I move—

I would like to touch on a few matters here in connection with the reign of terror in this country which the Government has started, encouraged and fed, until the population of the country no longer knows what is going to happen to them on the morrow. A month of two ago a state of affairs was created when no citizen in the country felt safe any longer, because espionage was going on all over, officially on the one hand and unofficially on the other. The official espionage, so far as we can find out, consisted in certain persons being appointed in villages to give information about what was being said by other people and about activities in the villages. To mention one case, a few months ago I was told that a certain person was appointed in a village, that he was a paid agent, a secret agent, who had to give information about the activities in the village. I could hardly believe it when I heard it, because I am aware of my own knowledge that the person was the most unreliable and irresponsible person in the village, because he is a person who is drunk for the greater part of the 24 hours, and because he is a person who loafs about in the canteen and possibly listens to conversations. That is possibly the reason why he was appointed, because he is so well known in the canteen that they thought that he could possibly find out certain things there, could do certain spying work in order to be able to give information. The man’s brain is entirely muddled, is no longer fit for anything, even to know what is being said or to state what it is. I made enquiries again, and was then told: We cannot ascertain the official source, the information which is being given, but it is certain that the individual constantly gives information about people in the village. This is not a isolated case. In other villages people have been appointed. You cannot find out much about it. Sometimes they are business people, butchers, whoever they may be, who have to do the espionage, who have to carry tales to the police or the magistrate or police headquarters. It has created such a state of affairs that the population were completely beaten in this respect in that they felt that anything might be ascribed to them, any false thing, and they would have no remedy. Then we found that there was also another big unofficial espionage going on, and this is still worse. By whom was that encouraged? By no one less than the Prime Minister himself, because it was told to the people who are members of the Truth Legion and other organisations, and parties: “It is your duty to come and report what is going on in the country, and also to report when anything is said or done which may be hostile to the state.” If such information is really given, if anything is really being done against the state, then it is the duty of the people to give information about it, but anyone who knows anything about psychology knows that the whole scheme could only end by all kinds of false information being created and manufactured, and then being passed on to the authorities. There are also cases where it was found out that the statements, sometimes even sworn statements, were usually irresponsible statements, subversive statements, and often concocted and made by the persons themselves. Now we would like to know from the Minister to what extent steps had been taken against the people who have made such statements, which have turned out to be entirely unfounded. To what extent have these people been punished? Because we do know, even from Government sources, that they have had so many complaints, absurd allegations, that they themselves subsequently had to go and say to the people: “You must not be so frivolous in bringing so many complaints of that kind sending in empty complaints which clearly contain unfounded charges.” But the whole population were stampeded and the whole social life in South Africa was violated, made impossible, and blurred by the action of the Government. The Government did its best to put the people up in arms and antagonise them, while we on the other hand, had to go and calm the people. I want to say frankly that when I went to my constituency and found how the people had been stampeded by the reign of terror of these insignificant blackguards and scum who intimidated people, I went on to the platform and said that we at least made one promise in South Africa, and that was that if we ever came into office that it would then be our job to have everyone of the complaints, of the statements, of the false declarations investigated — not as the Government did, in secret, but in open court, and to prosecute the people who made false statements against Afrikaners, and to let them get their deserved reward. Not out of any feeling of revenge, but for the sake of the future of South Africa and for the sake of right-minded feeling between the different sections of the population. It is necessary, in the interests of civilisation, that the scum of South Africa should not have the opportunity of doing what they have done in the country, and fouling life in South Africa, without being punished. We are only going to promise that if we get the necessary opportunity these matters will be investigated very fully. What was the result of my statement? Immediately afterwards the people began to say: “We did not mean it in that way. It is not I who said those things. It is not I who gave the information.” Even a paid agent went about in one of the villages when he found that the right-minded Afrikaners would no longer cross the threshold of his place of business, and then he started to minimise things, and to try and justify his position, and to say that he was not responsible for certain things. If the Government will not do it then when the time comes we will try to clean up society in South Africa again and make it possible to make the relations between the different sections of the population in South Africa such that we can live together in peace, and live together in order to build up the country, not to break down everything which we find should be sacred and good in the country. In that I include the good relations between the races. To-day they are being broken down by the Government, but we want to build them up. The Government makes the feeling worse and worse, impossible, but we want to build it up and put things right again. They laugh because they have the power to-day and can pain and hurt and wound and even oppress and trample upon us, and there are people amongst them on the other side who take a delight in it, fortunately not all. I know quite well that there are on the other side hon. members who themselves are grieved in their hearts that their own Government is doing these things. In order to indicate how far things have already gone, I want to mention the particular case here of a highly-placed person in my constituency, a man in a high position in society, a man whose whole life is devoted to create good relations between the English-speaking and the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population, a man whose whole life is arranged in such a way as to create a good disposition. I know this, because I have myself for forty years of my life walked with that man through the lire of the world, and I know what I am talking about. He is a part-time official of the state, and I know quite surely that the man would never in any way be guilty of any subversive action against the state or the Government. He belongs to the type of people who want to create better relations between the population in South Africa, and I know that he has laid himself out to do so. What happened to the man? He was sent for by the magistrate to appear privately before him. He wrote to me—

He then asked the magistrate who had made the statements, but the magistrate replied that he could not give that information. It is imaginary, and that highly-placed person of irreproachable character, and highly respected, had to appear before the magistrate. When the magistrate could not tell him who had made the complaint he asked him if he would state what the complaint was. Then the magistrate said that he could just say something about it. It then appeared that the magistrate was ordered by the official to speak to him, and ultimately he said that the tendency of the complaint was that the person complained against was supposed to have said certain things to certain people which were subsequently repeated again. He writes—

That a magistrate of the country, as against an official under him, or of equal rank with him, could take the course to summon that person for a hearing, shows to what depths we have dropped in our social life. That was all that he could tell him about the complaint, and it is so absurd from top to bottom that it is too ridiculous to talk about it. Any right-minded person would have characterised it as an untruth which had been trumped up by someone, but to the Government it was sufficient reason to have the man sent for and to examine and cross-examine him. And what was the threat behind it? That he would lose his appointment! Why? Because there were others waiting to get the appointment. The man is actually married to a lady of English descent whose brother is sitting on the Government benches opposite. Those scandalous stories are believed by the magistrate, by the controller. A magistrate with any good feeling or selfrespect would immediately have said to the controller that it was the greatest nonsense in the world, because he knew the official. But he knew the man was a Nationalist, and the magistrate allowed himself to be used in company with the scoundrels who make sworn statements of that kind, to persecute an honourable man in the village, and to bring up lying statements against him. That is the state of affairs we have already reached, and if that can happen with a man of that kind, a person of standing in his village, what happened then to the rest of the population who are not able at all to defend themselves against such an attack, who would simply not be believed? It is a terrible state of affairs, and the Government is responsible. If the Government wants to create a better disposition and wants to have peace in South Africa until the war may possibly come here, then the Government can contribute a great deal to creating a good spirit in the country. We on our side are willing to create the good disposition. We are living in difficult times, and want to do everything in our power to create this good disposition. But what do we find? No opportunity is given. What is the truth of the matter? The Government has allowed the population to get out of hand. We know the unpleasant, deplorable state of affairs which has come about at the Cape owing to the midday pause, for example. It was started by people quite seriously with good intentions, but it immediately became clear that the scoundrels in the community were going to get out of hand, and do things which shocked the healthy social life and made it impossible. The Government said to the people: “You must be spies.” It must have been clear to the Government that if it said such a thing the people would then get out of hand. The Government made it clear to the people that they should be watch-dogs.

Pole-cats.

And what do the scoundrels do? They make use of the fact that the Government said that they were to do so and so, and they got out of hand, and the Government has gone too far, and dare not put an end to it — to stop the people whom they know should not have been allowed to do such things. That section of the population even gets the Government into its favour, and does what it wishes, and we are subsequently governed not by the state itself, but by the section of the population which we cannot call anything else but the lowest and meanest section of the population, people of weak and low characters. The Government, however, dare not call a halt. The Government have roused these people, and said, “Get on with it,” and now they dare not say to the people that they will be punished if they do wrong things. The Government can contribute a great deal in improving the position if it wishes, but I have the feeling now that the Government does not want to create a better position in South Africa, that for some reason or other the annoyances, the threatening of the population—I cannot think why—suits the book of the Government, that the Government wants it to be so. I can come to no other conclusion, because whatever we may try to do we cannot get any authoritative statement on the part of the Government saying: “We will not tolerate these things, we will not allow one section to be stirred up against the other section of the population.” The Government can do it, but by doing nothing the rabble are encouraged. They can encourage people who really want to assist the state and who really honestly want to promote the policy of the state to do so, but the other kind of thing they should condemn and uproot root and branch. The Government, however, does not want to do that. It is too weak. The Government is too afraid to take action against these people. The Government gave these people the opportunity of doing such things, and now it does not venture to change its position. The magistrate who was cross-examining that individual said: “I cannot state who has made the complaints, but this is what is being said about you, that you want to shoot all the English.” And that of a man whose house is always open, whom six or seven or even more visitors go to see every night. A more hospitable home you could hardly find, and the majority of the people who enjoy the hospitality are never or seldom Nationalists, but usually English-speaking people, supporters of the Government. His door is open, but he is charged with subversive action against the Government. The time has come for the Government to take action. I do not want it merely to say: We do not want this to be done, we disapprove of it; I want the Government to show that it is really strong, and it must take action against the people who make good relations and living together between the races in South Africa impossible. Take strong action against them, just as strong as you take against perfectly innocent people who are thrown into the camps without proof, people who subsequently prove that they are innocent. Put those people in gaol, bring them before the courts. But the people who make false charges against the Afrikaner people and the individuals do not land in gaol. There is not one of them in gaol yet, but there are already 120 Afrikaners in the camps, people who were taken away from their work, and do not even know to-day why they are there. The only other complaint which the magistrate mentioned was that the person was supposed to have said: “He will not do the work of another doctor if the latter goes to the front.” The magistrate knew quite well that that very doctor was then engaged in doing the other man’s work, to assist the colleague who had left, and that he was paying over to his colleague a part of the money which he received for his services. The magistrate knew these things well enough. Did he tell the Controller about them? No. I just want to say that I think that the magistrate takes a pleasure in persecuting the man, and I hope that the Minister will take notice of it. There you have a man who has given his whole life to the service of his fellowmen, who has done good work and who tried to create a good spirit, and to-day he is being persecuted in that way. Those are the only two reasons that he could bring against the man, the one absurd and the other erroneous. He was not told who the complainants were. I ask the Minister to institute an enquiry and to prosecute the people who made the declarations. The Minister will ask me first of all to prove that the charges are not true. I am telling the Minister that they are not true, because I know the whole life of the man, and am constantly in his home, and I stop with him; I know what is going on there, and I know the people who come to his house as visitors. There is no subversive propaganda or action going on against the Government. On the contrary, he is an Afrikaner who is sacrificing everything for Afrikanerdom, a man who stands up for his country, and works on behalf of his country, and does everything in his power to hold South Africa’s name high, and to help South Africa to advance. That is why he is being persecuted. I am not satisfied with the action of the magistrate. The magistrate knew what the position was, and that it was nothing but a desire to persecute. He cannot help if people come and make the complaints, but the magistrate has commonsense, and must surely know when things are obviously quite ridiculous and false. It is surely expected of a magistrate that he should have a little knowledge of human nature, and that he knows a little how to differentiate. We are so keen on pensioning people. Pension him. The Minister said here yesterday that he believes that there had been no beating and assaulting of the internees at Baviaanspoort. Did I understand him correctly?

No, no.

I think that 60 were very seriously knocked about.

About 90 to 100 were injured.

And 60 of them seriously. Will the Minister also say that the property of those people was not stolen? There was one prosecution in Court, and the man was punished, and he said, “I did not intend to steal. I thought it was just quite a customary way of acting. We all helped ourselves.” They all did it, and he thought that that was the usual way of dealing with such prisoners of war. Has the Government any information as to how our prisoners are being treated in Germany? There are relatives of hon. members opposite who are prisoners there, and has the Government got any information as to how they are treated? We get the information from private sources that they are treated particularly well. What is the information we get from the Red Cross in Switzerland as to the treatment of prisoners of war? I cannot use the same words as that person did who gave the information to me, but it amounts to this that the treatment there is very good. The Minister stated here that he was concerned about that matter having been touched upon. If that is so, then I would like him to give us the assurance now that everything is in order, and that his people are being treated in accordance with international customs and agreements, and not in a different way. Let the Minister make a statement of that kind. If he thinks that the grounds for the statements that have been made here with reference to what neutral people have said are not true, then it is high time for him to make such a statement, and that he should give the opportunity to the Red Cross authorities, of whom he spoke, to institute an enquiry, because I feel that we should not allow the good name of South Africa to be dragged in the mud by things which go on in our camps. I believe that it is necessary that the world should know that we are treating those men well and decently. We have not the least reason in South Africa to treat our prisoners badly.

We have little reason in South Africa for acting towards those people as has been done. I have not been there myself; I accept the statement that there was provocation for it, but that trouble could most certainly have been settled in a reasonable way. I am thinking of other countries where the war is becoming fierce, and where the hatred is greater than ever before, and in the midst of all those terrible times in which the people are living, and where people are angry when a prisoner is captured amongst them, they nevertheless, as far as I know, treat them well. Here in South Africa we are far removed from the fighting, and on the surface there is peace here, and cannot we now act in that way, so that that sort of thing should not happen here? And now we come to the property of the people which was taken away from them. The Minister said that there were cameras in their possession. If so, then it was due to the fact that the authorities in the camp did not maintain proper supervision. If there are other things in their possession which they should not have had, then it was not the fault of the internees, but of the people who had to guard them. This again shows a certain amount of bad discipline which was exhibited when the fight was going on. Orders were given which could never be given to police and soldiers, and which simply amounted to this: Beat them to death. The words which were used I will not repeat. There was an absence of discipline which the Government condemns, just as there is an absence of discipline amongst the soldiers of the Government. We have had a year’s time in which to teach these people discipline, and that is surely the first thing that is necessary for military units, when we want them to fight. I cannot become an officer; it does not suit me, but there are other officers in the House, and they know that the first principle of waging war is that the people must be under discipline. There is an absolute lack of that discipline in the soldiers when they come into touch with the civil population, and the Government is responsible. Millions of pounds are being spent on these things, and we may surely at least expect that there will be discipline amongst these people, and that they will understand that that is the first requisite for both soldiers and police. I do not know how many of the police were used in this case, but it most certainly became clear that it was a section of the Police Force which did not understand discipline. The first thing they should have understood was that they could not rob enemy subjects. We do not know how much was stolen there, but we would like to know whether the Minister is trying to find out, and whether any steps are being taken to restore their property to those people. I want the Government to show the world that every penny that was stolen and everything that was taken away, which those people were entitled to have in their possession, is being repaid and restored to them. Is that being done? I hope so. But I say this. If we ever want to reinstate our good name in the world, then we should at least not treat those people worse than prisoners of war are treated in other countries, and especially than our own people are treated in enemy countries. It is the duty of the Government to tell that to the world. We do not want to act revengefully towards those people. Say that revengeful action must not be taken against our own people on the one hand, and on the other hand against defenceless enemy subjects in our camp. Show that practically. Do not be afraid. A government which is strong is not afraid of doing the right thing. The Government is always afraid that it will do something which will show weakness. It is not weakness to do the right thing, and to admit that a mistake has been made. The Government should not be afraid, afraid, afraid of that kind of weakness. It would be strength, and I would like to see our having a righteous and strong government at this time. I hope that the Minister will listen to this, will make a statement, and will also tell us that those people will get back everything that has been taken from them, and which they are entitled to have in their possession.

