new settlers to produce tobacco on all the new irrigation ground under the Government’s irrigation works—where is the position going to end? As stated in this letter the result will be that even those settlers themselves will go under in the long run, and not only they but the independent farmers as well who are to-day making a fairly decent existence out of this industry. The Minister will now probably ask me, and quite rightly so, what he can do. It is no use simply criticising without making a suggestion to help him over the difficulties. I admit that at this stage it is difficult for me to tell the Minister what alternative there is for the Department of Lands. It is stated in this letter, which the Department of Lands has written in answer to the letter from the Tobacco Go-operative Society, that they are obliged to allow the settlers to produce whatever will pay them best. I accept that statement that it is the duty of the Department of Lands to do so, but on the other hand, if that is to be allowed, it will be a very short-sighted policy.

The hon. member is now discussing the policy of the Department of Lands and of the Department of Agriculture. I have allowed him to explain the position which he wanted to raise, but he cannot criticise the Department of Agriculture in detail, or the Department of Lands.

I am glad you have allowed me to go so far. I shall leave this point. I only want to point out that this may at the moment appear to the Minister of Lands and the Department of Lands to be the best policy, but it is a short-sighted policy which the Department of Lands is at the present moment pursuing—it is a shortsighted policy to allow people to produce tobacco unrestrictedly, because the eventual result will be that not only will those settlers go under, but also those people who are to-day making a living out of the growing of tobacco, because they will be forced to undertake the growing of less-paying products, or otherwise go under. In view of the possibility of there being a curtailment in the consumption of tobacco as a result of the taxes which are now being imposed I feel that the time has come for the Minister of Agriculture to give serious attention to this matter, and I want to make a friendly request to the Minister of Finance to bring this aspect of the matter to the notice of his colleagues.

I am here now.

I do not know when the Minister came in but I am pleased he is here now even though he is in a different seat. I only want to tell him that I have been referring to the correspondence which has taken place between the Department of Lands and the Tobacco Co-operative Society, and I want to ask him kindly to study that correspondence. If he does so he will find that we have now reached a stage where the question I have raised should have his careful attention.

The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) complained bitterly during this debate of the taxes which are being imposed, and he stated that it was particularly the poof man who was being hit. To a very small extent that may perhaps be the case in regard to the tax on petrol. But as power paraffin is not affected by this tax of 3d. per gallon the cost of production to the farmers is not affected in that respect, and that being the case the Minister is quite entitled to impose this tax. Generally speaking it is true that the motor-car is no longer an article of luxury, but it is equally true that the motor-car is still being used to too great an extent, and to a very large extent the continuous purchasing of motors by farmers as well is one of the causes why farmers often get into trouble. The hon. member particularly complained of the effect which the tax has on the wheat farmers. I am not a wheat farmer, but I should like to tell the hon. member that I used to know certain parts of Malmesbury, and in those days the farmers there were well-to-do to a large extent. It is possible that in those days they were better off than they are to-day, but this was in the days when we used to see donkeys there, and when the farmers used to plough with donkeys and horses. If we go there now we see tractors and lorries, and I say that the cost of production in those days, for that reason, was very much lower than what it is to-day. I can quite understand that it is easier for the farmer to use a lorry and to plough with a tractor, but if those people were to go in again for spans of donkeys as they used to do in the past, they would perhaps have less reason to complain. The hon. member also complained about a tax being placed on the cigarettes of the poor man. Let us in that respect, too, go back to the olden days when people used to smoke pipes. There, too, a man’s expense could be greatly reduced. The hon. member further complained of the tax on wine and brandy. Well, that may cause some objection so far as a number of people are concerned, but I do not think it will make much difference, because the Minister has explained to us what a small increase it will mean in the price per tot, and if we were to drink one tot per week less, it would completely wipe out this increased taxation. I want to say that as a result of the war and as a result of the increased demand which has been created for wine and brandy, the more so since France has been cut out, there will be a great increase in the demand for our brandy from overseas, and that increased demand will compensate for the small tax more than twice over. I think hon. members who complain on that score are very small-minded. We have also heard complaints against the increase of 20 per cent. in the normal income tax and super tax. If one listens to the Opposition one may almost think that it is an increase of 20 per cent. on a person’s income. We know that it is only an increase of 20 per cent. on the income tax. In practice we find that a man who has an income of £650 and who has a wife and two children and pays a small amount in insurance, pays no income tax at all. I think that all the criticism levelled by the Opposition is practically unfounded, when one goes into the whole position. The Minister of Finance, with all his additional taxation proposals, has not touched excess profits again. This remains at 50 per cent. I take up the attitude that in times of war there should be no excess profits. There should be no profits greater than the profits the individual made before. The one section of the population is sacrificing its life for the war, and it is unfair that another section should make excess profits and thus raise the cost of living. I want to suggest that when the Minister of Finance is again looking for sources of taxation he should cast his eye on war profits, and take all of them, or at any rate a great proportion of them if he needs the money. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) stated here emphatically and earnestly that in the event of the enemy coming to the Union the Opposition would not defend the country.

The hon. member must not refer to what was said in the previous debate.

Well, finally I want to emphasise that this side of the House is prepared to supply the Government with the necessary funds to bring the war to a successful issue.

There is something which the Minister of Finance said which should be emphasised a bit more, and which should be brought to the notice of the people outside. In his Budget speech the Minister, inter alia, said this: that for that reason it is in the interest of all of us that the excessive expenditure of money should be counteracted both by the encouragement of economy and by the imposition of taxes which have as their object bringing into the Exchequer money which might otherwise perhaps be spent in a wrongful manner. And he further said this—

Now I want to put a pertinent question to the Minister of Finance. This section of the population which has to pay the major portion of the taxes, the middle classes and the wage-earner earning from £700 to £800 per year, that section of the working class of the population which has to pay the petrol tax, the tax on motor tyres, on stamps, on cigarettes, etc., — since when have they had so much money that instead of their spending their money “on excesses” they should pay it into the Exchequer? I have not yet heard that they have received any increase of pay since the 4th September, 1939. On the contrary, in spite of what the Government has said here the cost of living has gone up and that section of the population has not received any compensation in that respect. Yet the Minister of Finance says that they have so much money they do not know what to do with it, and instead of spending their money on excesses they should rather give it to the Exchequer.

It is a very striking fact that nearly two years ago when the Minister of Finance was a private member of this House he protested with every vein of his body against the estimates of the then Minister of Finance. He stated that it was not a poor man’s Budget, but a rich man’s Budget. It should be borne in mind that that Budget, introduced by the previous Minister of Finance, made certain concessions to the taxpayer. In spite of that, the present Minister of Finance was deeply concerned over that Budget, and he said that it was not a poor man’s Budget, that there were not enough concessions made to the poor man, but that it was a rich man’s Budget. But for the sake of Empire idolatry he comes here now and declares that the working classes of South Africa have so much money to spend that that money should rather be taken away from them and handed to the Exchequer. I repeat that the cost of living has definitely gone up since the 4th September, 1939. The middle class wage-earner and the ordinary worker, however, have not received any increases of pay. And who are the people who pay most of our taxes? Let us take these taxation proposals of the Minister of Finance and study them, and we shall see that those taxes come out of the pockets of the middle class wage-earner and the ordinary worker. Who are the people who have to pay most of the petrol tax? Petrol must to-day be regarded as an essential commodity. It is used not only by the rich man who has a motor car as a luxury article. We know that there are thousands of people in the country who of a motor car, or of a motor lorry, which have to make their living solely by means of a motor car, or of a motor lorry which they use for transport work. I want to point to all these transport riders, commercial travellers, etc., of whom there are thousands, people whose whole existence depends on a freight motor or a motor car. Take insurance agents, too. All of those people are now being called upon to pay these additional taxes, and that without their getting any compensation. On the contrary, on account of the war and the altered circumstances as the result of the war, we find that that section of the population is finding it more difficult to make a living than in the past. The same considerations apply to stamps and to the tax on cigarettes. In actual fact it amounts to this, that the people who are really able to bear the taxes are being benefited in an indirect way by those taxes, while the worker and the middle class man has to shoulder the burden. The merchants and dealers can cover themselves so far as the taxes are concerned by increasing their prices, and often their increases of price are more than the amount of the tax. Now, let us take the case of the tax on brandy. That tax amounts to 3½d. per bottle. But the price per bottle in the canteen is put up by 1s. 6d. and even 1s. 10d., so that the merchant or the trader makes an additional profit as a result of this increase in taxation. The Minister has benefited that section of the community. The consumers, however, are that section of the community who are not benefited in any way—they are not benefited by the actions of the Minister or the Government, and they are the people who have to bear the whole of the tax. It has been stated here repeatedly that the man who has an income of £600 per year and who has a wife and two children will not pay the increased income tax. One has to take it that hon. members opposite hold the view that the man who earns £700 or £800 per year is a well-to-do man who does not require any consideration from the Government. But that is the very section of the population who has least of all been considered by this and by previous Governments, and they are the people who have to bear the heaviest burdens. This Government has done nothing at all for that section of the community, or for the working classes. What is being asked of them is that they shall contribute towards the prosecution of the war. The Minister has denied the statement made by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) that all that the gold mines are being asked for by way of direct contribution towards this war is £850,000. The Minister has mentioned certain other figures here. I want to repeat what the hon. member for George has stated here. All that the mines have so far been asked to contribute in the form of additional taxation since the beginning of the war and to see this war through is this £850,000. The other taxes were imposed before the 4th September. All the other amounts which are produced by taxation would have been produced even if there had not been a war. Consequently the biggest and the richest industry is privileged by having to pay less for the continuation of the war than the ordinary workman and the middle class taxpayer, and that when we see in the Sunday Times of the 4th August an announcement reading as follows—