I want to reply at once to the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer). The hon. member was courteous enough to see me yesterday in regard to the specific case with which he has dealt. Now, I have no knowledge at present of the details of that case, but I assured my hon. friend yesterday that I would send to Pretoria for the file immediately and go into the details. I shall do so when I get the file. I shall come in a moment to the procedure which is adopted in these cases of warnings, but before doing so may I say this: I appreciate that the hon. member is moved at what happened to a particular friend of his, and I appreciate that he spoke to-day with considerable emotion. But I must ask him this: he has shewn in the past that he is a fair-minded man, but I would ask him in dealing with this matter not to allow himself to be carried away by this one case, the full facts of which he is not aware of, and not to allow an unverified circumstance to colour his whole outlook towards the Government’s policy.

It is not only one case; it is always happening.

He says that there is a reign of terror, that there is a network of espionage, and that people are employed in every town and village in order to spy on Afrikaners.

And is that not so?

Some time ago, public requests, requests which were published in the Press, came to the Prime Minister and to the Government for the establishment of tribunals, tribunals in towns and villages. The suggestion was that these tribunals should consist of persons who would be supporters of the Government, would investigate allegations of subversive activities in their areas. The Prime Minister would have nothing to do with that suggestion. That suggestion, if followed, would quite possibly have led to the sort of thing which the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet now contends is happening. The Government did not wish to set up these secret tribunals, tribunals which might have evidence, prejudiced evidence, brought before them, tribunals which could not have the facilities for sifting the evidence which are enjoyed by the Police Department in making investigations. The very fact that the Government turned down that request is evidence of its bona tides, is evidence that in dealing with this very difficult problem it wants to tackle it along sound and fair lines, lines which will not act to the prejudice of any Afrikaner who is not guilty of subversive activities. What is the position in South Africa at present? The position so far as the Government is concerned is that, despite the differences of opinion on the war issue, it is the duty of the Government to prevent subversive activities; it is the duty of the Government to put down subversive activities, and where the Government has clear evidence of such activities it must take the appropriate action. It is also, the Government considers, the duty of private individuals to report evidence of such activities if they have such evidence. If any individual citizen bona fide believes that he has evidence in his possession of subversive activities, of activities inimical to the interests of the state, it is the duty of that citizen to report that evidence to the proper authorities.

Why have a special organisation to do it?

There is machinery which has been set up by the state in order to deal with this evidence of subversive activities in South Africa.

Yes, the Truth Legion.

The Government has established a Chief Control Officer, and the Chief Control Officer deals with cases of internment and with steps which have to be taken less than internment. Now, those people who feel that they have information which should be passed on, pass that information on either to the Chief Control Officer or to the control officers in various parts of the country. The control officers are magistrates. And persons may pass on information to the police, the local representatives of the police.

A lot of spies.

Reports made to the police are taken under oath.

What we cannot understand is why the whole of the procedure is secret.

It must be obvious to the hon. member and to members of this House that in matters of this sort secrecy is essential. We are dealing in this country with a number of secret and subversive activities, and obviously it would be prejudicial to the interests of the state, prejudicial to the investigations that are carried on, to indicate the evidence and the source of the evidence in possession of the police. Hon. members must remember that we are in a state of war, we are dealing with extraordinary circumstances and we are dealing with a number of subversive activities widespread throughout the country. That such subversive activities have taken place is beyond question. We know that clandestine attempts have been made to undermine our Defence Force and our Police Force; we have had these overt attacks of sabotage and the Government has taken into custody people who have been found to have in their possession illegally home-made bombs. These incidents are evidence of the subversive activities which are taking place. In other Dominions, in other countries which are in a state of war, it would be very simple to deal with these various forms of subversion which have manifested themselves, but in South Africa we have peculiar difficulties unknown to other Dominions. We have deep cleavages among our people, we have our political difficulties; the whole background of our country shows how difficult it is to deal with these matters in a fair and proper way in the interest of the state.

That is why you do it unfairly.

And in the Union it is very much more difficult to deal with these matters in the same way as they deal with them in other belligerent countries. We have to deal with these matters here in the light of our own circumstances. The Government, therefore, so far from inaugurating a reign of terror, so far from treating cruelly the persons who may come under suspicion, has, I submit, dealt with this matter from its inception along tolerant lines, and along reasonable lines. As the Prime Minister pointed out recently, there has been a great deal of criticism that the Government has been far too tolerant, far too lenient. It has been alleged that the Government has allowed things to happen which should never have happened.

That came from the jingoes.

There is that strong feeling among a section of the people. Now, there is that criticism on the one side and there is the extreme criticism on the other side that a reign of terror has been put into operation. It seems to me that with these two striking lines of criticism mutually destructive, it is clear that the Government has been following a tolerant middle course in order to do as little damage as possible to any individual. The Government has three methods of dealing with persons who have gone beyond the bounds of what one might call reasonable criticism. We have to remember that one of the difficult factors in dealing with subversive movements is our fundamental political differences. People make political speeches which go very far, but it is not the intention or the desire of the Government to prevent people from making political speeches. Hon. members opposite can talk to their heart’s content when they return to their constituents, and when they criticise the Government and the alleged iniquities of the Government; we are not concerned. The Government will go on doing its duty. Hon. members may talk, and there is no desire on the part of the Government to stop them from legitimate talking. But there is a stage when even a very wide latitude has been abused, where talk goes beyond reasonable bounds, and becomes subversive. There are stages where conduct no longer remains reasonable conduct but becomes subversive.

Why make continuous threats?

I think the hon. member mistakes friendly warnings for threats. He regards every word of advice as a threat instead of an attempt to prevent people from doing foolish things which they may bitterly regret in the future. The Government has three methods of dealing with persons who are considered to have acted in a subversive fashion. There is the method of warning, the method of control, and the method of internment. I am referring now to Union Nations, not to enemy Aliens. I have on a previous occasion dealt with the question of enemy Aliens. In regard to Union Nationals, where the evidence is clear against a Union National that he has been guilty of subversive action and is a danger to the State, that person has been interned. The very fact that we have interned only 180 Union Nationals, of whom only fifty are Union born, is, I submit, evidence of the fact that the Government has gone slow in this matter.

Too slow.

Of the balance of the Union Nationals the majority are Germans who have become naturalised. And the experience of the Government has been that many persons who have become naturalised, and have been given the hospitality of the country, have grossly abused that hospitality and have shewn by their subsequent actions that they were never genuine when they assumed Union Nationality. That was quite evident recently when certain of these people were given the opportunity of being interned with Union Nationals instead of being interned with Germans. They had already been interned and they were given the opportunity of being detained with Union Nationals as against being interned with Germans. They chose to be interned with Germans because, as they said, they had been German in thought, sympathy and belief all the time. That was the way they felt, and that was the way they abused our hospitality. There are over 100 of those people. The others are Union Nationals born in South Africa, but many of these are young persons who are Union Nationals merely by accident of birth in South Africa. Their parents were German.

The English people who retain their British feeling here, do you consider that they are anti-South African?

No.

South Africa is not part of Germany.

No, of course not. You say that South Africa is part of England.

I have no objection to an English-speaking South African retaining his affection for Great Britain but I do expect him, if he wants to live in South Africa, to put South Africa first — to be a South African.

You do not act up to that.

My objection to these Germans who have settled here and who have become naturalised, is that they have shewn by their conduct when they thought Hitler was about to win the war — because these things only happened recently — and hon. members opposite have shewn their own feelings in that regard — these persons have shewn that they do not put South Africa first. It is Germany first with them. That document which I exhibited in the House the other day, which was found on a Railway employee, clearly shewed that. Let me tell the House about it.

Are you going to make some more disclosures?

I am afraid my hon. friend does not like it. Let me tell the House about it. He was a Union National, he was a Commandant in the Ossewabrandwag. I exhibited the uniform he wore. He was born in South Africa of German parents, and the book I exhibited was a little pocket book. I have not the translation here, but the theme running through a number of inscriptions, printed inscriptions in German, was—

And one Fuehrer.

Now there was this young man in the Railway Service of South Africa enjoying the hospitality of South Africa, born here, serving the Government of South Africa, yet a Commandant in the Ossewabrandwag carrying about that document.

Like the Dominion Party.

Well, Sir, that is the procedure. Internment where the offence is clear. But there are numbers of cases where is is not considered necessary to intern, and the first stage in dealing with these cases is to give a warning. Now I want to say this to the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet: does not he, as a fair man, consider it very much better to arrange for a Control Officer, a judicial officer, a magistrate, to give a private warning?

Why was this man warned at all?

If there is evidence under oath of subversive activities, surely a warning is a very reasonable step? Let me assume that in this case —I have not got the facts of that case now but let me assume that this evidence given against a person in Graaff-Reinet was false; it was yet evidence given under oath, and the evidence, I assume, must have been of such a nature that the authorities considered it should be acted on, that it should be taken at its face value, and that a warning should be given.

You are simply encouraging this business by everything you say.

The hon. member must not allow this one instance to blind him to the facts. It is very much better to give a warning than to take drastic action immediately statements may be made against a man.

How dare you warn a man when nothing has been done.

This warning is given privately, and this warning has enabled the hon. member to bring this matter to our notice. I gave the hon. member the assurance that I would go into it, but I repeat that that system is much better than to take drastic action immediately. And I want to pay a tribute to the Chief Control Officer for the way he has dealt with these cases. A number of people have been warned, and our experience has been that after these warnings have been given there has generally been no further difficulty. People have respected these warnings. The system of warnings has proved to have had salutary effects. It is a fair system; there is no publicity, and it does not bring a person into any difficulties or prejudice.

I say again that a warning was not necessary.

Between the system of warning and internment, we have a system of control. If a person disregards the warning it is competent for the control officer to impose control on him, to prevent the person from leaving the district in which he resides, and so on. And then, in order to ensure that our internment system should act fairly, the Government also instituted an Appeal Advisory Commissioner.

That is a farce.

Once a Union national is interned the matter does not rest there. He has a right of appeal. He can submit his case to the Appeal Commissioner; he can be heard verbally, and he can be represented by a legal representative if he wishes. That system has been in operation now for some time, and persons have been released. And I think the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet was unfair when he suggested that the Government felt that, in order to show its strength, it would never admit that a mistake had been made, or would never make a concession for fear of being considered weak. Does the hon. member realise that quite a lot of persons have been released? Does the hon. member forget the statement made by the Prime Minister last session about certain persons who had been interned on false evidence, and who were subsequently released. The Government acted at once.

You intern people on the statements of your lying informers.

Let me assure hon. members that if the Government finds that statements have been made under oath which are false, appropriate action will be taken.

But it has never yet been taken.

Oh, yes, there is one case already — I do not want to mention any names, but it is a case in which a certain person who made a statement under oath against another person has already been punished for a certain offence. Charges of fraud and of perjury are now being considered in respect of that person. The Government is going to do its duty in this matter — it is going to control subversive activities, but it is also not going to allow any person for reasons of private spite to do any injustice to others. If evidence of that kind is found, I can assure hon. members that appropriate action will be taken.

Do you only intern as the result of affidavits, or do you also act on statements which are not sworn to?

The hon. member will appreciate that for obvious reasons I am not able to indicate the enquiries which are made, but if an affidavit of a serious nature is made, and if it is sought to intern anyone, all the information is sifted and steps are taken to check up the information. The whole question is a difficult one. I can assure hon. members that it is not a congenial task to have to take decisions in regard to one’s fellow-Afrikaners, but the Government is trying to act along reasonable and fair lines and is doing everything possible to ensure that no injustice is done. And I think that if hon. members review the question fairly and impartially they will admit that the Chief Control Officer and his administration have acted fairly and tolerantly. The Government will continue to act tolerantly; it will continue to be fair; but it cannot in time of war allow any subversive activity to take place in the country. Now, may I just briefly refer again to the question of Baviaanspoort which was raised by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. When dealing with it yesterday the time at my disposal did not permit me to give certain details which I think I should now give, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet has come back to this criticism. He asked me whether the Government denied that internees had been hurt. I never denied that. What I did deny was this fantastic statement, purporting to be a true account of what happened, which was published in Die Transvaler, and subsequently dutifully taken over by Zeesen. There was no truth in that statement; it was a distortion of the truth — there was not a tittle of truth in it. That report said that about 500 police arrived at 6 o’clock in the morning and charged the internees with loaded rifles and with fixed bayonets. There was not a word of truth in that, and there is not a word of truth in the report that another 400 men who had been in Durban arrived later under an English major. It is a travesty of the truth. The total number of police, I repeat, involved in the affair was 250, and of those only 150 went into the camp and the others remained outside. Of those 150 one hundred were armed with rifles and fixed bayonets. They formed three sides of a square where the internees were to be rounded up. They did not come into contact with the internees. And they did not take part in the charge. Only 50 police took part in the baton charge and the baton charge lasted only five minutes. Just let me give an extract from the report of the officer in charge. It will be remembered that on the previous day the internees had refused to allow two of their number to be handed over. They had wilfully and arrogantly defied the authorities. It was stated that the assistance of the police would be invoked in order to remove the men. Now the officer in charge of the fifty men said this—

Now, what was the attitude of the internees? The best I can do is to refer to this document which is a contemporaneous document dealing with what happened at Baviaanspoort on Sunday, 30th June. On the previous day the camp leader, a German officer —who I may say had always attempted to assist the authorities as far as possible, and I may add that the life of these camp leaders is not a very happy one. These “lager Fuhrers” are deposed from time to time. Their life is made a misery by the troublesome elements.

Like that of the Leader of the Opposition.

Yes, and like that of the hon. member for Piquetberg, the Deputy Leader. Let me just read this: On Saturday, 29th June, the internees had informed the camp commandant that the men would not be handed over. Accordingly, Col. Blankenberg with his second in command went out to the camp on Sunday morning and the Director of Internments, that is Col. Blankenberg, had an interview with the camp leader, and I am going to read some extracts from a verbatim account taken at the time. Col. Blankenberg said this—

That is the visiting of the men by friends or relatives—

To this the camp leader replied—

Then Col. Blankenberg later on asked—

Then, sir, may I read a further extract. Col. Blankenberg says, in reference to the camp leader—

Sir, could you have a better effort to be fair and conciliatory, than that? It has been suggested that this was an act of savagery, of butchery, and here we see the history of the whole affair. The Director of Internment Camps says—

Now, sir, this is interesting. The camp leader said this—

It is a very curious thing that it was quite obvious deliberate propaganda had been circulated, and the men in the camp imagined that the police were with them. I have here a copy of an order which the camp commandant issued to the Germans to the effect that they must keep away from the police, because in his opinion they might get into trouble if they did not do so. The opinion of the men was that the police would be with them, so this notice was issued by the camp commandant. He said—

This is an internment camp, sir, in time of war, and hon. gentlemen opposite talk about savagery! The camp leader went on to say—

Where is the evidence of these people having a bad time, the sort of thing that hon. gentlemen opposite are telling us, when here is the camp leader, the German in charge of the camp, telling the Director of Internment Camps that these false stories are being circulated and that his people are being “spoilt”?

Is that the same man who would not give any assistance, or is that another camp leader?

I recently prefaced my remarks about this camp leader by saying that, in fairness to him, he had been giving the utmost assistance for some months. But we know that, as with the Opposition, this was a case of the tail wagging the dog. The unfortunate camp leader had no authority with the internees, because he reported that the internees refused to allow these two men to go. That is indicative of the spirit of that camp. These men knew that France had fallen, and they imagined that Hitler was preparing to walk into London, that the war was over. They were therefore prepared to adopt that arrogant attitude, to defy authority and to fling down the gauntlet. Well, sir, there was only one thing to be done in that case, and that was to call in the assistance of the police. That assistance was called in and the police acted. And if there were casualty on that occasion the fault lies with those who defied the police. The police did not go there to injure internees, but to remove two men. After the Afrikaans-speaking major in charge of the police had called three times for the handing over of the men be was greeted with defiant cries, boos, spitting and hissing, and stones were thrown at the police. In those circumstances he gave the order for a baton charge which lasted five minutes, and in that charge, which was resisted by the internees, a number of them were injured. It is unfortunate, but it was inevitable, in view of the conduct of the internees. I hope, sir, in these circumstances, hon. gentlemen opposite will not revert to this question. In so far as stolen property is concerned, the official report says that many fantastic claims were made. Let me quote one paragraph—

There was one case which was investigated, in which it was found that one young constable, aged 21, had the following articles in his possession: Seven wristlet watches, seven fountain pens, two clocks, a gold ring, one pair of nail clippers, a pocket wallet, two knives and £6 11s. 7½d. in cash; total value £25.

He did rather well.

Yes, that young man did rather well. He was, however, dealt with appropriately, sentenced and dismissed. If the question of compensation is raised, it can be gone into. On that I have no information at present, but I can give my friend the assurance that if any case comes to light where property to which internees were legitimately entitled has been stolen, the question of compensation will be gone into. In these circumstances I do hope that my hon. friends will desist from this continuous policy of attempting to hold up the Government to ridicule and contempt through its internment policy. As the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet must recognise, that sort of criticism can have most unfortunate repercussions overseas. And the most unfortunate thing of all is that that criticism is untrue.

If the declarations are drawn up in the same partisan way in which the Minister quoted them, then I fear that we cannot attach much value to them. He did not make it clear and we would like to know it, whether the declaration was taken down by a shorthand writer who was present, or whether it was subsequently recorded from memory. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) referred to espionage which was going on. That is a matter about which I want to say something, and I also want to say something about the internments, not only of German subjects but also of our own people. With regard to the espionage, there is not the least doubt that these things are going on. The Minister referred to-day to sworn statements. I can tell him of a case where a man was called up to the police, and he was detained for an hour or more while his wife was lying ill at home, and that simply on a typed anonymous complaint. Throughout the country, in every village you get these spies who are working for the Minister, and they are mostly from amongst the lowest individuals, people without work, without reputation, of bad character. And by virtue of their complaints people are put into camps. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) recently mentioned a case of a certain Mr. Van Schalkwyk, who is interned. He was a member of the reform movement, a miners’ movement, and he is interned. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad said that the case was being very seriously taken up by the miners in Johannesburg. Now I have here a sworn statement which has just come in from Van Schalkwyk. He says, under oath — this is not an anonymous complaint, such as those on which the Minister goes to work—

That is the sworn statement of Mr. Van Schalkwyk, and we see why he was interned, he is an Afrikaner, he belongs to the reform movement. There are many such cases like the one that we are now dealing with, and here we have a sworn statement, and we have every reason for believing that in this case, as in many other cases, steps have been taken as the result of malicious tales that are communicated. In this case it possibly comes from the other section of the miners, who are not sympathetic towards the reform movement. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) gave me something a moment ago which is quite interesting, to indicate the way they go to work. In this case a relative of the hon. member for Humansdorp was concerned in the matter. A number of Afrikaners were sitting chatting in Johannesburg about literary matters, and amongst other things reference was made during the course of the chat to the well-known Russian writer Dostoyesky. A few soldiers were sitting at the next table, and subsequently the Afrikaners were told that Dostoyesky was the commandant of the Ossewabrandwag! That person was complained against; probably nothing came of it, but it shows what is going on in South Africa. I have, however, risen to deal with another matter. I would like to make use of this last opportunity which there will be during this session to make an appeal to the Government. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not in his place, because I would have liked to make the appeal specially to him. I want to get back to the state of affairs in Cape Town in connection with the midday pause. Troubles arose and there may easily by greater troubles in the future. I am specially reverting to this in view of the declaration which is published in the Press this morning, the declaration of the Peninsula Church Council, and also in view of the report which happens to have appeared in the Press on the same day with regard to the resolution of the Town Council of Port Elizabeth to abolish the midday pause there. I would like to congratulate the representative of Port Elizabeth on the good sense exhibited by the Town Council of Port Elizabeth, because in the past they have not always shown so much sense. It is necessary to refer to certain aspects of the statement of the Church Council. They start from the point of view that a misunderstanding arose as to the original object of the noon pause, and then they say that in their opinion the pause was the recognition of God and the cause of peace. They then go on an say—

The case is not as to what the intention was. Let us for the sake of argument accept that the members of the Church Council had that very pious intention—that is not the point; to-day we are faced by a different position, which has been created in consequence of the institution of the midday pause. Then they say in addition—

But the Church Council must surely, when they instituted the pause, have known that a stormy session of Parliament had taken place here, that great and deep divisions prevailed amongst the people about participation in the war, and that there was a large Afrikaner population in Cape Town who did not want to have anything to do with the noon pause. In spite of all that they go on with the institution of such a pause, which, as they must have known, could only lead to trouble. They proceed—

Again I say that it is no use their deploring it. They should have realised that such things would take place, and after what did take place they should have stopped the pause. Even if the pause was honestly intended, it has now become a hopeless farce and a cause of commotion and trouble. Then they go on and say—

We know why the noon pause has great value. Its value lies not so much owing to the half-a-dozen people who in all honesty participate in it, but its greatest value lies in the fact that it stirs people up in favour of the war policy of the Government. That is the value which there is in the noon pause, and that is why the Natal Witness said the other day: “It may be good policy but it is bad religion.” There is a political object behind it, and the Church Council is either too naive or not sufficiently honest. I want to point out in passing that only two days ago a statement was made by the Broederkring of the Dutch Reformed Church in Cape Town, in which they say that they were never consulted in connection with the matter. That Broederkring is a circle of ministers of religion, and it is strange to learn that they were not consulted. What right have the Church Council to assume to themselves the right to lay down for the inhabitants of Cape Town when they should pray? Cape Town does not only consist of members of the Anglican, the Presbyterian and other English Churches. There is a large population who are members of the Dutch Reformed Church, and I say that the Church Council has not the least right of acting in such a case on behalf of the Churches of the Peninsula. In the course of this debate, and in the discussions in this House, it has been admitted by various hon. members on the opposite side that the noon pause is a thing which, after the course things have taken, ought to be abolished. The Prime Minister roundly admitted that in his opinion there was very little praying taking place. Well, then I ask, in view of that, have we not here a case of Adderley Street being turned into a kind of “Roman holiday”? In the old days the Romans went to see the Christians being martyred, and now the so-called Christians go to Adderley Street to see how Nationalists and nationally inclined people are assaulted. That is what the pause has become, and nothing more. If the Church Council want a pause for prayer to exist, to give the force and inspiration of the prayer to those who take part in it, then the matter can be arranged differently. There is a church here on the corner, there is a church in St. George’s Street, and for the Afrikaans-speaking persons who want to take part in it there are other places. They can go and hold the prayer pause at certain places. Not in the Groote Kerk, but in other places. But to go into Adderley Street, as is happening at the moment, is to do something which is nothing else but extreme hypocrisy and pharisaism. The Afrikaans-speaking section in Cape Town have the very best right of protesting that they are being forced to take part in it. We have made an appeal to the Prime Minister. We told him that he only had to say one word and that an end would then be put to this thing, and what was the attitude of the Prime Minister? He shrugged his shoulders. He takes up the same attitude that he took up on a previous occasion. You will remember that at the time of the industrial troubles in Johannesburg the Prime Minister said: “Allow things to develop.” Here once more the Minister is following the same policy. He shrugs his shoulders and washes his hands in innocence. He is going to do nothing — “Allow things to develop”! He says that he has the fullest confidence that the police can maintain order. What hope have the police to maintain order when a person avails himself of his right as a citizen to walk through the street without interfering with anybody and 200 or 300 people attack him? This is the last occasion which we shall have, this session, to raise this matter, and I would like with all seriousness to make an appeal to the Government and to the Prime Minister to use his influence and to follow the good example which has been given by Port Elizabeth and to put an end to this praying, which can only give rise to greater troubles in Cape Town. It is an unsound and impossible state of affairs which is prevailing here. I was in the street myself yesterday, because I had to do some business in the town. At five minutes to twelve I had to go and hide like an animal which was seeking shelter from the dogs because I did not want to allow myself to be beaten down by the populace in Adderley Street. The troubles commenced because citizens of the town were attacked who did not in the least mix themselves up in what was going on there. If one of those people had jeered at or provoked the people praying then he was looking for trouble. They did not do so, and even so an innocent schoolboy was assaulted. We are still living in a democratic country in spite of the dictatorship which has been created by the Bill which has been passed. The citizen still has a right to move about the streets, and if he wants to make use of that liberty of conscience and thought which the Prime Minister referred to when he said good-bye to his troops in Durban, and told them that they must go and fight for liberty of conscience and thought, when we make use of that right then we are assaulted in Adderley Street. We also demand for ourselves that liberty of thought and conscience, and if I or any other Afrikaans-speaking, or nationalistically inclined person who, does not want to take part in this praying —a praying which is only intended to pray for victory and not for humiliation before God — then I have the fullest right to move about there without my being attacked by the populace. This is the last opportunity of making an appeal now, but I do hope that this annual will not fall on deaf ears, and may I add this: I think that it is necessary in all seriousness to let a word of warning be heard, that the position cannot continue in this way and will not continue in this way. There is a murmurig amongst the people. If the Government are honest when they say that they have passed this War Measures Act in order to maintain law and order, then they now have the opportunity of preventing law and order being broken in Cane Town, and to use their influence with the Church Council and with the Municipality of Cape Town to put a stop to this praying. If they want to pray let them do so in their churches, and let them leave to the citizens of the Union their free right of moving about the streets of Cape Town.

I am glad that the Minister of the Interior is in his place. After what he said this morning I feel that we shall possibly find him in a reasonable mood, so that we can explain to him what we feel about this matter. If a man is a danger to the community then we cannot object to his being interned, but what we now feel is this, that because this war question has become a political question, people are being interned not because they are a danger to the state, but owing to their political views. As we are afraid that that is being done, I feel that it is necessary to say to the Minister of the Interior that he should not only take the word of the people who are sent to do spying work, that he should not only take the word of the knights of truth.

That is not their function.

He must be careful about taking the word of those people. They get a badge and a revolver. In our town one of them got drunk, and he showed his badge and ultimately drew his revolver. The knights of truth are all people who have strong political feelings. They make use of the power which they have or which is put into their hands, to persecute their political opponents, and as soon as that feeling gets about the country then feelings become bitter. I hesitated and was ashamed to mention it here, but I would like to tell the House what happened with a relative of mine. He was born in South-West Africa; bis parents have been in the country for forty years. He is a German and sympathises with Germany. It would be unnatural if he did not do so. It would also be unnatural for an English-speaking person not to be in sympahty with England at this time. The son is pro-English, and he worked in Cane Town in a business which deals in property which the Jews buy. They persecuted him, so that be subsequently had no here. The only place where he could work was in a shop. If they wanted to intern him because he was a German, or as the Prime Minister wrote to me, bemuse the business in which he was working was pro-Nazi, then I would like to refer to this. They must have a reason, because his brother and his father are in Cape Town and neither of them are interned.

Is he a Union national?

I said that he was a German. But his father and his brother are here in Cape Town, and they are both Germans. That person was born here, but he is a German because his parents are German. I also want to point out to the Minister that the German refugees are also Germans, and the Government is not interning them because they are Germans. They, however, arrested this person seven days before his wife was to give birth to her first child. You can understand that it was not possible for her to come home to her family in the circumstances she was placed in. She could not travel by train. We did not know when we received the telegram whether the child was being cared for or what had happened. The husband was simply arrested and put into, the internment camp. Can the Minister expect us not to feel bitter in circumstances like that? If he had to be interned because he was a German, why then had he not been interned three months before; why then were not his brother and his father also interned? Now it is said that the business in which he is working is pro-Nazi. He works there because he was squeezed out by the Jews in Cape Town. If that is the way in which people go to work have we not the right to argue that since certain powers are being given to these people they are using those powers to persecute us? Their excuse is that they are persecuting us because we are Nazis, but they simply do it because we are their political opponents. I want to tell the Minister that I will say what I want to, and I will see to it that I do not contravene the law. I shall not ask them to assist me. They can make martyrs of us, but they will themselves suffer for it yet. The Minister of the Interior referred to the storming and shouting that went on. One of the Germans did not hear a word of that because he was lying down asleep, and when he woke up he was in hospital, because one of the police nearly killed him on his bed by a blow. I feel that the Minister cannot simply take the word of those people when it suits his book. He should go further into the matter. One young constable said that he took things and he did not think that it was theft because all were taking them. More was taken than came out in the one case, and we now understand that claims have been handed in. But because the people are demanding more money than what they were allowed to have on them, it is apparently not theft. If the Minister goes to the Pretoria gaol he will find that those people also have things on them which they are not allowed to have. Many of these people are accustomed to a highly civilised and decent way of living, and we can understand that they would like to live as they had been accustomed to do in the past. I did not actually get up to speak about this. I notice the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) is in his place.

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

I have come here specially to reply to the speech which was made here by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg).

But the hon. member cannot reply now to a speech which was made in another debate.

I agree that that hon. member partly represents wine farmers, and he comes here on behalf of wine farmers and says, as he puts it—

He also said that the correct procedure would have been ….

The hon. member cannot now reply to the speech which that hon. member made in a different debate.

I understand that quite well. I am only quoting those words of his, to give him the assurance that if he goes back to his wine farmers he will find that they will tell him a different story. Apart from that I want to say that we know that he represents the wholesalers in this House. I only hope that his knowledge of bazaars is greater than his knowledge of brandy.