Never before in the history of our country have they made such profits as they are making now. The Minister is very sympathetically disposed towards them. He treats the mines leniently and the ordinary worker and the middle class man have to bear the taxes. The mines are making larger profits than they ever made in the past. The tax which is imposed upon them is a slight one, and it is the mines which time and again refuse to make any concessions to their workers. Time and again deputations are sent to the mine owners by the miners to ask for improvements in wages and working conditions. They can never get them. We have a sympathetic Government which is so keen on the interests of the gold mines that they do not even want to allow the mines to, contribute their rightful share to the taxation of the country. In conclusion I just want to say this, that these taxes which the Government has imposed on the people are a burden which is being imposed on that section of the population which is least able to bear it. The Government has done nothing yet for the working classes and for the middle classes in the country; all it is doing is to impose taxes on that section of the population for the prosecution of this war.

The Minister of Finance in his reply to the speeches made in this House tried the other day to make the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) look ridiculous in regard to the Excise duty on brandy, and he stated that the hon. member for Swellendam wanted it to be understood that the wine farmers would go under because this additional tax had been imposed. That is not what the hon. member for Swellendam tried to prove, but what he did try to prove was that by this ill-advised tax being imposed on liquor the trade had at once put on an additional 1d. per tot, with the result that they would be putting an additional £120,000 per year into their own pockets. We pleaded with the Minister in regard to this tax on South African brandy. We have been pleading for years with the previous Government, and we have asked, “Why do you come back from time to time with an increased duty on South African brandy, while whisky, as I have shown on previous occasions, in its own country has to pay 72s. 6d. per gallon, and while our brandy overseas also has to pay an import tax of 72s. 6d. per gallon, as against which we in South Africa only have to pay 45s. per gallon on whisky? This tax has now been increased by 7s. 6d., so that it now amounts to 52s. 6d., which still is 20s. less than the tax which has to be paid overseas on South African brandy. Instead of placing an additional 2s. 6d. per gallon on South African brandy, an additional 2s. 6d. could have been placed on whisky. So far as we are concerned it is reprehensible to find that the local article is not getting the protection to which it is entitled. To me it seems that South Africa has now gone so far with its war policy that it does not matter a bit what becomes of the local article so long as the Imperial interests can be served. Now I should like to say a few words to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward). He tried to take the wheat farmers to task and he tried to tell them that they should go back to the old days and plough with mules, and he said that if they did so they would be able to produce more cheaply. I do not know whether the hon. member is familiar with conditions in the wheat areas. I do not know whether he is aware of the fact that it is extremely difficult for those people to get labour. He as a cattle farmer is able to obtain cheap labour, but the wheat farmers have to pay higher wages to the people they employ, and one man with a tractor can do a great deal more work than a couple of spans of cattle. For every span of oxen you have to have a man in attendance, and that man has to be a fairly competent man. He wants farmers to go back to the olden days and the old road, and use fewer motor-cars. It may be that there are a few people who unnecessarily use motors, but the farmers to-day cannot possibly get along without motor-cars, and for that reason I feel that the Minister is going to hit the farmers very severely with his tax. At the same time I feel that he is also going to find himself on the wrong side with his petrol tax. Undoubtedly a great many people will take the advice of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Johnson) to use their motor-cars less. In my constituency there is a man who has petrol pumps, and one of the farmers yesterday told me that that shopkeeper had told him that it was astounding to notice how much less petrol he was selling since this increase in the tax had been announced. It is quite likely that the Minister may miscalculate so far as this tax is concerned. And whom will the Minister then try to catch? I hope he will not try to get at the wine farmers again by putting further taxes on them. It is stated that the poor man and the middle classes do not pay these taxes, but the extra excise duty on liquor is paid largely by the poor people. The poor man has to pay more for every tot he drinks, and the great majority of our people are poor people. Furthermore, it has been proved over and over again that the petrol tax will hit the poor man while the income tax will hit the middle-class man. Although it has been stated that a man who is married and has two children gets off scot free if his income is between £600 and £700, most of us are going to be hit by this income tax, and that while the mines get off so very lightly. I do not know what other sources of taxation there are which can still be taxed if the war goes on. If we have to go on for another year at the rate at which we are going to-day then I do not know whether South Africa with all its money and all its gold, of which we hear so much, will be able to carry this taxation burden any longer. These enormous sums amounting to nearly £50,000,000 which are being spent in one year on the war will be a burden on the people and the money will have to be got by means of taxation. Possibly the money may be borrowed, but if that is done we are going to lay a heavy redemption burden and a heavy interest burden on the shoulders of our small population of 2,000,000 whites. The burden of taxation is going to be too heavy. This war is going to do tremendous damage to our country through the curtailment of essential services and through the imposition of extra taxation, but it is also going to lay a burden of debt on the people which will prevent South Africa from ever getting out of the morass unless a miracle happens, which nobody can see to-day. And that is the reason why we are pleading day in and day out: “Stop this absurd war; we are being ruined, and we cannot allow it to go on.”

I wish to put up a plea on behalf of the income taxpayer. I am afraid that the Minister of Finance is well on the way to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. It seems an easy thing to go to the income taxpayer whenever one wants money. We find in this particular instance that the income taxpayer has already lost his rebate of 30 per cent., and yet in the same year the Minister comes along and imposes another 20 per cent. on the income tax of the ordinary taxpayer. I fail to understand why the Minister of Finance has seen fit to take such an extraordinarily high percentage. Why did he not just add 10 per cent. and find the balance of the money by adding another 2 per cent. to the mine taxation? This 20 per cent. additional income tax, so the Minister tells us, will produce £900,000. If he had only imposed a 10 per cent. increase he would have been £450,000 short, but by adding 2 per cent. to the mining taxation he would easily have got the £450,000 which he would have been short on the income tax. Why must the income taxpayer be selected to pay a much higher percentage in tax than the mines? The mines are able to pay, and in addition to that we have the fact that the larger percentage of the profits made by the mines do not even stay in this country. And on the money going out of the country no income tax is paid, that is to say on the dividends which go overseas. It is a habit of Ministers of Finance to use the post office in order to secure revenue for the state. The Minister of Finance will remember that the Select Committee on Public Accounts in its last report specially referred to the fact that it was wrong policy for the Government to use the post office for the purpose of filling its Exchequer. The Select Committee went even further and put forward a suggestion as to what should be done. I do not propose going into that, but I only want to point out that to my mind it is a wrong policy to use the post office for the purpose of filling the Exchequer. And now the postal rates are being raised and money is being collected by means of the post office, not only from the rich man or the middle-class man, but especially from the poor man, in order to see the war through. There are other ways too of levying taxation and of finding this amount of £210,000 which the Minister is expecting to get from the additional tax on stamps. Why did not the Minister use other means to obtain this amount of money? If he had done so he could, if it should become necessary later on — and we hope it will not be necessary — have raised the rates on letters. It has been rightly stated here that the additional tax of ½d. per ounce on our letters particularly hits the poor man, the poor man who is already suffering as the result of increased costs of living, in spite of the fact that his income has not been increased. I hope the Minister will consider this matter, although I do not think there is much chance of him doing so. I want to ask the Minister, however, to bear in mind the recommendation of the Select Committee on Public Accounts so that in future the post office will not be made use of again to collect money in order to strengthen the Exchequer.