The hon. member cannot debate that matter now.

May I not debate the taxation proposals?

No, the hon. member cannot debate the taxation proposals under this motion.

I am speaking on the third reading of the Appropriation Bill.

No, the hon. member is now speaking on the taxation proposals. He will have the opportunity of doing that when the next order comes up.

Very well, I will do it then. I only want the Government to understand quite well that when they have now taken powers which are much larger than the powers which the ordinary law gives them are the special circumstances which have induced Parliament to give those powers to them, and if they abuse those powers then they will receive a double punishment. These powers have been granted to them by people who are in the position that they are quite blinded by party politics, and therefore do not act like intelligent human beings. In these circumstances they have given those powers to the Government, because the Government say that they need them to maintain peace and order. But as the Prime Minister, on the other hand, admits that there is peace and order in the country, if he abuses these powers then he will suffer a double punishment. He and his Government are taking the responsibility and if these powers are some day applied to them then they will have to suffer the consequences of this action.

Unfortunately it is becoming an accomplished fact that this side can no longer be regarded as an ordinary and normal Opposition, owing to the crude actions and the provocative methods of the other side against the Opposition, and we are obliged to take action in a feeling of bitterness. The domineering and the dictatorial action on the opposite side, and particularly that of the Prime iMnister, creates indignation. Afrikanerdom is deeply aggrieved, and the British section is aware of it. It is not a grievance which rests on pusillanimity and pettiness, but it rests on deep-seated national principles, principles like those in the “Century of Wrong,” the same protest which went up at that time against British domination. The Prime Minister who at that time protested in a lively and forceful way against Imperialism, is now engaged in giving his services to create a second century of wrong. If there ever was a country which needed an angel of peace at this time then it is South Africa, an angel of peace which will allow right to prevail on an equal basis, a basis on which both branches of the population of South Africa can build for the welfare of the people and the fatherland. British Imperialism may crow. Its machinery is well greased and organised, and it is well entrenched strategically, not against the enemy but against Afrikanerdom, in order by so doing to enslave its opponents and to humiliate them. They may proclaim to the world their so-called successes, but I want to remind them that they have been engaged in grievously hurting the soul of Afrikanerdom by the sting of pain. The house which is divided is falling. We are a house, South Africa, we are a country, and we must as one nation strive after one objective. We are divided, and what fruit can be expected from a divided people in a divided country? It is cruel to sacrifice the best interests of the people and our native land on the altar of British Imperialism. That is an unforgivable crime, and posterity will take its revenge for it. We are called traitors. How can I be a traitor when I am honestly and in an upright manner standing by the interests of South Africa, and opposing the Empire? It is ridiculous. But if by my action I am a traitor to the Empire, then it really is an honour to my mind.

I think the hon. member is wandering a little bit too far from the subject.

We are made out to be the Fifth Column. Hon. members opposite have not yet protested against the Jameson Raid. That was a crime against an innocent people. But because we stand for the interests of South Africa, we are slandered by being called the Fifth Column. We notice every day how the spirit of a Milner lives again, the spirit that the backs of the Afrikaners must be broken. We are distrusted and disarmed, and like criminals put into gaols and internment camps, and that Without a hearing. A young Afrikaner party, including a lady amongst others, were sitting a few days ago in a cafe. They were ordered to join in singing British hymns and when those friends did not rise, a glass of beer was thrown in the face of the lady. That presumably is British fairplay. That is the kind of gentleman that one finds to-day in Cape Town. I have no desire to visit cafes or bioscopes, because even in those public places you are jeered at and provoked by the scum of the country.

At 2.35 p.m., on the conclusion of the period of two hours allotted for the motion for the Third Reading of the Additional Appropriation Bill, the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the resolution adopted by the House on the 2nd September and the motion for the Third Reading of the Bill was put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—66:

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.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

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.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

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 W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—47:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fullard, G. J.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Oost, H.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R.A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

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 Third Time.

The Committee has to consider the taxation proposals on income tax (normal tax and super tax), gold mines special contribution, customs and excise duties.

The Committee proceeded to consider the proposed income tax (normal tax and super tax) and gold mines special contribution.

I move—

1. (1)
   1. (a) In the case of companies the sole or principal business of which is mining for diamonds, for each pound of taxable amount, three shillings and sixpence;
   2. (b) in the case of companies, other than companies the sole or principal business of which is mining for gold or diamonds, for each pound of taxable amount, three shillings;
   3. (c) in the case of persons other than companies, the rate of tax imposed by the Income Tax Act, 1940, subject to a surcharge of twenty per cent. of the amount calculated at the rate so imposed.

I do not believe it is necessary for me to tell the Minister what the attitude of this side of the House is. We are opposed to the tax and will vote against it. We are against it for two reasons. The first is that it is a war tax and we are not prepared to vote a penny more for the war. Secondly, we are against it because this tax is being unjustly and unfairly distributed over the different classes of taxpayers. I think that it is desirable just to examine the answer which the Minister of Finance gave on the important question which was put to the Minister during the course of the debate by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga). The question which was put to the Minister was this, why, seeing that the Minister announced that he was going to propose a general increase in the income tax, why inasmuch as he had given the impression that all income taxpayers were going to be affected alike, why when he came to the gold mines did he exclude them? That is the question. I need not explain that it is the heart of the matter. It is the test. If the Minister cannot give a good and valid answer to this question, it shows that the whole basis of his taxation proposals is bad. He answered the question last night, and I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that the answer of the Minister was the worst and saddest bit of splitting of hairs that I have ever yet heard from a responsible Minister. Let us for a moment look again at the position as it is. The Minister said that he needed money for the war. He is going to get it partly out of savings, partly out of loans, but a certain amount he had to get out of new taxation, and one of the chief taxes which he proposed was the increase of the income tax. The Minister said that he was not going to tax new people, but he was going to try to treat all the existing taxpayers on an equal footing. Then he came to individuals, and he said: “You are going to pay an extra income tax of 20 per cent.” Then he came to companies, and he loaded an extra 6d. on to them, and 6d. also on the diamond mines. But when he came to the gold mines, he stopped, and said: “No, we are not going to increase the income tax on the gold mines.” Instead of that he merely increased the special tax from 9 per cent. tot 11 per cent. That is the heart of the whole attack by this side. Why does the Minister make a distinction between the different classes of income taxpayers?

That is the basis.

Yes, unfortunately, that is the answer. We always thought, however we might differ from him in political matters, that the Minister of Finance always tried to go straight, that he was a man who put principles before political expediency. That is the impression which we got of him, but in connection with this matter the Minister shows that political expediency does actually count with him, that is to say that even he has to obey the masters of the party on the other side, and he was prepared to sacrifice the principle of a general increase of the income tax. That is why a feeling of being aggrieved exists amongst the taxpayers, because one class of the community is being treated more lightly, just the people who actually are able to pay. Now what is the excuse of the Minister? The excuse which the Minister said last night was so childish that I must say that the Minister has dropped tremendously in my estimation. He said that there were different kinds of taxation as far as the mines were concerned, and he called them A, B and C, and then he said that it was impossible for him to say which of the three were income tax. He said: There is the 3s., and then the formula, and then the special tax, and he could not say which was income tax and which not. That is the most ridiculous thing which I have heard for a long time. Income tax is a tax on profit, in this case the profit which the gold mines make. Originally, when the price of gold was 84s. there was an income tax on the gold mines of 3s. on their gains, on the profits. Then the price of gold went above 84s. up to 148s. In consequence of that the mines then again made an extra profit, and that had to be taxed. The attitude of the then Opposition was that the profit arose in consequence of a stroke of the pen of the Government, and that the whole of the additional profit was due to the people. The then Minister of Finance, Mr. Havenga, said that is was true that the profits arose by a stroke of the pen, and that the gold mines did not deserve them, but he differed from us with regard to the tax, and he said that the gold mines should be encouraged to mine low-grade ore, and he further added that we must promote development, with the result that he had not taken everything, but introduced a formula which would secure a certain part for the state as income tax.

I think the hon. member must wait for this discussion till we get to Proposal No. 4.

I am dealing with the whole field, how the pressure is borne by the different sections of the population.

Gold is excluded here.

It ought to come in here, but I will deal with it later on.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—65:

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.

Bumside, D. C.

Cadman, C. F. M.

Christopher, R. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

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.

Jackson, D.

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.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

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.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—46:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Booysen, W. A.

Brits, G. P.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fullard, G. J.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I move—

1. (2) That the rate of tax imposed by the Income Tax Act, 1940, subject to a surcharge of twenty per cent. of the amount calculated at the rate so imposed.

Agreed to.

I move—

1. (3) That in the cases specified in resolutions (1) and (2) above the rates fixed by those resolutions shall be the rates fixed in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of section five and sub-section (2) of section twenty-five of Act No. 40 of 1925, respectively.

Agreed to.

I move—

1. (4) That the levy shall be charged and calculated at the rate of eleven per cent. on the dutiable amount.

I hope we shall get an opportunity now. Our objection is that the Minister of Finance placed the people, the Parliament and everybody under the impression that he was also going to make the gold mines pay the general increase in the income tax. Instead of that he imposes a small increase of the special contributions of the gold mines, namely, from 9 per cent. to 11 per cent. The puerile excuse of the Minister is that he does not know what the income tax of the mines is. He mentions A, B and C. The attitude of this side is that all three are income tax, because all are taxes on the profits of the mines. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) excluded C and only asked why the Minister had not made the levy of 20 per cent. apply to B as well as to A. He excluded C for a very good reason, namely, because when he was Minister of Finance he said that all the profits that he made on gold above 150s. per fine ounce, did not belong to the mines, and that the state would take them all. It is true that the present Minister of Finance changed that. He put a new formula in the place of that, but he gave us the assurance at the same time that he would get everything which the hon. member for Fauresmith would have got if his system had remained in force. That is to say, that under the system of the hon. member for Fauresmith, he started out from the understanding that nothing more would be left to the mines under the C tax. The state was taking everything. The Minister knows that, and now he comes here and splits hairs. The Minister has not dealt honestly with the House and the public. The Minister put us under the impression that his formula would bring all the profit from the rise in the price of gold over 150s. to the state. When the Minister changed the formula he gave us the assurance that the state would get the same amount as under the proposal of the hon. member for Fauresmith that the state would take everything over 150s. That is to say we were to get all the increased income, and then it would not be necessary to impose the additional tax. The income tax of the mines, therefore, was not 3s. in the £, the permanent tax, as the Minister calls it, and then the formula. Now the Minister came here and said last night that the first is the only permanent portion. Does the Minister want to tell me that he expects us to believe that gold will ever go back to 84s. again? Is there any such possibility at all? Is the formula part not just as permanent as the capital A part? How then can the Minister want to make such a distinction and give us the idea that he wants to deal honestly by the country? I say that B is just as permanent a tax as A. The hon. member for Fauresmith did not include C because the country was under the impression that the Minister would take everything under C. If it does not take it then it is high time that it did take everything. That is the great point which the Minister made. The Minister said that he was going to treat all income tax payers alike. When he came to individuals, right it was 20 per cent.; companies, right it was 6d. When he came to the diamond companies we had the same thing, but when he came to the gold mines, to that section which is able to pay income tax the easiest, and from whom the country has the right to demand an additional contribution, he stopped dead and there an exception was made. Until such time as the Minister can give a better reason why the general increase in the income tax should not be imposed on the mines, he is charged with having committed an unjust differentiation. An unjust distinction is being made between one class of income tax payer and another class, and the distinction is to the detriment of those who find it difficult to pay, and to the advantage of those who can pay easily. That is our complaint against the Minister, and unless he can give a better reason for those taxation proposals, he is accused of acting unjustly and wrongly in making this differentiation.

The hon. member who has just sat down created the impression that the Government deliberately imposed less taxation on the gold mines than what was necessary.

Of course.

Let me say this to hon. members opposite, and also to the hon. member who has just sat down: Why did he not employ his time in telling the Minister of Finance precisely what he suggested? The Opposition has never yet laid down a policy as to how it would tax the gold mines. All they say is that the gold mines are not being sufficiently taxed by the Government. The Minister of Finance made the position so clear last night that one must compliment him on it, and if hon. members opposite do not yet understand the difference, then they will probably never understand it. In the days of the hon. member for Fauresmith, when he was Minister of Finance, he instituted a formula, and just like the present Minister, he also gave special treatment to the mines. Why? Because the gold-mining industry is a special industry in the country, on which we cannot impose taxation in the ordinary way which we can use in the case of individuals and companies. We have gold mines that are rich and gold mines that are poor; we have gold mines with ore of a high grade and gold mines with low-grade ore. Subsequently the hon. member for Fauresmith, in view of the rise in the price of gold, instituted a new system of taxing the mines. The present Minister of Finance altered that system, but he practically took more from the mines than his predecessor proposed to do. I want, however, to point out to hon. members opposite another side of the matter. We are constantly hearing complaints as to how much the farmers are suffering, and that a market should be created for farm produce and produce of our other industries. The gold-mining industry is the big industry, which gives work to our people, and which provides a market for our farmers and for our industries. Now those hon. members, however, want that this industry should be taxed so heavily that that market will be weakened. If hon. members want the Government to tax the gold mines to such an extent that they will have to pay all the expenses of the war, then that industry will be so handicapped that it will no longer answer its purpose in the country, and that is possibly what hon. members who are opposed to the war would like. The Minister of Finance received instructions from the Government to tax the country for the prosecution of the war. A war has to be carried on not only by force of arms; there must also be money, and if the financial resources of the country are so interfered with that they cannot be kept going then it kills the war, and then we give the enemy an opportunity of defeating us. That is why the Minister is taxing these sources in such a way as not to kill them. And it is this very suspicion which I have that those hon. members want the Government so to tax this source that it will be killed, with the result that the war cannot be prosecuted.

Why then have the shares gone up?

It is not only a question of taxation. If, for instance, the slightest information comes from overseas that peace is coming or that Germany is going to lose the war then the shares go up also. It is generally known that every year, just before the Minister, of Finance introduces his taxation proposals, the share market fluctuates a little. But as soon as they know what the position is then there is more confidence.

In this case the Minister took much less than they themselves expected.

That is what they say from political platforms, and it is there that they plead that the poor mines should be taxed.

Poor mines!

I speak of poor mines because, owing to all the political propaganda, they no longer know what is going to become of them. One can only come to the conclusion that my hon. friends opposite cannot lay down a policy how they want the mines to be taxed, and then they have no right to attack the policy of the Minister. Let them submit a policy to us here such as they propagate on the countryside, and then I and others will be able to prove to them that they are engaged in killing the market of the farmer and of our other industries. That, however, they fail to do. They only create the impression in the country that the Minister is deliberately taxing the mines lightly. No, we impose reasonable taxation on the mines, and in that way we assist our farmers and the industries in the country to retain their good market.

I am not going to make a speech here on behalf of the poor mines as the hon. member did who has just sat down. It is more a case with him of speaking on the principle of not quarrelling with your bread and butter. That hon. member lives close to the gold mines and the industries of the Rand. His interests lie there. We here are, however, concerned with the taxation which the Minister of Finance imposes, and I want to recall the Minister’s attention to what he said to us here last night. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) was quite right when he criticised the Minister and told him that the position which he had stated last night was a childish statement. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) was very clear when he made his attack on the taxation proposals of the Minister. He pointed out the three sources of taxation, A, B and C, and he asked the Minister how he could put the levy only on A and not also on B. The Minister’s excuse was: If A and B are taken, why then not A, B and C? The reason is very clear. The Minister with his eloquent language neglected to deal with hard facts. A and B are an income tax on the income of the mines. A is the tax of 3s. in the £ and B is the formula which originally was intended to take about 50 per cent. of the excess profit. But C, this, during the time of the hon. member for Fauresmith, was everything over 150s. an ounce. That was all to come to the state. The Minister then came along and he altered that system. He told us that instead of his going to take everything over 150s. he was going to work it out on the percentage basis, and he told us himself that by means of that percentage he was actually going to get somewhat more than what the hon. member for Fauresmith would have got; he would get a little more than everything. There is a little part which he was to get in addition, and he said that his percentage basis would be more convenient. How then can we now impose an additional tax in respect of C if we have already got everything and more than everything? For that reason the hon. member for Fauresmith said that A and B should be taken but not C. If the Minister had taken B as well as A then the Treasury would have got approximately £500,000 more.

No, £3,500,000.

The Minister knows that there were certain concessions which he made and accordingly I say that he would have got £500,000 more from the mines. Now I would like to know whether the Minister did not impose his percentage tax in such a way as by it to compensate the mining magnates for what they had done in connection with political matters. Was it not for those political matters which the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) mentioned here the other day, that this concession was made to the mines? We noticed that the big magnate of the gold mines was sitting in the gallery when the Minister announced his taxation proposals. He was anxious to see what the Minister would do. If there have to be taxes then we advocate that those taxes should be imposed in a just way. If taxation is imposed on petrol which hits the farmers heavily, if taxation is to be proposed which hits the working people hard, and on the other hand you allow the gold mines to get off with an increase of only £855,000, then we say that it is unfair and unjust. Then the Minister mentioned another argument, one which to my mind was ridiculous. He told us that he would get an income of £26,000,000 this year from the gold mines. Is that an argument? A man who pays income tax on £100 pays much less than the one who pays income tax on £1,000; the one pays more because his income is so much more. If the incomes of the mines are so much more then they have to pay so much more taxation. I say again that the Minister has not set the country at ease in the least by his explanation, and I am sorry that he considered it necessary in that connection to be a little offensive as well. He told us what his predecessor, the hon. member for Fauresmith, in 1930, 1931 and 1932 had done. When those concessions were made in previous years then the mines were not affected by them at all. Those rebates were only given to the ordinary income taxpayer, and they were not given to the mines. When they were taken away it was therefore not a favour shown to the mines. His argument against the hon. member for Fauresmith was therefore quite unfounded. We on this side are definitely going to protest against these taxation proposals.

I want to ask the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) to throw his mind back to the year 1931 and to what he said when the gold mines paid a dividend of only £8.300.000. Then he was in favour of higher taxation, and now that they are going to pay out about £21,000,000 a year, he is the protagonist of the gold mines. I asked the Minister of Finance yesterday what the gold premium for 1940 would be, and the Minister replied that he did not know what I meant by that. Subsequently he said that he did not know. I can quite understand the Minister now, for the sake of convenience, forgetting what the gold premium is. On the 15th July, 1933, he knew very well what the gold premium meant. There was a passage at arms going on between him and the present Minister of Mines about the share of the gold premium which the state should take. We will remember that it was at that time the policy of the Government to take half of the excess profit and not half of the gold premium. The present Minister of Finance took up the attitude that the state wanted to have half of the gold premium, and not half of the excess profits. To-day the Minister entirely forgets what the gold premium means, because he is very far short of half of the gold premium. I am sorry that the Minister is not now maintaining his sound attitude of 1933, because then he would have taken much more from the mines than he is actually taking now. He said at that time that, as the price of the produce of the farmer was dropping, and all the different sections in the country were suffering in consequence of the depression, we had the position that the gold mines were making large additional profits merely as a result of a stroke of the pen of the Minister of Finance. Accordingly, he says that the state had every right to take a considerable part of the gold premium to help the country through. The Minister of Mines of to-day pointed to him at that time that he should make a comparison of the gold premium and the premium on agricultural produce that was exported. But the Minister of Finance has thrown over that theory and said that there was no comparison. His attitude was that the mines were getting large additional profits in consequence of the action of the Government, and therefore the state was entitled to take a part of them. What is the position of the gold mines now? In 1932 the working costs were 13s. 8d. a shift. In 1938 they were 13s. 7d., in other words wages had gone down by 1d. a shift. The mines therefore paid less wages in 1938 than in 1932. In 1932 the mines paid out £8,300,000 in dividends. This year, according to the Minister’s admission, they are going to pay out £21,000,000 in dividends.

I did not accept that figure. That is the figure which one of your colleagues gave.

Last year more than £19,000,000 was paid out, and we can assume that it will be about £20,000,000 this year.

Probably.

In other words, it is almost £12,000,000 more than the dividends in 1932 although the workers got 1d. a shift less, and the working costs came down from 19s. per ton of ore in 1932 to 18s. 11d. per ton of ore in 1938. The costs of working, therefore, also were reduced by 1d. while the income of the mines rose tremendously. The gold premium, in 1938, was £44,500,000. We heard from the Minister that he got £16,500,000 last year. If we deduct that from the gold premium then it means that the mines kept £28,000,000 of it. That is very far from the original proposition of the Minister, that the state should take at least half of the gold premium. He did not get one-third.

This year we are getting £26,000,000.

That is not even the half. The attitude which the Minister of Finance took up in 1933 was the sound attitude, namely, that if the state needed the money then it should take that money from the mines, because the mines made additional income, because the mines had made millions of pounds in respect of which they had no additional expenses, but which were due to the action of the Government. We find that there is now a war debt of about £40,000,000 being laid on the country, which will remain a burden on posterity. We know that the mines are a diminishing asset, and therefore the future generations will have to suffer badly in order to be able to carry the burdens of the country. When those burdens have to be paid, the mines will possibly be worked out, and accordingly the wise policy would be to get the revenue from them now while they are flourishing, to pay these burdens. The Minister is going to borrow millions of pounds which will be a burden on posterity, knowing that the mines are a disappearing asset, and when posterity has to pay those burdens, the mines will possibly no longer be in existence. I would like to know from the Minister why he has abondoned the sound attitude which he took up in 1933. What influence has been exercised over him to give way? If the Minister has considered the matter, and has not given way owing to certain influences in the Cabinet, then he certainly would have put his hand deeper into the pockets of the mining magnates.

The Minister of Finance told us here about the A, B and C taxation on the mines. What the Minister omitted to tell the House in connection with tax C was that he had gone and changed the system of his predecessor, and put the taxation on a percentage basis, and that in connection with that he had made a present of £3,000,000 to the mines. Now he is taking £855,000. In reality the mines are therefore not contributing a single additional sixpence to the war expenditure. Although they will now be taxed to the extent of £855,000 because the percentage has been put up from 9 per cent. tot 11 per cent., they are still about £2,000,000 to the good. That is the real position. While the mines are being met in this way, we find one burden after the other is being put on the other section of the country. With regard to income tax, this is the second levy that we have had in one year, and then the Minister comes and tells us that he is not disturbing the basic proportion of the tax. He can probably explain it, but what the Minister must remember is that he is taking an extra amount of £900,000 from the ordinary income tax payer, which amounts to an increase of 70 per cent., practically four-fifths of the tax. In the case of the mines it is an increase of £855,000, on a tax of over £20,000,000. That is the right basis of calculation if we want to compare the percentage of increase. The Minister wants to maintain that this action was just and fair, but we know, with the facts before us, that the Minister has neglected the principle of justice in the imposition of the taxation. When we notice the amount of excise which is being collected and we compare that with the amount which is being got under the taxation how does that compare with the small increase in taxation on the gold mines? There is one thing as clear as daylight and that is that the Minister is favouring the gold mines, and that other sections of the community have to bear the war expenses.

I do not want to occupy much of the time of the Committee. I do not want to drag out unnecessarily the differences between us. I have already dealt with the matter fully twice, but apparently hon. members opposite are not satisfied with my statement. I do not think they will be satisfied after I have explained it twice more.

Not if you are wrong.

The same applies if you are wrong. The Opposition has its point of view, and we have ours. We shall just have to leave it to the judgment of the public. Let me, however, first of all say a few words to the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Bezuidenhout) who again referred to the £3,000,000 which had been presented to the Mines. I think that I have already explained this matter at least ten times. The position is that in calculating the burden of taxation under the new mine taxation proposals, we bore in mind the increased working costs of the mines in consequence of the war, and as a matter of fact to the extent of £3,000,000. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) admitted at that time that he agreed with that in principle, that he himself, if he had remained the Minister and continued with his gold-purchasing scheme, would also have made provision for the deduction of the increased working costs. The only difference that there was between him and me was that he thought that I had possibly put the amount too high. I then said that I based my calculation on the experience of the last war, when working costs also went up, and that they probably during the first year of this war would again rise by 5 per cent., which would mean £3,000,000. That is where we left the matter six months ago. In the light of the figures which are now available it is clear that the working costs have in fact gone up by 5 per cent. or probably more.

They still get mealies at the same price.

We are not talking about mealies now. In other words, the provision which I have made, the basis on which my calculation rested, has appeared to be right in the lights of the facts. I, therefore, do not think that we should argue any longer about the matter. Then I come to the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). He put two questions to me. He asked why I had excluded the gold mines. They are not excluded. He may possibly say that they are not sufficiently taxed.

Except in so far as the income tax is concerned.

The answer, of course, is that we decided to apply the same increase to them by an increase on the special contribution which means the same increase as if we had collected it as an increase of 6d. on the fixed taxation basis of 3s. in the £. The actual difference between us is: Why did we calculate the tax? Why was the increase only calculated on the basis of the fixed taxation basis of 3s.? The hon. member apparently wants us to have increased the whole of the tax, that is to say the fixed basis of taxation plus the formula, by 20 per cent. I do not know whether he has worked out what the result of that would be. The hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. S. Bekker) has apparently not worked it out, but it would mean an additional tax on the mines, not of £855,000, but of approximately £4,000,000. I do not know whether hon. members over there want to propose that we should tax the mines an additional amount of £4,000,000, but I think the hon. member for Fauresmith would not be in favour of it. There may be some of our irresponsible friends on the opposite side who would advocate it, but not the hon. member for Fauresmith.

The mines may yet expect a few surprises in the future.

There are possibly surprises still awaiting all of us, even hon. members opposite.

Is not the effect of your scheme that you do not allow enough for the increased production?

No, because my calculation is based on the profits of the mines, and it takes the fullest account of the increased production, because in proportion to the rise in the profits, the taxation will increase.

Under the proposal of the hon. member for Fauresmith everything would have been taken.

Are you now referring to the old gold-purchasing scheme?

No, the hon. member for Fauresmith would have taken everything above 150s.

But he provided for the repayment of the increased working costs. My scheme is on precisely the same basis, and will bring in the same amount as his scheme would have brought in, and even if the production increases it will work out in the same way. I think that it becomes more and more clear that the scheme of taxation which was introduced six months ago was a sound change, and the state will not be injuriously affected by it.

The hon. member for Fauresmith moved that the increase should be on the 3s. and on the formula.

I now come back to that point. What did we actually aim at? We commenced with an additional tax of 6d. in the £ on the profits of companies. I then asked: What about the gold mines, and I came to the conclusion that we should also tax them by an additional 6d. in the £. Now what is the amount on which you must levy that 6d.? Naturally on the part of the tax which is on the fixed basis, namely, the 3s. in the £. Therefore I regarded the 3s. as the counterpart of the 2s. 6d. in the case of companies, but we are calculating it on the basis of an increase of special contributions for the sake of convenience, but the actual basis of our proposal is an increase of 6d. on the profit, just as in the case of other companies. No distinction is being made. Now hon. members say that we should also have put an increase on the formula part of the taxation. I have already pointed out what the consequences of that would be, but I revert again to the other argument which I have already used twice, namely that that part of the taxation is a temporary part of it. It was fixed in consequence of the increase in the price of gold which occurred after the departure from the gold standard. Then the policy of the Government was, in the first place, as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) said, to take 50 per cent. of the so-called gold premium. That is not a scientific term, and consequently I say “so-called” gold premium. Then the government, of which I was a member at the time, and also the hon. member for Fauresmith, decided to subject the whole matter to a scientific enquiry. A commission of experts was appointed and they made certain proposals. On the basis of those proposals the Government, including the hon. member for Fauresmith and myself, introduced certain amendments in connection with the taxation. I know the hon. member for George was opposed to them, but they were made as the result of a scientific enquiry. It was then decided to arrange the taxation on the basis of a formula. The formula was calculated in such a way that it would bring in to the state what might be regarded as the fair share of the increased price of gold, and that it would then leave to the industry the rest of the increased price of gold, which would work out in such a way that it would give the necessary encouragement to the development of the industry, for the extension of existing mines, the opening of new mines and the working of low-grade ore. That was considered to be in the interests of the state, and we decided that the formula was a sound formula, both in respect of fairness and in regard to the interests of the state. The formula was therefore temporary, something in view of temporary circumstances, and so reckoned that it would bring about a distribution which would be fair and in the interests of the state. How then can we justify the making of a further addition to the formula? That can only be done on the permanent part of the taxation, and that is what we are doing.

Motion put and agreed to.

The Committee proceeded to consider the proposed Customs and Excise Duties.

I move—

1. (1) the customs duties on the articles as set forth hereunder be increased to the extent shown.

I want again to protest very strongly against the increased tax on petrol. We have time after time heard from the other side that this tax does not affect the poor man, but hon. members cannot get away from the fact that this petrol tax does affect the poor man, especially the poor man on the platteland. The poor farmers have to travel long distances, and they cannot, as it is still possible perhaps to do in the towns, park their vehicles anywhere. They have to use their motors and lorries. In the town there are all the business places and all the things that you need are at hand, but on the countryside the motor car is indispensable to-day. It has taken the place of the cart and horses, and the petrol tax will hit the people very hard. The price of petrol has already risen considerably since the war broke out, and now the Minister comes at this stage and puts an additional 3d. on to the tax, which is already 5d. I therefore feel that I should be neglecting my duty towards the poor man generally, and the people on the countryside in particular, if I did not raise my voice and protest against the increase in the petrol tax. It is strange that when we are pleading here on behalf of the farmers and the poor people that not a single hon. member opposite gets up to assist us. On the other hand we see that attacks are made by hon. members there on the farmers, but the representatives of country constituencies on the other side remain silent. We heard the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Burnside) make an attack on the wheat farmers. Not one member protested against it, not even the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet). When the hon. member for Caledon goes amongst his wheat farmers in the country then he shouts when he speaks about the interests of the wheat farmers, but here he remains quite silent when an hon. member who sits with him on the Government side makes an attack on the wheat farmers. This is the place for representatives of the people to look after the interests of their constituents. This is the test; not there on the countryside when they visit about amongst their constituents. When the interests of the farmers are attacked here, the hon. member ought to do his duty to his electors. We have also had an attack on the wine farmers. Again not one wine farmer on the other side, nor one farmer got up to protest. Have the wine farmers not got a single friend on the other side?