We feel that these unjust taxation proposals particularly hit the middle-class man, apart from the poor man who will also suffer very greatly from these taxes. The middle-class man is the man who bears the burdens of the country. It is that particular section of the community which has the spirit of enterprise to face heavy bonds and to pay high rates of interest, apart from the other additional burdens imposed upon them. This particular section of the community—I am referring to the middle-class man—is hit most severely by these taxation proposals. The taxes on petrol, motor tyres, tobacco, stamps and spirits, particularly hit the middle-class man, and as a result of these taxes the position of the farmers is made almost impossible. These taxes are leading to a collapse, and if the Government does not make some concession to the platteland, and if it fails to take account of the platteland, the Government will drive the farmer to despair. Petrol and motor tyres are commodities which are absolutely essential. If the farmer has to give up his motor car and his lorry he will not be able to carry on his farming operations under conditions as they are to-day. Verily, we feel that the Government is now busy drawing blood out of stones. I want to remind the Minister that it is the last straw which breaks the camel’s back. By overloading the platteland he is completely breaking the platteland. Farming industry to-day is already in a precarious position. The farmers are struggling hard to make an existence and these taxes cannot possibly have a salutory effect but they can only lead to total collapse. The mining industry, however, gets off scot free. The mining industry is the Government’s favourite child. For years and in the most sympathetic manner the mining industry has been nursed, protected and favoured. We are getting the impression that if one touches the mining industry one touches the Government itself. We feel that in this respect the interests of members here are at stake; their own interests are at stake, and they are busy protecting themselves.

The hon. member must not make such insinuations.

I feel that the mining industry is an honourable industry; there is nothing wrong with it; I do not want to slander it, and that is why I said that hon. members opposite were busy protecting themselves.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, but let me put it in this way then, that capitalism is playing a contemptible and criminal part. It is a pity that I am not allowed to say that the capitalists who are sitting over there play a great part. Capital is busy taking the mines under its protection and letting the mines get off scot free without taxation. The mining industry is the industry in this country which is making the biggest profits, and the mining magnates are completely protected here. Many of those big gentlemen sit at the wine table of the mining magnate and they drink the sweetness of their profits with the mining magnate, and they share in those profits, and that is why the mining industry has so many protectors. The mines get away with large profits without contributing to the burdens of the country. That fact undoubtedly must cause suspicion in the minds of the people of South Africa, it must cause a suspicion in the minds of the people of South Africa, that this particular industry is being protected like a pampered child, while on the other hand the man who is hungry is being taxed and driven to despair. A few days ago that mining king, Mr. John Martin, was in the lobby, and he was surrounded by people who were hanging round him like bees around the honey pot. He was the centre of interest. I came to the conclusion that he was being treated like an idol. He is the powerful mining king of South Africa! And it was not for nothing that he was so surrounded. What did he come here for? Nobody knows. He was supposed to have been here very innocently for his pleasure. When this mining king is surrounded in our lobbies by certain gentlemen we know what is at the back of it; the practices which are in vogue are not noble. There is yet a second pampered child — the Chamber of Commerce, a body in which the Minister of Finance takes a particular interest, and then we have the wholesale trade which is making huge profits and to which the war is providing special profits—and that trade has been hit least of all by the war. These taxes deal very leniently with the wholesale trade. The wholesale trade, the Chamber of Commerce, makes tremendous profits and is busy enriching itself. They are very keen for the war to continue because they know that the best way to catch fish is to fish in troubled waters, and that is what the Chamber of Commerce, what the world of business, is doing to-day, and that is what it can do best of all. As a result of the war they have created the troubled waters in which they are catching their fish, but the middle-class man is fighting for his breath and he has to bear all the burdens. The Government is holding the revolver to the head of the poor man and to the head of the middleman, and it does not merely say, “Your money or your life,” but it says to the middleman, “Your money and your life.” We who represent the platteland, feel that we have a just grievance because of the fact that the mines and the world of commerce are not being taxed sufficiently, although a heavier burden is being placed on those who are already struggling hard to make a living. The intelligence of the platteland has not been dulled to such an extent as not to realise what is going on. We see the way in which the farming industry is being destroyed. If we want to live happily together, and if we want to see success in this country, then there must be co-operation between the mining, the commercial and the farming industry, and that co-operation can only be achieved if a just and sound taxation system is created and if the taxes are imposed justly and fairly on profits and income. Then a better spirit and a better feeling will arise. So long as that is not there, there will be no contentment. The Minister knows what the feelings of the platteland are. The platteland is opposed to the war. If it were for the good of South Africa they would have been willing to sacrifice some of their blood, but the platteland objects to the continuation of the war, and in spite of that the Minister comes along and says, “In spite of your objections I am going to tax you up to the hilt to see England’s war through.” This sort of thing creates bitterness. Cannot hon. members put themselves in our position? If the position were the other way round what would they do? Let the Minister see to it that these taxes are evenly imposed and if he does that a great many of our grievances will fall away.

During the last session of Parliament we on this side of the House repeatedly warned hon. members that the Government’s war policy could only have the effect of heavier burdens being imposed on the people. We warned the House and pointed out that while taxes had to be levied to cover an expenditure of £14,000,000 in connection with the war, the extension of the war would necessarily have the effect of the taxation burden being increased. Only a few months later the Government had to come along and ask through the Minister of Finance for provision to be made for more taxation in order to secure funds for the continuation of the war. Now we want to issue another warning. We do not know how long the war will go on. Mr. Winston Churchill has already said that the war will undoubtedly last until 1942. Consequently, it is very probable that we shall again be asked in the next session for further funds for the continuation of the war and for approval of further taxation. The question which I am anxious to put in regard to the taxation proposal is this — how is the income of the different sections of the community, the income of the different industries in South Africa, affected by the war in which South Africa is involved to-day?

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

When business was suspended I was engaged in shewing how we had already warned the Government last year and how we had repeated that warning this year in regard to the increasing war expenditure and the resultant increasing taxation burden imposed on the people of the country. The object of these taxes is generally admitted to be only this — to obtain the necessary funds for the continuation of the war. The question which has to be put when we are discussing these taxation proposals is this: in view of the fact that the taxation is imposed for the continuation of the war and for no other purpose, in what way are the different sections of the population or the different activities of the country being affected by the war condition in which the country finds itself to,-day? I feel that the reply to that question should be an indication of the basis on which those taxes should be levied. As a broad division we can say that the population and also the activities of the country can be divided into four parts. We have the mining industry which is the largest in the country. We have trades and industry — and when I use the word industry here I mean our factories; we have agriculture and then we have the rest of the population. That is to say the people who live on their interest, the professional people, the workers, the teachers and so on.’ I think that the first two may be grouped together for the purpose of our discussion, that is to say the gold mining industry and commerce and industry. So far as the mines and commerce and industry are concerned I think we can take it that the people engaged in those industries are favourably affected by the war conditions. Now let us first of all take the case of the mines. If we look at the taxation burden which the gold mines bear — and I want to refer to the special tax which we are more particularly discussing, we find that that tax in the past used to be 9 per cent. on certain excess profits, and that 9 per cent. has now been increased to 11 per cent. This works out at about 22 per cent. additional on that particular income. Now if we look at the position of the gold mining industry since the 4th September of last year we find that the gold mines are still in the same favourable position in regard to the price of gold. Before the 4th September there had been a considerable increase in the price of gold — it had gone up from 148s. to 168s. That price has been pegged down and it has remained at that point. Consequently, so far as the price of gold is concerned the gold mining industry is in exactly the same favourable position as it was in before. And if we look at the production of gold and at dividends it is a fact that both production and dividends have gone up considerably since the 4th September. Not a month passes when the ordinary returns are published without our finding headlines in the papers, “Another Record Production,” “Another Record in Dividends.” For the first half year up to the month of July, the mines paid out in dividends the sum of £10,368,000. On the same basis the dividends last year would be about £21,000,000. When this Parliament was convened and when the taxation proposals to be put forward by the Minister of Finance were in prospect, the general expectation in financial circles and in share-market circles was that a particular heavy burden would be imposed on the gold-mining industry, particularly because of the favourable position in which the gold-mining industry finds itself to-day. If we look at the share-market lists we find that goldmining shares went down at the time, but it is remarkable that after the Minister of Finance had delivered his budget speech in this House there was an immediate rise in the price of gold-mining shares, a clear indication that in the financial market in London, as well as here in South Africa, there was not only a feeling of satisfaction but also of general belief because of the taxation proposals made by the Minister of Finance. I have here before me the comments which were sent out to one of our prominent papers by its financial representative in London. This comment confirms what I have said, and it is stated in this comment, inter alia, that it had been expected that a large proportion of the additional expenditure in connection with the war would be placed on the gold-mining industry by way of additional taxation, but so they said; after the budget speech by the Minister of Finance had been delivered, an immediate change came about on the share market, and also in financial circles in London. And then they proceed to refer to the effects of the taxation proposals put forward by the Minister.

I am sorry, but the hon. member cannot quote that.