Many.

But they allow an attack to be made on the wine farmers and the wheat farmers, and they remain silent.

What has this taxation proposal to do with the wine farmers?

I just want to point out that this tax affects the farmers and the poor people, and that it is so remarkable that not one single hon. member opposite makes himself heard on the subject. The farmers and the poor people ought to know that although they shout very loudly from the platform in the country districts, they remain as silent as death in this House. I want again to protest strongly against this tax, because otherwise I should be seriously neglecting my duty to the poor people and the farmers. Hon. members opposite ought to be consistent, and not only state in the country that they are sympathetic with the poor people and the farmers.

We heard from the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) that we should at least be consistent, and not say one thing at one time and another at another, but I think the hon. member should himself be a little more consistent.

He managed any way to get you on your feet.

He made me rise because he talks here when he can get cheap publicity for himself, but when the real interests of his constituents were at stake he remained perfectly silent, and did not say a word. You must allow me, seeing that I have been challenged, just to reply and to point out that the hon. member accused me of having stormed on the countryside when I spoke about the interests of the poor people and of the farmers, but that I remained silent here. Allow me to say that we recently had a conference in this House in connection with the interests of the people, whom the hon. member says he is representing. He was present at the conference, and remained quite silent and never opened his mouth. He said nothing to advance their interests, because he would have got no cheap publicity there, but here where he gets cheap publicity, he is looking after their interests, or pretending to be looking after their interests. If I mistake not, I was the first person who, in this House, tried to break a lance with the Minister for the exemption of petrol for farming purposes.

Are you opposed to the farmers having to pay the extra petrol tax?

I am just saying that I was the first to ask the Minister for the exemption.

Do you agree with it?

I pleaded with the Minister at that time kindly to give the necessary exemption, and I tried to suggest a scheme in which way it would perhaps be possible to make this extremely difficult scheme possible of execution. I cannot see the necessity of repeating here what I brought to the notice of the Minister, which I explained with all the seriousness it deserved. If there is a possibility that petrol may be exempted for farming purposes, I assume, in view of the generosity and goodness which the Minister of Finance has already exhibited towards the farming population and the poor people, that he will do so. To-day, however, we are told by the hon. member for Malmesbury and he has the temerity to say that no one here tries to say a single word in the interests of the farmers and the poor people who ought to get the exemption. I want us in this House, as the hon. member said, at least to be consistent. Let us not try, when we can get the required cheap publicity through the Press or Hansard or otherwise, to create the impression that we are the champions of certain sections, while when there is an opportunity of looking after the real interests of those sections in a practical way, we hide our heads and remain as silent as the grave. That is typical of certain hon. members, thank heaven not typical of all, but it is a characteristic, a peculiarity, an extremely objectionable peculiarity, to pretend to look after the interests in that kind of way, and the sooner we abandon that kind of method the better it will be for us all and the more it will be in the interests of the people whom we are called upon to look after and to assist practically—not along the lines of cheap publicity.

I rise to point out to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) that the attack on the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) was quite unjustified.

What I said of him also applies to you.

The attack was quite unjustified, and I would like to call upon the Minister without Portfolio to corroborate it. The hon. member referred to a deputation of the wheat co-operative societies, who came to see the Government and members of this House were then asked to attend the conference, but only those who represented co-operative societies were expected to speak, and the hon. member for Malmesbury, so far as I know, did not represent any co-operative society. We merely supported the deputation by our presence, but we did not speak because we were not expected to say anything. The hon. member for Caledon spoke, but he said beforehand that he represented a co-operative society, and that was why he rose to say a few words, but the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) and the hon. member for Malmesbury and I, and other hon. members who were present, were not expected to speak, because we did not represent cooperative societies. I want to make an appeal to the Minister without Portfolio if it is not a fact that we were not expected to speak.

I was not a member of a cooperative society but was asked to speak.

I thought the Minister would be fair, but it seems to me that he also wants to be unjust. He was asked to say a few words as Minister. The chairman made an appeal to the Minister to say a few words.

I did not speak as a Minister.

It seems to me that the Minister wants to be just as unfair. In any case it was a mean, unjustified and unaccountable attack on the hon. member for Malmesbury, who has done a great deal for the wheat farmers in and out of this House. In connection with the motion, I just want to say that this extra duty on petrol presses particularly heavily on the poor man. Something has happened in South Africa of late years which the Minister of Finance should have taken into account when he was thinking about this tax. The Minister knows that during recent years a class of man, who is uneducated, has trekked to the towns, especially the poor class of Afrikaner who could not make a living on the countryside. He arrived in the town as an unskilled man, and could not get skilled work. The result was that he qualified himself as a motor driver, which was an easy thing to learn. Many of the poor people, possibly more than is known or realised, acquired motor lorries and tried to make a living as carriers. There is an astonishingly large number of them in the towns who are making a living out of lorries. They are being hard hit, while the Minister deals very lightly with the mines, which are constantly paying bigger dividends. He hits the poor man directly. He hits the large number of poor people who have to make a living out of the motor lorries they drive on the national roads. They have bought motor lorries, and are doing contract work on the national roads. There are hundreds of them. Now they are being hard hit by this tax. In addition the farmers are hit. The farmers who have motor cars are often looked at askance, but the position is that the farmer’s cart is driven off the roads to-day by the macadamised roads. It has become impossible on the countryside for the people to travel with a cart with iron tyres owing to the corrugations in the road. Especially in the North-West they drive alongside of the road. Subsequently they tried to put motor tyres on to the wheels, but that did not do either, because the cart went slowly, with the result that the corrugation made the cart bump. As one old gentleman said, it loosened his shoe-laces by the bumping. The people were simply driven off the roads, and they had to buy a motor car. Apart from the other reasons, which have already been mentioned, why the farmer had to go in for motor transport, that is one of the chief reasons. And it is very unjust of the Minister now to tax the countryside in this respect, both in respect of petrol and motor tyres. We were talking here yesterday about the desperate position in which the wheat farmer found himself. The wheat farmer was forced to acquire a tractor. He cannot get hold of animals, and there were also other difficulties which compelled him to acquire a tractor. Now the Minister comes here and hits these people directly by taxing the things which they need, and that although there are other sources out of which he could have got these proceeds. The gold mines are a source which he could have tapped, and they moreover expected that they would be tapped. To-day we find that their newspapers are rejoicing that they have got off so lightly, compared with the other people who are hard hit. Formerly, when there were small taxes imposed on the mines, they called the heavens to witness that they were being taxed, and their newspapers continued complaining about the heavy taxes on the mines. Now all the newspapers are rejoicing and the gold shares are going up in price. In the speech of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), the Minister of Finance asked by way of an interruption, whether he was to take £4,000,000 more from the gold mines. I ask: Why not? They at any rate can pay it. In addition, the mines are a disappearing asset. What has now happened is that the burden is being put on the shoulders of posterity, and that at a time when this disappearing asset can bear the burden. Now that they can pay you do not want to allow them pay in order to cover the war expenses. You are loading that on to posterity, and when posterity is called upon to pay the mines will possibly not be in a position to pay. I say that this tax operates unjustly, and I say that this petrol tax presses heavily on the poor man, and it is so unjust that the country cannot forgive you for it.

The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) attacked me here for having neglected my duty in not having spoken when I ought to have. I was asked to attend that conference, but under the definite stipulation that I should come and listen and that I would not be given the opportunity of speaking.

That is a very weak excuse.

It is not weak, because it is the truth. If the hon. member for Caledon doubts my word, then I leave the matter there. In this House I have got up time after time when that matter came up for discussion, to take part in the debate, but I got no opportunity of speaking owing to the guillotine procedure we were following. But seeing that the hon. member for Caledon has spoken outside of the conference chamber, I want to say here that he was shouting there about an increase of price of 6s. 3d. He said that that was a conservative estimate, if he said that that would be the increase in the cost of production. That was confirmed by the Minister without Portfolio. All I want to say to them now is that they will be put to the test, whether they are going to act in this House as they acted in that conference, and as the representatives of the wheat farmers acted there.

Leave it to my constituents to call me to account.

The test will be made here as to who spoke up in the interests of the wheat farmers, and who were only talking. The hon. member opposed the increase of taxation, so that he could point outside the House to the fact that he had spoken against the increase in the tax, but how does he vote? He never voted against this increase of 3d. a gallon. That is the kind of thing to which I object, and if the hon. member accuses me of neglect of duty then I say that I had no opportunity of speaking at that conference, if I wanted to act in accordance with the invitation I had received. As he has accused me here of speaking for the publicity of Hansard, then it is a proof that the hon. member himself is guilty of that, and if he did not vote against the increase of the tax on petrol, then that is a proof that he is talking for Hansard publicity. No, it is that hon. member who often talks here to get the benefit of Hansard, because when it comes to the vote then he votes with the Government. He is jointly responsible for keeping in office that Government which is imposing these taxes, and which, I want to prophesy, is not going to give the increase of 6s. 3d. to the wheat farmers in respect of the increased cost of production.

I would like to bring one aspect of the increased petrol tax to the notice of the Minister of Finance. The position of small factories and people on the countryside is that they make much use of petrol machinery. The people in the towns do not use petrol machinery, because they use electrical power, which is manufactured by means of coal, and which they can therefore get cheaper. The wine farmer is compelled to-day to make use of machinery because he cannot get the necessary labour. In the old days the pressing machine was turned by hand. To-day they use a small engine for the purpose, and the cheapest is a petrol engine. These people are obliged to buy petrol, even where smaller municipalities have petrol engines for electrical power, and I want to bring to the notice of the Minister that in this respect he is imposing a heavy tax on the countryside. In connection with lorries, I want to point out that the day has gone by when the farmer got £40 a leaguer for brandy, and when he got a high price for wine. He therefore has to produce a larger quantity to-day, because the price is so low, with the result that he has to use the lorry to transport his produce. A leaguer of distilling wine weighs 1,500 lbs., and if a farmer has to convey 300 or 400 leaguers for 20 or 30 miles to the station, then it must be clear to everyone that he cannot do it with an ox-waggon or a mule waggon. The tax which the Minister is levying here is, on this account, also going to press heavily on the countryside. Then I want further to point out to the Minister that there has grown up on the countryside a class of person whom one can call a transport rider, who does the work to-day with a lorry which he has bought on the hire purchase system. Those people make a poor living, because the competition is very keen. Now the Minister has not only put up the petrol, but he has also put a tax on the tyres and tubes. The result is that these people have to charge the farmers more, or otherwise they cannot come out. If they demand too much, then the farmer will possibly buy a lorry himself. I can give the Minister the assurance that these men are poor people. I do not so much object to the tax on the man who drives about luxuriously in his motor car. If I want to use my car, then I can pay the tax. But these taxes are going to press very heavily on those people because they will considerably increase their working costs. I know how those people are placed, because I have to deal with them every day. Many of them cannot actually make a living. They are practically working only to pay for petrol and tyres, and when the lorry is worked out, and they have to buy another, then they just have to acquire it on the hire purchase basis again. More particularly in the wine districts and the grain districts there are a great many of these people who make their living in that way. They are people who buy petrol in their poverty and not as a luxury, and I ask the Minister again to give his serious attention to the question of how this tax is pressing on the countryside. The urban dweller usually travels about in his car for pleasure, but on the countryside the farmer cannot get on without his motor car. Then I want further to say that I feel that the difference which there is between the 7s. 6d. of the additional tax on whisky and the 2s. 6d. on brandy, is not enough. The difference ought to be greater in favour of the local article. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) said here that he thought I was wrong. His idea is that we should put brandy up to 24s. in order to treat both alike. I shall say something about that later on. At the moment I want to bring to the notice of the Minister that the 7s. 6d. extra which he has put on whisky has had the result that on the railways and in the bars they have increased the price of whisky by 1d. a tot. In the case of brandy the increase is 2s. 6d., but in the bars and on the railways — I went to make enquires—they increased the price per tot of brandy by 1d. as well. With regard to protection, the Minister’s argument is therefore quite wrong. There is no additional protection. I also want to bring this side of the matter to the notice of the Minister. The hotel proprietor is satisfied with a profit of 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. on whisky. But on brandy he wants to make a profit of 200 per cent. to 300 per cent. If the Minister appoints a commission to institute enquiries in order to see that the public is not unjustly treated, then I hope that he will realise that it is unfair that a tot of whisky should be increased by 1d. in consequence of the tax of 7s. 6d. and that the price of a tot of brandy should also be increased by 1d. in consequence of the increase of 2s. 6d. in the tax. I say that the hotels are making a profit of between 200 per cent. and 300 per cent. on brandy, and therefore it is not necessary for them to put on the 1d. extra. How where the Minister can help us now is in this way. The wine merchants are now making an additional £500,000. That is a conservative estimate. It is actually £750,000. Now where the Minister can assist us is by using his influence with the Minister of Agriculture when next year we fix the price of distilling wine, and therefore of brandy, that we should get that £500,000 for the wine industry. The £250,000 the merchants may be allowed to keep. If the Minister does that then he is doing something for the wine farmers. It is said that the wine farmer does not pay the tax and the increased tax, but that the consumer pays them. I want, however, to bring to the Minister’s notice that before the excise was imposed in 1901, it was 3s. a gallon, and then there was no surplus. As soon, however, as the excise was imposed, the merchants also put up the price, with the result that the consumption dropped, and there was a surplus. To-day the position is this, that the price of distilling wine is round about £8, but because there is a surplus of approximately 50 per cent. the farmer only gets £4 out of it. The larger the surplus the more the price, which the farmer gets, drops. It seems to me that the Minister does not know these things. I am not speaking for myself personally, but the industry exists to advise the Minister, when he wants to levy taxation, so that he will not do so unfairly. I said that the increase of 7s. 6d. on whisky resulted in an increase of 1d. per tot, there are 22 tots in a bottle, which means that the price per bottle is increased by 1s. 10d., and that although the actual difference which the tax makes per tot is four-fifths of a penny. We see therefore that the dealer is making a profit on the tax. The Minister is giving those people the benefit of it. If he had imposed the tax in such a way that he only took his money, then it might possibly still have been fair, but the way in which the Minister has levied this excise duty we cannot concur in. Then I would like to recommend the Minister, so far as things are concerned, to look at what the result of his tax is going to be. He possibly knows that the whisky ring has very great power in the country, and it is openly said that they dictate to the Government what it is to do in connection with these matters. I do not say that they have dictated to the Minister of Finance, but when the Minister acts in this way then it increases that idea amongst the people and then we have every reason for complaint that we are not being treated fairly.

The hon. member who had just sat down (Mr. Warren) compared the duty on whisky with the excise on brandy and said that the consumption of brandy would be affected by the increased excise. He has overlooked the fact that however much one may desire to do so we shall never get the people of this country to drink brandy until it is made worth drinking. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) knows very well that an excellent export market has been established for our brandy, and that our brandy overseas meets with general approval, but that is due to the fact that our export brandy is a matured brandy, a good brandy, and if the wine farmers would put the same product on the local market as they export they would find an excellent market here.

They are doing it,

No, they are not. The export brandy has a minimum of 60 per cent. matured brandy in it, where the local brandy has only 24 per cent.

You are mixing up the farmers and the dealers.

The hon. member is continually talking about the duty on whisky being too small, and he wants to see the duty on whisky doubled or trebled, so as to force the consumers here to drink brandy. As I have said before you will only achieve that by putting a palatable product on the market. If the wine farmers would see to it that the consumers had a palatable brandy offered to them they would find that there would be a very much greater demand for the local article. I consider that the increase in the excise is not an excessive one. Let us remember that this is the only country where fortifying spirits for wine are not taxed.

You are wrong, look at the Argentine.

The sooner you impose an excise on the fortifying spirits for wine you will also increase the consumption of your wine, because by doing that you will bring your fortifying spirits within the control of the Brandy Board. I am quite sure that your wine is spoiled to-day, because the spirit that is used for fortifying the wine is not of the right quality. That is as far as local consumption is concerned, and if you have that spirit under control which you will have by putting on an excise, when it will come under the control of the Brandy Board, then and only then will you increase your local consumption of wine. And the farmer will benefit, and so will the Treasury. I am representing a constituency where only good wine is produced, and the hon. member knows that the particular constituency which he represents only produces distilling wine, and nothing more, whereas the part I represent produces a quality wine, and my constituents have nothing to fear, because the quality is right, and we dare not bolster up the industry by encouraging them to produce quantity instead of quality. The hon. member says that we have a surplus in this country, due to the excise, and that before the excise was imposed we had no surplus. Well, that is a matter which is in the hands of the wine farmers themselves, because under the Act passed last session they are given complete control of their product, and if there is a surplus, they have the power to stop further planting. There is no industry here in South Africa which has the same powers of control of their output as the wine industry — and quite rightly too; so that aspect can be rectified, and then there will be no surplus. As a matter of fact, there will be no surplus very soon, because the export demand is increasing daily, and we know that the K.W.V. are working night and day on the export of their wine and brandy. So that surplus will fall away, and I say again that your local consumption will increase if your quality improves. I do not for one moment think that this increase in the excise is going to affect the wine farmer one bit. It is to the interest of the wine farmer that good and palatable stuff is produced, and the excise will not affect it. Now, what is this brandy excise? The complete excise on a case of brandy is 22s. 10d. per case, or 15s. per proof gallon, with a rebate of 9d. Then it is sold at 24% underproof. So actually the income to the Treasury on a case of brandy is not 30s., but 22s. 10d. Against that the income to the Treasury on a case of whisky is 90s. That 22s. 10d. is 1s. 10d. per bottle against 7s. 6d. per bottle for whisky. I hope the industry will continue to flourish, but I say again, it will only flourish in this country if you offer an article that is palatable, matured and healthy.

I want to tell hon. members that they are only entitled to speak twice on each motion; not more.

In order to get a direct vote in connection with the additional 3d. on petrol, I now want to move to delete the extra tax. That will give us an opportunity of seeing who is in favour of the extra tax, and who is against it. If we were to vote against the whole item, we would not only be voting against the extra tax on petrol, but also on spirits, etc., and then one would not know what the attitude of hon. members was against the petrol tax. I therefore move—

I represent a constituency which produces between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 bags of mealies every year.

More than 90 per cent. is usually sold at very low prices, and we have regularly to take money out of the Treasury in order to assist the mealie farmers to a certain extent. More than 90 per cent. of the mealies are carried by motor lorries over our roads, and seeing that the price of the product is already so low the Government nevertheless introduces this additional tax, and is going to act directly detrimentally to the farmer with reference to the conveyance of the grain. The Minister has already in anticipation made provision for the increased working costs of the mines to a considerable amount, but here we are dealing with the largest section of the population, the primary producers. On the day that war was declared, their working costs went up. Their implements cost more, their fertiliser cost more; they had to pay more at every turn and corner. Was any provision made for helping them? No. The answer of the Government was heavier taxation. With regard to the income tax payer, the rebate of 30 per cent, was taken off, and now an additional 20 per cent, is being added. And to put the crown on all, the primary producers are now being directly hit here by the increased tax on petrol. I am glad that the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) has moved the amendment. If the Minister cannot accept it, he ought at least to consider a system whereby a rebate scheme is created, so that the primary producer can in respect of the conveyance of his produce be exempted from the extra petrol tax. He managed to draw up a scheme to meet the big bakers with regard to the tax on yeast, and he ought also to come to the aid of the struggling farmers in connection with this tax.

I think the Minister of Finance already has reasons for thinking that this tax of 3d. on a gallon of petrol is less pleasing to the population of South Africa, and especially to the poor section, than this small tax is to the mining magnates. I believe that the Minister must already know—and if he does not know it yet, he will have to learn it after this debate—that the days of the horse cart in South Africa are to a great extent past. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) mentioned one of the reasons why the horse carts could practically no longer use the roads. Circumstances throughout the country have changed, and it is practically no longer possible to drive cart and horses. Therefore the motor car is no longer a luxury, but it has become a necessity right through the country. When one arrives in the town to-day with a cart and horses then you do not know where to outspan. There is no place where you can stand, and you actually do not know where to tie up your horses. In other words, the use of petrol has become very necessary, has become a necessary part of the life of South Africa. The farmers moreover have during the past years had recourse more and more to machinery which in most cases had to be driven by petrol. Lack of labourers and other circumstances contributed to it. The draught animals are becoming fewer and fewer owing to the circumstances, and petrol is no longer a fuel which is only used by the rich man to move about, but the poor man also needs it. Now the poor people are being hit by the additional tax of 3d. on a gallon of petrol. It is no less than 60 per cent. of the previous tax which was 5d. I do not know how the Minister can justify this tax, seeing that he has only put up the mines tax by 2 per cent. From the petrol tax, the additional tax on tyres, reconditioned and new tyres, he expects £1,090,000, but the mines which more than any other industry in the country, are in a flourishing condition, are only asked to pay £850,000 more. I cannot understand the taxation proposals.

I know that the House would like to come to a vote and I only want to say a few words. I admitted last night that this tax would press hardly on some people, and that there were poor people who would feel this tax. There are also the small factories to which the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) referred. There are certain persons who have to use petrol for machinery. But I also explained last night that there were very few taxes which the Government could impose, and which would not up to a certain extent rest on the shoulders of people which could not easily carry them. I, however, want to emphasise that in the main this tax will also fall on the shoulders of people which can carry them, on people who can pay. If it were to be possible to give effect to the suggestion of the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) which had also been mentioned before by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) I would have done it, but I think hon. members will quite understand that it is practically impossible, from an administrative point of view, to grant a rebate on the petrol which is used by the farmer on his farm in connection with farming operations. For that reason I cannot agree to it.

Question put: That tariff item 195 (1), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the Committee 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.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Cadman, C. F. M.

Christoper, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

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.

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.

Jackson, D.

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.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

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.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—43:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Bosman, P. J.

Brits, G. P.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fullard, G. J.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J. Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

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.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and J. H. Viljoen.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment negatived.

I am sorry that I cannot accept the Minister of Finance’s statement that it is impossible to draft a system under which he can grant a concession to primary producers who have to remove their produce. For this reason I move—

I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment as the Committee is confined to accepting, rejecting or reducing the proposals before it.

Can we not move that petrol required for agricultural purposes should not be taxed? That is not a reduction.

If the hon. member wants to move an exemption as far as the proposed tax on petrol is concerned, I think he should do so in Committee of the Whole House on the Bill to be submitted to give effect to the taxation resolutions.

May we make an appeal to the Minister now to take into serious consideration the effecting of the reduction? The Minister has already made a concession to the bakers ….

They are bakers, not farmers.

Seeing that the Minister has met the bakers in that way, he can also meet the farmers. He met the bakers in regard to the tax on yeast, and here he can assist the farmers in the same way. The costs of production of the farmer have risen tremendously, and now the Minister comes and puts yet another burden on the shoulders of the farmers. Does the Minister know that this tax practically means that 1d. extra per bag will be put on the transportation of mealies? The Minister actually introduced a Bill last year to tackle the evil that he wants to fight. Why does he not introduce a Bill instead of taxing our women? I do not see why the Minister cannot show this special consideration to the farmers. I think that the Minister, when he introduces the Bill, ought to do this.

The hon. member can make his plea when the Bill is under consideration.

Can I not argue it here?

There is nothing to prevent the hon. member discussing the matter, but I want to point out once more that the Bill to give effect to the taxation proposals affords the most suitable opportunity to move exemption. The Committee will notice that the proposals before it are preceded by the words “That, subject to the provisions of an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament and to such rebates or remission of duties as may be provided for therein.”

I should be neglecting my duty if I did not reply to what the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) said here this afternoon. I must say that he uttered the greatest nonsense about brandy and wine that I have ever yet heard. He told us, in the first place, that the more we tax brandy the more would the people drink brandy. In other words, if he puts up the prices of the little articles in his bazaar then the people would buy more. How can a business man make such a proposal? It shows what knowledge the hon. member has of the matter. He told us that his constituency only makes good wine. He does not himself know what good wine is. The hon. member apparently does not know either that there is such a thing as good distilling wine. There is distilling wine which is used for good brandy, in order to make certain classes of brandy, and which is also called good wine, and in which there is more work involved than in the case of some of the wines which the hon. member calls good wine, wine which is grape juice to which spirits are added. It is clear that the hon. member got this information from merchants, and that he does not understand what it is all about. He spoke here about a rebate of 9d. a bottle on brandy. That is folly.

I said 1s. a gallon.

If we manufacture first-class distilling wine, which is approved by the Brandy Board for the distilling of brandy, and we then keep that brandy for three years, then we get a rebate of 3s. a gallon, 1s. a gallon per year. But let us now take his argument, that the excise on this brandy is 9s. a gallon. Then the proportion is still worse, because then it means that the Minister has imposed 2s. 6d. on to the 9s., which is about a fourth by which the tax is increased, while in the case of whisky the tax is only increased by one-sixth. The rebate is being paid in respect of the cost which is connected with the keeping of the brandy. We think that the Minister of Finance should go further, and that he should allow a rebate up to 10s„ so that the brandy will be kept for ten years. Then the hon. member spoke of poor brandy. He should settle his quarrel with his merchants. He knows just as well as I do that the brandy which the farmers manufacture through their organisation is a first-class article, such a good article that in some parts of the world it has pushed out French brandy, but not in England. The only market we had for our brandy in England was in certain hospitals, because our brandy was better than the French brandy. But because the dealers sold French brandy in England, our brandy has not yet been able to get on to the market there.

It nevertheless enjoys a preference of 6d.

But what use is that? My hon. friends there should not talk about things which they know nothing about. They reveal their ignorance by arguments of that kind. It is a life study to know what the position is in connection with the drink trade. You have to grow up with it. When one hears people speaking about good wine, bad wine, and about distilling wine, then they ought to find out what the different processes are. I want, however, to say to the hon. member for South Peninsula that if he were to go and explain to his constituents that he wants a tax on the spirits which they use to add to their good wine, then he will not represent those constituents for long. They will regard his proposal just as ridiculous as his statement here that we should not make the excise on brandy 15s. but 24s., and that then the quality will improve. I agree with the hon. member that brandy is being put on the market which ought not to be there. But does the hon. member know why spirits and an article like “white lightning” cannot be drunk. If good brandy is crude, then it cannot be drunk. Brandy must be mellow, and the hon. member must talk to his merchants who put a poor quality of wine on the market. The position is that the merchants have a monopoly in the country, and it does not matter what quality they put on to the market. They want to make a profit, and then we still have the further consideration that the whisky ring exercises influence over them, with the result that they do not distil good brandy. The hon. member spoke about the brandy that we export, but he did not tell the House that the wine farmers can only export that article, and they may not sell it here. The wholesalers will not buy it, because they have to pay more for it, and they do not want to sell it in this country because they are hand-in-glove with the whisky ring, which itself wants to control the sale. They are doing this with a deliberate object. The object is that the quality of brandy may remain poor in order to be able to sell it cheaply, and whisky has to remain on the market. The class of brandy which is exported by the K.W.V. is just as good as whisky. Just ask hon. members of this House who drink it. The wine merchants simply will not put that brandy on the market, because it would injure whisky. In Durban I have to pay 1s. for a tot of brandy, and also 1s. for a tot of whisky, while the one article costs 4s. and the other 15s. a bottle. The people who drink whisky will not believe that good brandy is being made. They will not drink our brandy, and only-drink the imported stuff which is made of potatoes and mealies. I want to tell the hon. member over there that if he will go to the countryside and is able to bind the Government to its proposal, that the excise on brandy should be increased to 24s., then I fear that even his good wine farmers will not longer support him. I wonder whether the hon. member knows how much distilling wine came from his constituency last year? I have already indicated what profit the merchants make out of this increase of taxation. I would now like to test the feeling of hon. members opposite and of the Government. In January the price of distilling wine is to be fixed, and we now ask the Government to assist us to get hold of £500,000 of the money which the merchants are making out of this tax, because they were in a position to increase the price. I do not know whether it is necessary to say any more about the speech of the hon. member for South Peninsula. I think it is clear that he spoke here about things which he is not fully acquainted with. He had heard a few things from the merchants, but he was not able to appreciate the meaning of what they tell him, and I can only tell him that if he wants to die, in a political sense, then he should go to his constituency and repeat some of the things he has said here, as for instance that a tax should be imposed on the spirits which his constituents use to make good wine. Then there will be an outburst. I assume that he does not mind because the wine farmers are in the minority in his constituency, and the coloured people, Jews and Indians are in the majority. His whole attitude during last session in this House, when there was a select committee in connection with good wine, showed that he was out to look after the interests of the wholesalers. He went about with the proposals of the representatives of the wholesalers, and I assume that he represented those people and not the wine farmers in his constituency.

Original motion put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—65:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Cadman, C. F. M.

Christoper, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander. A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

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, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—43:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fullard, G. J.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein. J. J.

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.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren. S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and J. H. Viljoen.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I move—

1. (2) the excise duties on beer, brandy and spirits produced in the Union as set forth hereunder be increased to the extent shown.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—65:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Allen, F. B.

Baines. A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Cadman, C. F. M.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

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.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hamming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

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.

Sonnenberg M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Stuttaford, R.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—37:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fullard, G. J.

Grobler, J. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Swart, A. P.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe,

R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Verster, J. D. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. G. Strydom and J. H. Viljoen.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I move—

1. (3)
   1. (a) the excise duties on tobacco manufactured in the Union—
      1. (i) ready for use in the making of cigarettes;
      2. (ii) in the form of cigarettes, as set forth hereunder be increased to the extent shown.