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend quoting it. I am only giving a summary of what is contained in these comments. It is pointed out that even if the whole of the increase had been placed on the gold mines so far as the dividends on the distributable profits are concerned there is a drop of only 1½ per cent. It is further pointed out, and rightly so, that in actual fact the shareholders of the gold mines will not be affected by this small additional burden which is being imposed on the gold mines. It is pointed out that there are large reserves and that in spite of the small additional taxation which is being imposed there will be no reduction in the dividends to be paid out. It has also been pointed out, and again rightly so, that it will also be possible to work a higher grade of ore, and consequently the dividends will not be affected. The position is summed up in this way, that in consequence of the taxation imposed by the Minister of Finance, neither the gold-mining industry nor the shareholders, are being placed in any worse or less favourable position than they were in before the outbreak of war. I now come to another section, namely, commerce and industry in South Africa. That section of our industry and business in South Africa which is sometimes described by the name of “big business.” Now we put this question, whether that section has been placed in any weaker or less favourable position as a result of the war conditions which are prevailing in this country. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) pointed out when he made his speech on the budget that it would be a good thing for “big business” in South Africa if the war were to continue for ever. I think that we can take it, and I do not think anybody will doubt this fact, that the position of commerce and of industries in South Africa is not by any means less favourable in consequence of the conditions of war. On the contrary we may take it that so far as a large number of manufacturing enterprises are concerned, they are at the moment in a flourishing position. So far as business is concerned the Minister of Finance has fixed prices in certain instances, especially where foodstuffs are involved, but that is only a very restricted part of business; and so far as the rest of business is concerned there is no doubt that for some considerable time before the outbreak of war fairly large stocks have been set aside and to-day the business man is in the position of being able to sell those stocks which he laid in before the war at increased profits. Take the manufacturers. Has there ever been a time when the manufacturers in South Africa have made larger profits and have made more money than they are making to-day? And this applies particularly to those manufacturers who have to make deliveries of military requirements for the 100,000 soldiers who are in South Africa. This applies to boot factories, shirt factories and other concerns. Those people have flourishing businesses to-day in consequence of the condition of war.

Have you any evidence to prove that?

I should think that one’s commonsense would tell one that if supplies have to be provided for 100,000 troops those manufacturers must be having a good time. Naturally, the manufacturers who have to supply these articles must be having a flourishing time. But I also want to say this in answer to the hon. member. Recently when we complained about war expenditure one of the papers pointed out that we were complaining about war expenditure but that a large proportion of the money spent would remain here in South Africa; and that newspaper in its leading article specially mentioned that a large proportion of our war expenditure was being used to support and buid up our own factories in South Africa. I come back to the statement that while this taxation is being levied to-day with a view to the continuation of the war those taxes have to be allocated according to the effect which the war has on the incomes of the people of South Africa. We have this further fact, and I do not think anybody can deny it, that so far as the gold mining industry is concerned, and so far as wholesale trade and business in South Africa are concerned, they are favourably affected by the war. In other words, those sections and those industries whose incomes are being favourably affected should bear a very much larger proportion of the taxation owing to the fact that they, as a result of the war, are in a better position to bear the taxation. Now I come to the other section which I have mentioned. We have dealt with the gold mines and with commerce and industries; now we come to agriculture. What is the position in regard to agriculture? With the exception of the vegetable farmers in the vicinity of Cape Town who, so I understand, are doing good business in consequence of the number of ships which call here — and I am pleased that they are getting that opportunity because they have needed something of the kind for a long time — I say that with the exception of the vegetable farmers here in Cape Town the Minister cannot mention any other section of the agricultural, industry which, as a result of the condition of war, has been placed in a favourable position in the same way as one can say so about the gold mines and commerce and industry in the country. The wool farmer has had his prices fixed. He is being told that he cannot have an open market, and the price of his product has been fixed on a certain basis. From our friends on this side of the House who are familiar with the position in regard to mealies we get the assurance that the position of the mealie farmer is particularly precarious. The mealie industry is in a position which was described by the Minister of Agriculture when he discussed the question of our products during this time of war as a position of “lie and rot.” And then we come to the fruit farmers. Even last year when England was able to buy our fruit and when England had practically not been touched by the war, even at that stage the fruit farmers were in a difficult position, and I am afraid that as things are going now, whatever may happen overseas, the chances of a successful fruit market are very poor for the present season. The position so far as the fruit farmer is concerned is very poor; he is in a difficult position as a consequence of the war. The wine farmers are a section which are directly affected by these taxation proposals. The farmers who export table wines overseas will now have an unfavourable market there. The position is more unfavourable for them so far as export is concerned. And now it is a peculiar fact that where the Minister has placed an additional excise duty on brandy the wine farmer will be affected by that tax on account of the fact that less brandy will be consumed, but at the same time we find that the big business element is benefiting as a result of the tax. I have no figures at my disposal here, but the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) showed us the other day how, as a result of the excise duty, the wholesale wine trade was enabled to make additional profits at the expense of the wine farmer, whereas the wine farmer was placed in this position, that his market was being restricted. We therefore have this fact so far as the farmers are concerned, that the market of certain classes of the agricultural population is being restricted by, and as a result of, the war condition, while the products of another class lie here and rot. As against that we have the position that the requirements of the farmer have gone up in price and that applies not only to the farming requirements, but it also applies to the farmers’ domestic requirements. Consequently agriculture is definitely in a very bad position. And now we come to the rest of the population, the ordinary man, the middle classes, the working classes, the salary earner, the small business man, the retired tradesman, the teacher and the professional man. So far as the people drawing salaries are concerned it may be taken for granted that there has been no increase in their incomes. On the contrary, while there has been no increase in their incomes the cost of living of those people has gone up. There is one section whose income has been increased, and that is our friends on the opposite side of the House who are drawing a double salary. And not only have their incomes gone up, but so have the incomes of quite a number of other people who have obtained military appointments in this country. Their incomes have gone up as a direct consequence of the war, but the income of the ordinary man has not gone up; on the contrary, that ordinary man whose income is the same as it was before, has to pay an increased income tax and while the gold mines are paying an increase of 22 per cent, on a certain part of their income tax, and while the income tax for that large industry has been increased by 20 per cent., we find that the man who is earning a salary has to pay an increase of income tax amounting to 70 per cent. The workman and the salaried individual have not been placed in that favourable position of being able to benefit from this war, and that is the reason why we have proposed this amendment, that the burden of taxation shall be so fixed that those people who, as a result of the war, have been placed in a favourable position, shall bear a larger proportion of the taxation. In regard to the middle-class, the workman and the person earning a salary, they are not only affected by the increase in the income tax which, since the 4th September of last year, has gone up by 70 per cent., but it is that large section which has to pay the indirect taxation; they are the people who make their contribution in other ways as well as through their income tax — they make their contribution through the increase in postal tariffs and customs tariffs. I am sorry the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) is not here. He is one of those members who on the Select Committee of Public Accounts strongly protested against the Post Office being used as a source of revenue for the state. That matter was also raised in the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and now we find that the Post Office is again being used as a source of revenue in order to strengthen the war funds. Let us take a tax like the petrol tax which has already been discussed here to-day. There again it is the platteland and not the towns which are especially affected by this tax. The townsman in Johannesburg has the bus and the tram which he can use if needs be. But the farmer on the platteland, to whom his motor-car has become an absolute necessity, has to pay the increased petrol tax. Then we have that section of the community which has to make its living by means of transport work. Even in the Transvaal and in the Karroo we no longer find the ox-wagon and the donkey-wagon. Those things have gone off the road. All the transport work is done by means of lorries, and it is those people who are dependent on the lorry for their livelihood, and they are the people who are severely affected by this increased petrol tax. I can only hope that as regards the ordi nary population we shall use as little petrol as possible. I feel that every gallon of petrol I use means that I am contributing 3d. towards war funds. Our attitude is this. The taxes proposed here by the Minister of Finance are unjust. Then there is another aspect of the matter. Not only are those sections in a more favourable position in consequence of the war, but they are busy making profits as a result of the war while the other sections find that their cost of living is going up. But there is another aspect of the matter which I want to mention and it is this: those people in big business and in the mining industry are the people who have stood behind the Government in connection with this war. They are the people who have urged the Government to pursue this war policy, consequently entirely apart from the fact that they are in a more favourable position as a result of the war we are entitled to ask that those people who wanted the war and who now want to continue the war should be the people to bear the burden of the taxes. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) stated here yesterday in connection with the political aspect of the war that the day would come when this side of the House would be in power, and that they would then call people to account for what had taken place. I want to say the same thing so far as the burden of taxation is concerned. I want to say that just the same as in France the time will come when the mining magnates and the business elements, the people who have urged the Government to remain in the war and to continue the war, will be called on to pay. They are the people who shout that we must continue the war, but the day will come when they will be called to account and when they will have to pay by way of taxation for everything they have done and for everything they are doing now.

We are dealing here with taxation proposals which the Minister of Finance thought fit to impose on the public in order to see his war through. If what the other side of the House says is true, that this is going to be a lengthy war which may perhaps last four or five years, then heaven only knows what further taxes may be imposed on the public.

The public are willing to pay them.

The public will feel that this Government is carrying on in of way which can no longer be tolerated. Where is it going to end, because what we have now is only the beginning, and what is worse still is the fact that the majority of the people are against the war, so that we now have the position in which the minority is imposing a tax on the majority against the will of the majority.

Do you believe that yourself?

There was somebody — I believe it was the Prime Minister of England — who said that if they lost thé war in England they were going to continue it in the dominions, and the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) also said so. That means that we will have to pay the piper for the folly of England having declared war against Germany. It is said that this is a voluntary war.

We cannot again have a discussion about the war.

I am only using this as an indication to show that I am opposed to the war, and that being so I am also opposed to any taxation proposals which are imposed in order to see the war through. We are suffering from the capitalistic system; we are suffering from what is still worse, a capitalistic Government, and that is the reason why we are so anxious not to be in this war. This war is nothing but a money-making affair. It is the war interests and the war gods which are making money out of the war — those people who are out and whose aim it is to blind the eyes of mankind.

Order, the hon. member must confine himself to the taxation proposals.

We are opposed to these taxation proposals on account of the fact that those taxes are imposed on us in order to see the war through. I just want to revert now to the point which I wanted to make.

The hon. member must confine himself to the taxation proposals.

I want to do so.

Do not talk nonsense.

The hon. member who has just interrupted me is one of the biggest sinners. We are now being told that industries will be established.

Are you opposed to that?

That hon. member is one of those who are going to make money out of it for the capitalists. He is now going to establish a new industry at Vereeniging, and he is going to make money out of it for the capitalists.

See what he looks like now?

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood)….

Talk about Satan.

If I am to talk about Satan then I must talk about the hon. member. I want to raise my voice against these taxation proposals because it will be the middle-class man and the poor man who is going to be affected by them. We have heard repeatedly that the poor man will be affected. The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet) stated that if the poor man was affected then he should smoke fewer cigarettes and drink less beer. It seems to me that that hon. member is of opinion that the poor man should not even be allowed to have his glass of beer. The rich man’s champagne is not taxed, nor are his cigars taxed.

Since when have you been a protector of the poor man?

I say that the poor man is hard hit by these taxes. The cost of living has gone up but the salaries of the miners have not been increased.

It is the rich land owners in your part of the country who will have to bear the taxes.

Whisky is not adequately taxed. I hope that the next Government will entirely prohibit its importation, and in regard to petrol I want to say this. Petrol is no longer a luxury article. The poorest of the poor need petrol to enable them to make a living.

How much petrol do you use?

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) should keep quiet now; after all he is drawing a double salary. [Interruptions.]

Order!

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but if one throws a stone and one happens to hit a dog that dog whines. Last year the Minister took away the 20 per cent. rebate on income tax, and now he comes along with an extra 20 per cent., and that is where the middle-class man and the poor man are being hit. But I should like to revert to the question of the petrol tax and I want to say that in my district particularly people are being severely hit. There are very few people who in that climate are able to plough with oxen. We have found out that if we plough with oxen we often have bad crops. One has to plough fast after the rains, and consequently there are few people who do not have tractors, and now the Minister comes along and taxes the farmer by means of petrol, and look how the prices of farming requirements have already gone up.

Do not the tractors use paraffin and oil?

Lorries are also being used, and they need petrol. The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) does not know anything about farming.

I know more about it than you do.

I am a farmer myself.

A pulpit farmer.

Now, in regard to the Minister of Commerce and Industries I want to say this; the Minister some time ago promised us that he would appoint a committee to go into the whole question regarding the increase in the price of farming implements. I wish the Minister of Native Affairs would interpret to the Minister of Commerce and Industries what I am going to say now. What has become of that particular committee?

It has already been done.

The farmers are the dupes of the merchants and the traders. It is the merchants and the dealers who are fishing in troubled waters and who are making money out of the war. The farmers do not understand the intricacies of trade and commerce and they get the worst of things every time. The prices of all kinds of implements have gone up terrifically. Grain bags have gone up from 6d. to 1s. 6d.; wire from 16s. tot £1 8s.; iron poles have gone up — the price of everything has gone up.

Which part of the taxation proposals is the hon. member discussing now?

I want to prove how the farming community is being hit by this petrol tax, and I want to prove that the ability of the farmer to bear these taxes is becoming exhausted. The position is becoming intolerable.

If you were to get a separate peace you would not get any petrol at all. I take it you would be satisfied then.

Am I permitted to answer the Minister? It is the greatest folly he has ever been guilty of. One would imagine that there is no other country in the world which would supply us with petrol. America has a lot of petrol and will always be prepared to sell petrol to us. The farmer is again being hit and if hon. members opposite put their Electoral Act through, there will be even fewer farmers here to look after the interests of the farming community.

The hon. member is now discussing matters which have nothing to do with this debate.

I am talking about the taxation proposals. The position is becoming intolerable for the farmers, and I want to express my agreement with those members who have taken the Government to task for not having taxed the mines heavily enough. They are the people who brought us into the war, and I should like to know why the mines have been let off so lightly. Still, what can one expect if one sees a man like the Minister of Mines in the Cabinet — a man who for years was the legal adviser of the Chamber of Mines, for which naturally he drew a big salary? For years he has been the legal adviser to the Chamber of Mines. Would he ever do anything to get a bigger tax placed on the mines? He is in the Cabinet now. How can one expect the mines to be taxed in those circumstances? Can one ever expect anything good from a Minister like that? I hope the time will come when the public of South Africa will get its rightful share in the country’s wealth and also in the wealth of the gold mines.

Amen!

We again wish to lodge our protest against this kind of taxation proposal, particularly because the mines are being specially favoured. It is not fair to the poor man who has to make his living in South Africa, who needs his petrol and who is now being so heavily taxed. Petrol is an absolute necessity for the poor man, and I can assure the Minister that the public of South Africa will settle with the Government when the time comes.

I do not want to make a long speech but I do want to register my protest against these taxation proposals now before the House. And I want to say this, that it is clear that after this war is over the world will be owing so much money to the world that the world will not be able to pay the world. The Minister of Finance has now been in power for a year. And this is the second time he has come to Parliament and on both occasions he has come forward with new taxation proposals. On both occasions he has come to ask Parliament to impose fresh taxes on the public and on the taxpayer of the Union. I feel that so far as the taxpayer is concerned he would have been prepared even under present conditions to submit to these new taxes if the Government and the Minister of Finance, who are sitting on the Government benches to-day, had really been elected by the people as the Government. In those circumstances I believe these taxation proposals would have been approved of by the general public; in any case they would have had a better reception, because if the general public had elected the Government, that general public would also have had a greater say in regard to these taxation proposals. But the position to-day is that the Government sitting over there, which has proposed these new taxes, is not sitting there with the approval of the public. They now come along with a proposal to impose taxes on the public amounting to £32,000,000. And let me say this, they are imposing those taxes not only on the taxpayer of to-day but they are also imposing them on posterity, and these taxes are being imposed by a Government which has not been put into power by the electorate of the country. The electorate has returned the United Party to power, and to-day it is not the United Party whose Government is imposing these taxes on the country. No, this Government is a Government which has got in through a window.

The hon. member must confine himself to the taxation proposals.

It is my intention to do so; I am only mentioning this as an introduction. But I also want to say this, that those taxation proposals are going to be felt particularly by certain sections of the population.

Which sections are they?

If the hon. member knows so little about these taxation proposals that he does not realise it yet then I am sorry for him, and he must be a stranger in his own country. I particularly want to put up a plea on behalf of the diggers so far as the petrol tax is concerned. I am sorry the Minister of Mines is not here, because he would be able to bear me out that the man who to-day is finding it extremely difficult to make a living will be very hard hit by these taxation proposals. That man, the poor digger, is finding it difficult even to-day to use his lorry which he requires to cart water, but with these further taxes on his petrol and on his tyres he will find it impossible. The position of those people is such that they are on the verge of starvation. They are as close to starvation as they have ever been, and it is a crime to impose extra taxation on them. There is an extra tax on his petrol, an extra tax on his lorry which he uses to cart water, and he simply cannot pay it. We have taxation proposals here amounting to £32,000,000 which have to be dragged out of those poor people for a war with which our public do not want to have anything to do.