1. (b) the corresponding customs duties on tobacco—
   1. (i) ready for use in the making of cigarettes;
   2. (ii) in the form of cigarettes,

manufactured in a country in South Africa, the Government whereof has entered into a Customs agreement with the Government of the Union in terms of section 10 of Act No. 36 of 1925, as set forth hereunder, be increased to the extent shown.

I should be neglecting my duty if I did not make the strongest possible protest in connection with this tax. It seems to me that the policy of the Minister and his Government is to tax most heavily those who are least able to pay. Here we are concerned with a comparatively small industry, out of which a relatively small number of farmers make a living, and nevertheless we find that in consequence of the taxes which have already been imposed in the past, and this increase which is now proposed, this comparatively small industry is contributing an amount to the Treasury which is out of all proportion to the size of the industry. The Minister proposes to take another £460,000 out of this industry this year, and that, together with the existing taxation, which amounts to about £1,500,000, means that in one year he is taking an amount of about £2,000,000 for the Treasury out of this industry. I think that everyone will admit that that is a very large sum to take from the tobacco industry, specially when we bear in mind that they are mostly small farmers who carry on this industry. They are people who have small plots of land, and who cannot be considered as the wealthy section of the farming population. Consequently I feel that this taxation is unfair, especially because the persons who ought to be affected by the tax escape entirely. It is the farmer on the one hand who has to pay the tax, and the consumer on the other hand. The big cigarette companies do not feel the pressure of the tax. They are the people who are making the big profits, and one would have expected that those who take the cream of the industry would have been asked to bear the taxation. But precisely the opposite is being done. I think that the Minister will admit that if there is a flourishing industry then it is the cigarette industry, and one can quite understand it. The hon. member for Potgietersrust (Rev. S. W. Naudé) put a question the other day to the Minister as to how many packets of 30 C. to C. cigarettes would be made out of 1 lb. of kiln-dried tobacco. The Minister’s reply was eleven packets, and when we bear in mind that a packet of 30 is sold for 1/2, then it means that the factory gets 13/- value from the farmer, for which he pays about 17d. That shows what large profits the factories are making, and yet the Minister introduces a proposal which allows the factories to get off scott free. The people who are going to pay this tax are, in the first place, the farmer, and in die second place, the consumer; those people, who ought to be the last to escape, are escaping the tax completely. The hon. member also asked what it cost to manufacture a packet of 30 C. to C. The reply was that that was a secret of the industry. I can quite understand them keeping it a secret, because otherwise the public would see what enormous profits they were making. I feel we have every right to ask the Minister — that is all there is for him to do now — to levy the taxation in future in such a way that it will not merely be the farmer and the consumer who are paying the tax, but also the cigarette company. It is not fair, with a tax like this, which the Minister has imposed to hit only on the farmer and the consumer, and for the manufacturers to escape it entirely.

I would like to put a simple question to the Minister: What is his object with this taxation; is it that every smoker in the country should contribute to the war expenditure, or is the object that this new tax should penalise the local product as against the imported product? Just imagine, the Minister says that he needs a certain amount of money and he is going to make the cigarette smokers pay. If that is the rationale of the Minister, then he ought to put the tax on every cigarette that is smoked, or that is imported, or that is made here. Then one could understand it. But what does the Minister say now? He wants the money, but it is the smoker of South African cigarettes who must pay, and the smoker of imported cigarettes need not contribute to the war expenses. That is what it amounts to. Accordingly, if one is in these days a good citizen who supports your own industry, then you have to contribute to the war expenses. But if you are a bad citizen, and you buy the overseas product, then you need not contribute to those expenses. I therefore ask the Minister what his object is, is it to get in money for the war, or is it to discourage the production of our own South African cigarettes, and to encourage the sale of imported cigarettes? Just think of it. I smoke C. to C. and then I have to pay on every cigarette in order to contribute to the war expenditure. My friend smokes Craven A or State Express, and then he need not contribute to the war expenditure. It is the stupidest thing I have ever yet heard of. The Minister must be consistent. That all, who smoke cigarettes, should have to contribute, I can understand. Then there would still be a little commonsense in the Minister’s proposal, but to make only the man who is supporting the local industry pay, and for the people who turn up their noses at their own produce, and smoke imported cigarettes to be treated more favourably, really makes one lose the respect which you have left for the sound sense of the Minister. When it comes to petrol then all are treated alike, then the local petrol is not allowed to escape. When we come to cigarettes, however, then the good Afrikaner who supports his own factories pays the increased tax, but the bad citizen who turns up his nose at the local article and buys the imported one need not pay the increase. I hope that the Minister wil give a clear reply as to what his object with this tax is.

One cannot help criticising the Minister in that when he places a tax on tobacco he has only taxed the local product, and not the imported article as well. The Minister may possibly reply that there is sufficient protection against the imported article by means of the duty that already exists, and that therefore it makes no difference. But if the Minister goes into the circumstances he will find that because he is now increasing the price of local cigarettes by about a half-penny on ten cigarettes, the difference which there formerly was between the imported and the local cigarettes will be disturbed to such an extent that a large number of smokers would be inclined to buy the imported cigarettes and not the local ones. In that way he undoubtedly injured the consumption of tobacco. By his proposals he is encouraging a large consumption of the imported article, but by making the cigarettes more expensive he will also undoubtedly lead to less being smoked generally. More than one person will, in consequence of the half-penny which is being put extra on ten cigarettes, smoke less, and in that way the consumption of tobacco will decrease. The result will be that the farmers will suffer an additional loss. The taxation proposals, and other steps taken by the Government, have the effect that the farmers are paying heavily and are suffering on account of the waging of the war. We have already shown how much the wool farmers will have to contribute, and now the tobacco farmers are also being sacrificed here on the altar of Imperialism. The tobacco farmers undoubtedly belong to the poorest but also the most hard-working section of the population, and they now have to be sacrificed for the sake of the English war. It is unfair that the first farmers that are being affected, possibly seriously affected, are the small tobacco farmers. As the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) has already shown, we are running the danger of a big surplus in tobacco. The danger is so great that the Tobacco Board has already had to send out an S.O.S. to the tobacco farmers to warn them that under ordinary circumstances a large surplus is to be expected. Accordingly the farmers are advised to produce less. Now the Government comes and by its proposals reduces the consumption of tobacco, by which the overproduction will become still greater. Then, in addition, the Government encourages people to grow tobacco on settlements. The farmers will suffer owing to the surplus that there will be, and I therefore want most strongly to protest against the taxation proposals by which the poor section of the farming community will be affected to such an extent that it can only have disastrous consequences in the future.

I am also one of those who represents tobacco farmers, and I am glad the Minister of Agriculture is in his place. He knows that we went to him with our troubles, and now when the tobacco farmers are in such a difficult position the Minister of Finance comes along and increases the existing tax of 6d. to 2s. a lb., an increase of 300 per cent. There is surely no other tax which has undergone such an increase, and this tax is injuriously affecting the consumption of the article manufactured in the Union. The tobacco farmers from beyond the Union are protected at the expense of the tobacco farmers in the Union, and this action of the Minister is going to do almost irreparable harm When one has first become accustomed to a different kind of flavour in imported cigarettes then we shall, when we remove the tax in the future, have a somewhat difficult job to get the individual back to smoking South African cigarettes again. How can we expect that the farmers will be satisfied with this when the product of this country is no longer protected, but when the product of another country is protected at the expense of the produce of our own country? I cannot understand this misplaced tax. I know that it is useless making an appeal to the Minister. He rejects all our appeals. But the tobacco farmers are getting to know the Government, and they also will how know what value to attach to all the speeches of hon. members on the opposite side when they address their constituents.

I just want to repeat what I have already explained, namely that the imported article still continues to pay a heavy customs duty, and that there is still a protection of 6s. per lb. for our own produce. The customs duty on tobacco is 8s. a lb. and if we were now to impose this tax of 2s. there would still be a protection of 6s. Although I think that it will be sufficient for the purpose, I also said that if it appeared that this tax was acting detrimentally to our local interests then I will see that the matter is put right next session.

Motion put.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—69:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

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.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

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.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

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.

Wallach; I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—37:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Bremer. K.

Brits, G. P.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis. P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fullard, G. J.

Grobler, J. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. D. H. Verster and J. H. Viljoen.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I move—

1. (4)
   1. (a) excise duties shall be charged, levied, collected and paid for the benefit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund on—
      1. (i) yeast;
      2. (ii) motor fuel for internal combustion engines; and
      3. (iii) rubber pneumatic tyres and tubes;
         manufactured in the Union, at the rates set forth hereunder.

1. (b) corresponding customs duties shall be charged, levied, collected and paid for the benefit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund on—
   1. (i) yeast;
   2. (ii) motor fuel for internal combustion engines; and
   3. (iii) rubber pneumatic tyres and tubes;

manufactured in a country in South Africa, the Government whereof has entered into a Customs agreement with the Government of the Union in terms of section ten of Act No. 36 of 1925, at the rates set forth hereunder.

Now that the Minister has admitted that this tax on yeast will affect the price of bread which is being sold by the bakers, and inasmuch as so far as the bakers are concerned he has made a concession, there is only one decent thing for him to do, and that is to withdraw the proposed tax. Otherwise he is charged with being responsible for having imposed a tax on bread.

We will make provision in the Bill.

For the bakers alone?

Yes.

But why not the poor people, who bake their own bread at home, why must they be taxed? The Minister constantly comes and tells us that he wants to encourage thrift amongst the people. Here he is encouraging people not to bake their bread at home, but to go to the baker and buy the bread there. Does the Minister call that encouraging thrift? The Minister admitted in the case of the bakers that this tax will affect the price of bread. That, then, also applies to the bread which is baked at home, and it is in conflict with all the things which the Minister said in introducing the budget. He said that he would do everything in his power to prevent the cost of living rising. Here he is not doing so. The most dangerous thing which can happen in our country is for the cost of living to go up. I cannot express my feelings of indignation owing to the taxation of bread at this time. If the Minister does not know, then let him ask his faithful colleague, what it means to support a family. Here we have a tax which hits the poorest section of the population, the section which buys a bucket of flour, and bakes the bread at home. Now he is going to compel the people to stop baking at home, but rather to go along to the baker and buy their bread there. In all respects, this is a thing from the evil one.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance what he thinks of the proposal. The Minister of Finance frankly admitted that the price of bread would probably go up. Now, I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the fact that we told him during the last session till we were blue in the face, that the farmers ought to get more for their wheat. That Minister refused, because, as he said, if that happened the price of bread would go up for the consumers. Here you have his colleague, the Minister of Finance, putting a tax on bread, on yeast, in consequence of which the price of bread will rise. The Minister of Finance has also taken up the attitude that if the price of wheat is increased the price of bread will probably rise. The Minister must not now come with the excuse that if the price of wheat rises the price of bread will go up when we come and ask for a better price for wheat. If he were to come with the excuse after these taxation proposals, then I would be sorry for him.

I thought that the position was clear, but apparently it is not clear yet. I said that the effect of this tax would be an increase of one-eleventh of a penny per lb. on the total cost of bread. But to prevent the price of bread rising I said that I would grant a rebate on yeast, bought through bakers, for the manufacture of bread. Provision will be made for that in the Bill. There is, therefore, no question of this motion making the price of bread, manufactured by the bakers, dearer. But it is actually true that if housewives buy yeast, they will have to nay the tax. It is a very insignificant amount. If it were possible I would like to exempt it, but I think that it ought to be clear to everybody that the control over such a rebate to housewives would be quite impossible. Far and away the largest part of the yeast which is made to-day is used in the illicit liquor trade. You can, in fact, exercise control over the yeast which is sold to bakers, but it is impossible to keep control over yeast which is sold to all the housewives who want to buy yeast. Most of the poor women who themselves bake bread, in any case, make their own yeast.

I cannot understand what the Minister says now. He says that he now has to tax the poor housewife to prevent the illicit sale of beer. He reminds me of the story of the minister’s son who wanted to contract a disease because he wanted to catch hold of and infect his father. He knows as well as I do that to-day, with modern housekeeping, all the poor housewives practically buy yeast. It is easy to use. Now he is going to tax the poor people who buy a small bucket of flour, in order to punish those illegal brewers of beer. Why does he not introduce a Bill to catch those people? Then he can exercise control and also tax the people. It is not the poor man who buys bakers’ bread, but the rich man. The housewife who bakes her own bread is usually poor.

They usually make their own yeast.

Sometimes, but in any case it is wrong in principle. If they go to the shop and buy yeast, they have to pay the tax. If they buy Royal Baking Powder they have to pay. No, it is easy to prevent the Kaffir beer brewing without taxing the housewives. The Minister says that he will not be able to exercise any control then. How is he going to exercise control if they buy raisins, and turn them into yeast? The yeast business can be controlled by legislation. I think that the Minister has made a mistake, and a mistake for which he will yet pay dearly.

May I just ask whether what the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) says that a tax is being up on baking powder is correct?

No.

If he is going to tax baking powder, then the women will object very much. I cannot, however, see why the women should be taxed for the sake of the people who make skokiaan. The Government have their police to tackle that thing. Thousands of gallons of beer are brewed every week in Johannesburg, and thousands of gallons are drunk, but the police do not worry about it. I think this is an unfair step on the part of the Minister.

Motion put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—62:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Cadman. C. F. M.

Christopher, R. M.

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.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch. J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Moll, A. M.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Stuttaford, R.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—33:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, S.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus, F. C.

Grobler, J. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. D. H. Verster and J. H. Viljoen.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Business suspended at 6.2 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

I move—

Agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the resolutions on income tax (normal tax and super tax), gold mines special contribution, customs and excise duties and the amendment of the Law Resolution.

Resolutions adopted and a Committee appointed to bring up the necessary Bill or Bills to give effect to the resolutions adopted.

Report of Committee brought up and a Bill submitted.

I move—

This motion and the following one are formal motions for the House to adopt certain agreements which have been entered into between ourselves, in the one case, with the United Kingdom and in the other case with Canada. Under the Ottawa agreements the United Kingdom agreed to maintain a duty of 10 per cent. on all foreign imports, of white fish and hake. Soon after the war broke out they asked us if we would agree to the suspension of that duty on foreign imports in order that they could make a gesture to Iceland and Scandinavia regarding their imports of fish. I may say that it does not affect South Africa at all. The imports into the United Kingdom of fish from the Union in 1937 were £82, in 1938 £18 and in 1939 £130. Of course it affects other Dominions more than it does us, and for that reason we agreed that for twelve months, from the date of the agreement, we would agree to a suspension of this duty.

I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

This is the other motion to which I referred. Under the Ottawa agreements Canada has to maintain a duty of 10 cents a lb. on wool as against foreign nations, and at the beginning of this year Canada had certain difficulties in getting wool and asked us to suspend the duty for four months, that is for January, February, March and April. We agreed to do that and it has had no effect whatever on our business, and in addition to that we have been able to meet Canada in this regard.

I second.

Motion put and agreed to.