Some of the criticism which has been directed to the taxation proposals which have been under discussion, despite the sundry deviations from these proposals, have dealt not with what I have proposed to the House, but with what I have not proposed to the House. The debate has provided an opening for the reforming zeal of several hon. members. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell), for instance, took the opportunity of telling us what is wrong with the income tax and how he would like the present income tax system to be changed. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Van Coller) told us what we should be doing in South Africa to deal with the illicit liquor traffic, and wanted to know why that was not dealt with in the budget. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost), a voice crying in the wilderness on the Opposition benches, urged us to cultivate trade with the countries to the north of us, and took me to task because there was nothing in the budget which would tend to improve our trade relations with the North.

He objected that the budget had no orange flash.

Yes, the budget had no orange tab about it; there was no “red oath” about it. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) took me to task because I did not increase the excess profits duty which has only been imposed this year. I only want to say that this is an interim budget.

It is a war budget.

No, it is an Empire budget.

It does not set out to deal with the financial position as a whole; it deals with the immediate problem of raising funds and in a budget like that you must restrain your reforming zeal. This is not the opportunity for dealing with the illicit liquor question—there may be an opportunity for doing so next year. This is not the opportunity for dealing with anomalies in the Income Tax Act, we may perhaps do so in the next session. This is not the opportunity for revising our whole commercial policy with regard to the countries to the North—may be we shall do so next session. And also this is not the opportunity for increasing the rate of the excess profits duty. That also is a matter which we may have to deal with next session.

The Minister may be married next session.

I want first of all to deal with one or two points which have been raised in the discussion. The hon. member for Durban (North) (the Rev. Miles Cadman) talked about the increased excise duty on cigarettes, and he claimed that we were increasing the present duty by 300 per cent. I think he lost sight of the explanation which I gave in my speech introducing the additional estimates of expenditure, when I pointed out that our tax on cigarettes is of a twofold nature, partly a stamp duty, partly a tax on tobacco, but while we are increasing the second part by 300 per cent., that certainly does not mean that we are increasing the total duty on cigarettes by 300 per cent. Nothing like it. But the hon. member asked a further question and although he is not here, it may be of interest to other hon. members, and therefore I shall reply to it. He asked what the effect of this increased duty will be on cigarette tobacco sold as such, what will be the effect on the man who buys tobacco for cigarettes, who makes his own cigarettes? I would assure the hon. member and others that it has been arranged that the price on such tobacco will be increased only by the amount of the duty. Then I come to the question of yeast, to which the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) referred. He asked why we had decided to propose a rebate to the bakers. He seemed to see something sinister in that. I did explain that on a previous occasion when perhaps my hon. friend was not here. I then explained that the effect of the excise duty on yeast would be to increase the price of bread by one-eleventh of a penny per lb. of bread.

Why?

Because yeast is an ingredient. I said it would increase the cost of production. That increase cannot be passed on at present because the price of bread is regulated, but if at any time, as is always possible, the question of the price of bread has to be considered again, that one-eleventh of a penny would be a factor which would come into that consideration. The increase in the cost of production would be two-elevenths of a penny per 2-lb. loaf. That is a factor which would have to be considered and that factor might turn the scale and lead to an increase in the price of bread of ½d. per lb. Realising that danger I felt that it was right to allow this rebate to the baker for the ultimate benefit of the consumer.

How much will that rebate cost us?

Probably about £20,000 or £30,000.

The bakers could afford that.

Yes, probably the bakers could afford that at the moment, but when it comes in an accumulation of other factors it means that the consumer has to pay. That was also the opinion of the Board of Trade. This was not merely a question of meeting the representations of the bakers, or of one whom my hon. friend does not like, Mr. Johnny Fotheringham. It was also a question of giving account to the views of the Board of Trade which advised the Minister of Commerce and Industries, and through him myself, that its investigations made in 1938 would indicate that the trade could reasonably be expected to bear the new yeast tax, but with the recent increases in the cost of petrol and tyres, and together with other increases, the Board was of opinion that the new excise of 1s. per lb. would be a burden on the baking industry. And I repeat that that is a burden which may in the near or in the less near future be passed on to the consumer. I do not want to take any risks in that regard and on that account I decided to propose that that rebate should be granted. That rebate is of potential value to all those house wives and I think they are in the majority who buy their bread from bakers.

Why do you not give it to the women who bake their own bread?

The hon. member asks why a rebate should not be given to the woman who buys yeast to bake her own bread. As soon as you do that you open the door wide for the buying of yeast for the illicit liquor traffic. The amount of yeast used for the baking of bread by house wives is very small. There is very little in it. The amount of yeast bought by the householder for the baking of bread is inconsiderable. As far as individual householders are concerned, if they bake all their bread and purchase yeast for the purpose, on the average this duty is going to come out at about 2d. per week; and there is always the alternative open to them of making their own yeast. Then we come to the question of whisky and brandy. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) and the hon. member for Rosettenville and other hon. members referred to the effect of the increased duties as proposed by me a week or two ago. They pointed out that prices have been pushed up in excess of the duty. That in general is true, though it is not true in all cases. In some cases and in some areas despite the increased duties the prices have not been put up—more especially in regard to beer. Generally there have been increased prices in excess and in some cases substantially in excess of the duty.

Why cannot they be dealt with?

I am coming to that if the hon. member will be a little patient. The price increases are such as prima facie to indicate that certain sections of the trade are hoping to enjoy increased profits as a result of this duty, at the expense, of course, of the consumer. Of course, it is always possible that the competition of other drinks and the effect of fall in trade might rectify that tendency, but I am not prepared to leave it to that. I have therefore arranged with my colleague, the Minister of Commerce and Industries, that the National Supplies Control Board will investigate whether these increases which have been made are reasonable or otherwise. And, sir, I want to state that if it is found necessary prices will be controlled through that board. Then, sir, I want just to say a word in regard to petrol. Various points have been raised in connection with the increased duty, to some of which I shall refer later, but I want to say a word about a matter which was raised chiefly by the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) in regard to the effect of our proposal on the local industry. As hon. members know, we have increased by 3d. the duty on imported petrol, and we have also increased the duty on locally manufactured motor spirit. The hon. member for Prieska has stated that we are in some way damaging the local industry. I may say others have also made representations to me in regard to the position of the local industry; the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson), for instance, has done that, and the controllers of the local industry have also made representation. But I should like to point out that all that we have done has been to maintain the pre-existing position. We have increased the duty on imported petrol by a certain amount, and the duty on the locally manufactured motor spirit by the same amount. In other words, we have kept the same margin as exists to-day. We are not in any way damaging the local industry. The Government has certainly shown no lack of sympathy towards the local industry. The hon. member for Prieska complained that we are not doing enough to benefit the local industry, and as a result of that we are allowing too much money to go out of the country for the petrol that we buy from importers who, he pointed out, were predominantly British. Well, sir, I could wish that less of the money that goes out of the country went out in dollars than is going out to-day. The trouble is that most of the money spent in petrol goes out in dollars. I would like to see the pressure on the dollar exchange reduced. One of my difficulties is that most of the petrol we buy is bought from companies not controlled by Britain but by those who want dollars and not pounds. In regard to the petrol tax, the hon. member for Prieska suggested that I under-estimated the yield from this taxation. He said we would get £1,250,000. Well, I shall be quite glad if we do, but I should like to point out that as other members have suggested, one result of the increased taxation on petrol is inevitably decreased consumption, and that is something one has to allow for. It must not be forgotten that if the consumption of petrol is reduced, that not merely affects one’s estimate in respect of the additional tax we are now imposing, but it also affects one’s estimate in respect of the existing tax. That has to be allowed for, and on that account the impression may have been created that the estimate has been on the low side.

†*The principal criticism levelled against the proposals which I have put forward refers to the gold mining taxation. May I be allowed first of all to deal with a few general points. Several hon. members have contended that the gold mines are getting off scot free. Now, what are the real facts? Last year we received from the gold mines, inclusive of the amount which the state received under the heading of “Gold purchasing scheme” an amount of £16,500,000.

This year we shall get from the gold mines at least £26,000,000. The mines get off scot free! The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) further stated that the production of the gold mining industry was going to be £120,000,000.

And what are the profits going to be. They are going to be more.

Quite possibly the profits may be larger than what they were last year, but the £120,000,000 which the hon. member for Prieska mentioned is the production of the mines. He did not speak about the working costs — those he did not mention, nor did he speak about the taxes. The position is this: the amount which the state will receive from the gold mines will be £26,000,000 or more. The amount which the gold mines will probably pay out in dividends is £21,000,000, and yet my hon. friend opposite wants to tell us that the mines are getting off scot free.

Then why has the price of the shares gone up in the way they have done?

No, the shares have not gone up. They are about 25 per cent. lower in comparison with last year.

During the last two weeks they have gone up by 30 per cent.

My hon. friend does not know what he is talking about. Then there is one point which has been mentioned here repeatedly. I have already replied to it on previous occasions, but apparently I have to explain it again. It has been stated that my Budget proposals have been received by those who are interested in the gold mining industry with relief and satisfaction. I say again that the Budget has been received with relief and satisfaction by everybody — by the public as a whole. And the reason is this: it had been expected by everybody that we would have had to impose taxation up to an amount of £10,000.000, and if we had had to impose taxes to the amount of £10,000,000, the mining industry would have had to bear at least twice as much taxation as I am now actually proposing. When it turned out that we only had to impose taxation up to an amount of less than £5,000,000, there was a feeling of relief, there was a feeling of satisfaction. Then the hon. member for Prieska raised another important point. He spoke about the difference between the production of the system of mining taxation which I proposed during the last session of Parliament, and the production under the system applied by my predecessor, after the rise in the price of gold at the end of August last year. He said that under this system, which was brought in four or five months ago, we would get from £5,000,000 to £5,500,000 less than under the previous system. It is too early as yet to check those figures, and we shall only be able to draw a correct comparison at the end of this year. In the meanwhile let me assume the correctness of the figure mentioned by the hon. member, and on that basis, what is the position? The hon. member for Prieska, for the purposes of his calculation, started from the assumption that under the system of purchase of gold of my predecessor the state got 168s. per fine ounce for the gold. He forgets that the state had never obtained 168s. per fine ounce. Under that system of purchase of gold the state had to bear the expenses, the increased rates of insurance, etc., connected with the sale of gold.

How much is that?

That is at least 3s. 3d. per fine ounce. If we want to make a comparison as between the effect of the two systems we cannot make that comparison on the basis of gold at 168s. per fine ounce, but we must do so on the basis of 164s. 9d. Under the new system there has been another change so far as this point is concerned. Under the new system we are now getting the full 168s. per fine ounce. That is the result of the arrangement which has been come to with the Bank of England, and as a result of that arrangement an additional profit is being made, but the profit which is being made as the result of this arrangement is paid to the Government and is not paid to the gold mining industry. As a result of that the state gets close on £2,500,000 on “Sale of Gold Account.” My hon. friend made this mistake. He should have based his comparison on the basis not of 168s. but of 164s. 9d., or otherwise he should have taken account of the fact that this year we shall receive this £2,500,000. Here, therefore, we have an explanation in respect of £2,500,000, of the difference of £5.500,000 to which the hon. member referred. So that leaves £3,000,000. That £3,000,000 is the increased working costs of the gold mining industry as a result of war conditions. When I introduced my proposals on the 28th February last I referred to the fact that on a comparison between the two systems that aspect of the matter must be taken into account, because I said that if we had continued with the old system of buying the gold we would have had to refund a rebate to the gold mines in respect of the increased working costs. And the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) agreed with that in his reply to my budget speech. He stated that that aspect of the matter had been discussed with him by the representatives of the gold mining industry, and that he had told them that he would be prepared to meet them on that basis. He stated that he had no objection to that portion of my proposal and the only criticism he expressed was this. He asked what details had been given to me and what evidence had been produced to show that £3,000,000 would actually be required in respect of those increased working costs which I allowed for in my budget. It was only a question between him and me whether the £3,000,000 was too little or whether it was too much. I replied that that amount of £3,000,000 had been calculated on the basis of a probable increase of 5 per cent. in working costs. Now, what is the actual position? Let me take the months of May, June and July of last year. Last year in May, June and July the working costs were 19s. 4d., 19s. 4d. and 19s. 3d. per ton. Hon. members will see that 5 per cent. on these amounts is a little less than 1s. Now, what were the working costs for the corresponding months of this year? In May, June and July of this year the working costs were 20s. 9d„ 20s. 9d. and 20s. 7d. In other words, the increase in working costs is not 1s. but 1s. 4d. per ton. Let me say that I do not regard those figures as final. Certain adjustments have to be made, and I am not prepared to admit that working costs have gone up by 1s. 4d. per ton. The increase has been less than that, but it has been more than 5 per cent.; it has been more than 1s. per ton. In other words, that calculation of mine in regard to the probable increase of working costs of £3,000,000 or 5 per cent. has been fully justified by the figures which we have at our disposal. This indicates why the hon. member for Prieska was entirely wrong when he spoke of the possibility of the state losing between £5,000,000 and £5,500,000 as a result of the change which had come about in the system. Now I want to come to what the hon. member for Fauresmith said here. Unfortunately the hon. member is not present. I am sorry because he issued a challenge to me. According to the report of his speech in Die Burger he challenged me to prove when he had imposed an income tax without applying it right through. That is perfectly easy. In 1930 he imposed income tax without applying it right through. He imposed it only on individuals and companies, and not on the gold mining companies. In 1931 he imposed income tax only on individuals and not on companies and not on gold mining companies either. But I believe that Die Burger’s report was wrong. What my hon. friend really did say was this: he wanted to challenge me, that as a result of his taxation proposals in the past there had ever been a dislocation in the relationship between the tax on individuals, the tax on companies and the tax on gold mining companies. I made an interjection at the time: “What about the rebate?” Apparently the hon. member misunderstood me and stated that the rebate which he had taken away was a temporary one. My hon. friend forgot that there were two things which he did. In the first place he took away the rebate just as I took away the rebate six months ago. What he said there was perfectly correct. It was something temporary. He is quite right there too, just as I regarded it as something temporary six months ago. But if the hon. member for Fauresmith considers it to be unfair that this temporary thing should be brought into account against him then it is just as unreasonable to bring into account against me this temporary thing of six months ago when the rebate was taken away. The rebate is a temporary benefit granted in regard to individuals and companies. There was no such rebate granted to the gold mines. For the past twelve months we have been following the policy that whenever we could do so we gave such a rebate, and when we could not grant such a rebate we took it away. The taking away of the rebate is not an increase of the tax, but is simply the removal of a temporary benefit. I readily accept what my hon. friend stated in this connection because he rightly stated that the taking away of the rebate did not disturb the relationship between the three sections of income tax which I mentioned. But that is not all he did. I say that he did two things. When I interjected I was not speaking about the rebate, but about the abatement. In 1930 he only took off the rebate, but in 1931, before touching the mines, he reduced the general abatement from £400 to £300, and there he definitely disturbed the relationship between the three groups. That reduction of the general abatement — the primary abatement — does not only mean that more people have to pay income tax, but that everyone already paying income tax had practically to pay more. A man with an income of £600 would not merely have to pay on £200 but on £300. Consequently, that step which the hon. member for Fauresmith took was definitely a disturbance of the relationship between the two groups of income taxpayers, and I therefore accept his challenge. He definitely increased the tax on individuals although he did nothing to increase the tax on the gold mines. I therefore accept his challenge. Now let me put the case again. In 1930 the hon. member for Fauresmith increased the tax by taking away the rebate on individuals and companies, and he did not do anything to the gold mines. But the rebate was a temporary rebate. In 1931 he increased the tax only on individuals and not on companies, and not on’ the gold mining companies either. In 1932 he increased the tax on individuals and gold mining companies but not on companies. Consequently, he cannot say that he has never disturbed the relationship between the different elements. I say that I wanted to raise the tax on the gold mining industry by £850.000. The hon. member for Fauresmith thereupon said: “But by how much have you increased the tax on the individual?” The answer is £900.000. Those two amounts are practically equal, but what did the hon. member himself do in the past? Apart from taking away the temporary rebate he increased the tax of the individual by £600,000 while he increased the tax on the mines by £380,000. I therefore say again that my record in this regard is much better than the record of the hon. member for Fauresmith. Now what really i s the difference between the hon. member for Fauresmith and myself?

You should rather leave your record alone.

Yes, I know that the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) is very dissatisfied with the record of the hon. member for Fauresmith. Now, what is the difference between myself and my predecessor? I believe that there may still possibly be some hon. members who do not quite understand the position in regard to the gold mining taxation. The gold mining taxation is something threefold. In the first place there is the fixed basis of taxation of 3s. in the £ on profits. That tax has been there for many years. Then since 1936 we have part of the tax calculated according to the formula, and since this year we have the special contribution which is also calculated on profits but on a basis different to the 3s. in the £. That is also temporary. We therefore have a permanent part of the gold mining tax and two temporary parts. My proposal amounts to this: I said that we wanted to increase the tax on companies by 6s. in the £ and that the mines had to pay more on the same basis. Now, what is the counterpart to the tax on companies? It is the permanent part of the gold mining taxation. The 3s. in the £ permanent tax is the counterpart to the tax on companies. I added that for various reasons it would be more convenient not to impose the tax on the 3s. in the £ which the gold mines pay, but by way of an increase of the special contribution which would produce the same amount. But the actual basis of the taxation proposal is the increase of this 3s. in the £ to 3s. 6d. in the £ while the increase in the case of ordinary companies is also an increase of 6d. namely from 2s. 6d. to 3s. The difference between the hon. member for Fauresmith and myself is this: I say that the counterpart of the tax on companies is the permanent tax on gold mining companies. Let me put it this way: the tax on gold mining companies is (a) the 3s. in the £; (b) the formula tax and (c) the 9 per cent. special tax. I say that the counterpart is (a); he says that the counterpart is (a) plus (b). Well, if it is (a) plus (b) why then not (a) plus (b) plus (c)? Why does the hon. member leave out one temporary part and not the other one? I put that question to the hon. member for Fauresmith, and his answer was that that would be going too far. But in principle (b) and (c) are on exactly the same basis.

What about the excess profit?

(a) The 3s. which is a permanent tax has always been there, and it is regarded as a permanent tax. Then after our leaving the gold standard other levies were made. By a stroke of the pen from the Minister of Finance the price of gold went up and that increased price brought with it an increase of profit for the gold mining companies.

That was the excess profit.

My hon. friend calls it the excess profit. That is an antiquated expression, but by all means let us use it. Now, how were we to have dealt with this excess profit? An expert enquiry was held and as a result of that enquiry the hon. member for Fauresmith accepted certain proposals. I know that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) was not satisfied with those suggestions. Still, they were the proposals of the hon. member for Fauresmith. He decided how much of those excess profits it was fair and in the interests of the State to leave to the gold mines. He decided how much of the excess profits were to be left in the possession of the gold mines for the encouragement of capital development, and also in order to allow for the working of low grade ore. He decided that it would not be in the interest of the State to take more than a certain proportion of the excess profit, and on that basis the matter was finally settled. It was a temporary arrangement. As long as those conditions prevail it was regarded as a final arrangement. Then there was a further increase in the price of gold. Again, as a result of the stroke of a pen by the Minister of Finance, the profits of the mines were increased, and we again had to go into the matter to lay down how much of the excess profits should go to the State. Eventually, that question was solved by the institution of a special contribution — again a temporary thing, because conditions might change. Consequently, it again amounts to this, we have the permanent part of the gold mining tax and then we have’ two temporary parts which have been imposed in the light of what is fair and reasonable and in the interests of the State in relation to that part of the excess profit which the State should retain and which should be left to the mine. Seeing that the State has taken as much as it considered fair and reasonable in its own interest we cannot say now that the State should lay an additional tax on that. When it comes to a question of a counterpart to the tax on companies, then the only counterpart in the gold mining tax is that permanent part of the tax namely the 3s. in the £.

What do you expect now from the gold premium?

I do not know what my hon. friend means by the gold premium.

The excess profit.

I do not know yet what my hon. friend means.

The amount of the gold premium.

That is a question which I cannot answer here. I now finally come to a contention which has often been repeated here, namely, the effect which my proposals will have on the poor man. May I first of all say a few words about the speech of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). He did not complain that the proposals would fall heavily on the poor man, but he stated that the major part of the taxation would have to be borne by the middle-class worker and by the wage earner. The major part has to be borne by the middle-class workers and by the wage earners. That is what they say. Now what are the facts? The total amount of the taxation amounts to £4,825,000. Of that £865,000 is borne by the gold and diamond-mining companies. Of that total not much will be contributed by the middle-class workers and by the wage earners. On companies an amount of £900,000 is imposed. Not much of that will be contributed by the middle-class workers and the wage earners. We expect to get £450,000 from super tax. The middle-class workers and the wage earners will not contribute very much of that. Then we expect to get another £450,000 from income tax. I do not know to what amount we have to go with the middle-class worker. But let us take £1,000 income as the limit. I would say that of that £450,000 £50,000 will be contributed by people with incomes below £1,000. So here we have altogether so far £2,800,000 out of the £4,800,000 which will not be contributed by the middle-class workers and by the wage earners. There is no need for me to go any further. I have said enough to prove how ridiculous that sort of contention is. What becomes now of the contentions in regard to the effect of these taxes on the poor man? It is stated that these taxes will hit the poor man severely. It is being said that many of the poor people use petrol, have to use it, and that there are many people who have to make a living out of lorries. Naturally. There are poor people who smoke cigarettes. Of course, that is so. There are poor people who drink brandy, and there are even poor people who drink whisky. Therefore, so it is said, the proposed taxes will fall very heavily on the poor man. Now I should like to know what tax there is which will not at any rate in part fall on the poor man? It may sound somewhat peculiar, but even the tax on companies falls partly on the poor man as well. It is not paid by the companies, but by people who draw dividends which are paid by the companies, and there are people who are entirely dependent for their comparatively small incomes accruing to them on dividends from companies. Even that tax to a small extent falls on the poor man. Even the tax on the mines falls to a small extent on the poor man. There are poor people too who are dependent on mining dividends. I say again that there are very few taxes which do not in part fall on the poor man. There may be exceptions, such as customs duties on certain luxury articles, which the poor man does not buy, or the super tax, but it is practically a matter of impossibility to find £5,000,000 in taxation without some poor people having to contribute.

Do you admit that the 3d. on petrol severely affects the poor man?

I admit that there are poor people who will contribute to the petrol tax, but only a small proportion of them; I cannot give up this tax simply because there are a few poor people who will be affected by it. What I want to say is that there is practically no tax proposed by me here which in its entirety will necessarily be paid by the poor people. There are thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people in South Africa who will not feel these taxes at all, but I at once make one exception, and that is the postal tax. There are very few people who never write any letters at all. The tariff on post cards has, of course, not yet been raised, but that is where the increased postal tariff hits the poor man, however small in extent he may be affected, comparatively speaking. I repeat that there are tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people in South Africa who, apart from that one point, will not feel these taxation proposals at all, and I say that it is a great achievement to be able to find £5,000,000 by means of taxation of which one is able to say that. I want to draw a comparison between these taxation proposals which we are now deling with and the taxation proposals which were introduced when it was also necessary in the past to find fairly large amounts. These taxation proposals will bring in an amount of £4,825,000. But let me say this first of all. Which are the taxes which fall most heavily on the poor man? The taxes which fall most heavily on the poor man are those which are caused by an increase of customs tariffs generally on necessities of life. What do our proposals amount to? We want to find altogether £4,825,000, of which £1,950,000 is to come from customs duties, but there is not a solitary increase on any necessities of life, and there is no general increase of customs tariff. The postal rates are increased and we expect to find £210,000 from this source. The poor man will be slightly affected by this. For the rest everything is to be found by way of income tax and taxes on mining and other companies. Consequently nothing is found by means of a general increase in customs tariffs or an increase on the tariffs on necessities of life. I now come back to the last two occasions when it became necessary to levy taxation on a large scale. In 1931 additional taxation was imposed to an amount of £2,200,000. Out of petrol tax an amount of £700,000 was obtained — and on that occasion there was no such great objection raised to the petrol tax; out of postal rates £600.000 was obtained—a good deal more than to-day. In addition, however, taxation was imposed on tea, clothing, domestic requirements, cotton piece goods — more than £500,000. One quarter of the taxation proposals affected necessities of life. Now I come to 1932 when taxation had to be imposed to an amount of £3,585,000.

What were the possible sources in those days?

I shall tell hon. members what was done. An amount of £380,000 was secured from the gold mines; from income tax an additional £350,000 was obtained, and £2,600,000 was obtained from a general increase in customs tariffs, and in addition an amount of £200,000 out of a further increase of specific necessities, such as tea, fish, boots and certain articles of clothing. Eighty per cent. of that amount was found by way of increased customs duties. In my proposals not a penny is found by that course. It would have been impossible to have come along with any other proposals producing £5,000,000 and putting as small a burden on people not able to bear those burdens. We have never yet had a budget where it has been necessary to impose taxation of a large scale and where we have succeeded in imposing those taxes in a way as fair and reasonable and demanding as little from the poor man as we are doing in this case.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—69:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bains, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Bumside, D. C.

Cadman, C. F. M.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R, J.

Egeland, L.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. E.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—44:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus, F. C.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst. B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel. J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. H. Viljoen.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Original motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—68:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Cadman, C. F. M.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Stuttaford, R.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares. A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—44:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, p. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus, F. C.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl. J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob

Wilkens, Jan.

Woltaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. H. Viljoen.

Motion accordingly agreed to; House to go into Committee on 13th September.