I desire to raise a point of order on the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog). I wish to ask whether the notice of motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Smithfield is in order in view of the fact that the question involved, namely, the conclusion of a separate peace, has already been decided by this House, and that the introduction of such a motion would be in conflict with the intention of Standing Order No. 46, and that, moreover, the petition was open to perusal by hon. members for six days before the question was decided. May I perhaps be permitted, with the indulgence of the House, to state very briefly the grounds on which I have raised this point of order. Standing Order No. 46 reads as follows—

Now, under this rule, the test to be applied to any proposed motion is whether it is the same in substance, and not as to its sameness in phraseology, or form, to the motion which has already been adopted by the House. If we apply that test to the motion of the hon. member for Smithfield, which was rejected at the last sitting of the House, we must come to the conclusion that the substance of that motion was, as stated therein, an appeal to this House “for immediate steps to be taken to restore peace with Germany and Italy.” That was the wording of the motion in so far as its substance was concerned. Let me say that that appeal was made on behalf of unspecified persons, but if we turn to the motion in his name to-day, we find that an identical appeal is made in the name of 148,000 people, whose names are attached to certain petitions, and the sameness of substance is shewn in the wording of that motion. It is that an appeal shall be read to this House by the Clerk at the Table, “for such steps to be taken as will conclude an immediate and separate peace.” These are the words employed, and in substance they are the same as the motion which was rejected by this House on Saturday evening. Now it may be said that this is a totally different motion because the motion is one for the Clerk to read at the Table a certain petition. But the action of the Clerk is not the substance of the motion. It is a mere incident. The substance of the motion is its essential part, and its essential part is that an appeal shall be made to this House (through the Clerk) for the conclusion of an immediate and separate peace. It is therefore identical in substance with the motion rejected on Saturday evening. Then the only other point I wish to deal with is this, that to permit the introduction of a motion such as this may have very far-reaching consequences with regard to the conduct of the business of this House.

You may start a rebellion.

The business of this House has been founded from its inception upon subjects of debate being isolated and dealt with in proper order, otherwise the business could never be conducted. And if it is to be possible, after the conclusion of a debate lasting three days, and after an adverse vote having been given, for a motion the same in substance as the defeated motion, to be introduced as often as a petition can be produced, the finality of debates in any one session of the House, will be rendered impossible. My contention is that this motion is in substance the same as the one rejected by the House at its last sitting, and to permit the introduction of this motion would be knowingly to agree to a breach of a Rule of the House, which was constituted for a very good and essential purpose.

The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his intention to raise this point of order. The substance of the question decided on Saturday was the conclusion of a separate peace. The substance of the question now sought to be proposed is the reading of a petition at the Table. The two questions are not the same. The fact that the petition deals with questions already decided does not affect the matter. The two propositions are entirely separate and distinct. Furthermore the petition deals not only with the conclusion of peace but prays in the first place for protection of conscientious objections against participation in the war. That aspect of the petition has not been in any way decided by the House. But even if the petition contained nothing but a prayer for the conclusion of peace, it would be competent, in my opinion, to move that it be read at the Table because the substance of such a motion is not the same as that decided on Saturday. Moreover, a vote of the House can be rescinded under the Standing Order referred to by the hon. member (S.O. No. 46) and that alone would justify a motion for the reading of this petition. It is for the House to decide whether it desires the petition to be read or not.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Whereupon the petition was read by the Acting Clerk of the House.

I move—

Additional Expenditure, 1940-’41[U.G. 37—’40].

1. (a) Two days shall be allotted for the motion that the House go into Committee on the Estimates of Additional Expenditure;
2. (b) one day shall be allotted for the Committee of the Whole House on the Estimates of Additional Expenditure, including the consideration of the report of the Committee and the First Reading of the Additional Appropriation Bill.
3. (c) three hours shall be allotted for the Second Reading of the Additional Appropriation Bill; and
4. (d) two hours shall be allotted for the Third Reading of the Additional Appropriation Bill.

Additional Taxation Proposals, 1940-’41(V. & P., pp. 41-43).

1. (a) One day shall be allotted for the motion that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means;
2. (b) one day shall be allotted for the Committee of Ways and Means, including the consideration of the report of the Committee and the First Reading of the Bill to give effect to the taxation proposals;
3. (c) six hours shall be allotted for the Second Reading of the Bill;
4. (d) six hours shall be allotted for the Committee stage of the Bill; and
5. (e) two hours shall be allotted for the Third Reading of the Bill.

For the purposes of this resolution—

1. (1) Definition of “day.”—“Day”—
   1. (a) shall mean a day on which any stage of proceedings specified above stands as the first public business on the Order Paper on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, and is so taken; and
   2. (b) when the stage of proceedings for which a day or days is allotted—
      1. (i) is commenced on a Saturday or on a day on which by resolution the House meets later than 10.30 a.m.; or
      2. (ii) does not stand as the first public business on the Order Paper; or
      3. (iii) is interrupted by the adoption of a dilatory motion that the debate be adjourned or that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again, “day” shall mean a period of eight-and-a-half hours, and “two days” shall mean a period of seventeen hours.
2. (2) Application when Mr. Speaker is in the Chair.—When Mr. Speaker is in the Chair at five minutes to eleven o’clock p.m. at the conclusion of any allotted day or days (as defined in paragraph 1 (a)), or is in the Chair at the conclusion of any period of hours allotted, he shall forthwith put the original question before the House and any amendments that have been moved but not disposed of shall drop. The date for the next stage shall thereupon be fixed by a Minister.
3. (3) Application when the House is in Committee—When the Chairman is in the Chair at five minutes to eleven o’clock p.m. at the conclusion of any allotted day or days (as defined in paragraph 1 (a)), or is in the Chair at the conclusion of any period of hours allotted, any amendments (other than amendments proposed by a Minister) which have been moved but not disposed of shall drop. The Chairman shall thereupon proceed to put forthwith, without debate, any amendments which have been moved or may be moved by a Minister, and thereafter only such further amendments as may be moved by a Minister and such questions, including Votes, items, heads, resolutions or clauses, as amended or as printed, as may be necessary to dispose of the Committee stage. The Chairman shall thereupon bring up the report of the Committee without question put and the date for the next stage shall be fixed by a Minister: Provided that the consideration of the reports of the Committees on Expenditure and Taxation shall be considered forthwith without amendment or debate.
4. (4) Eleven o’clock rule.—When the question has been put from the Chair at the conclusion of any period of hours allotted for any stage of proceedings specified above, the application of Standing Order No. 26 (eleven o’clock rule) shall be postponed until the proceedings on that stage have been completed.
5. (5) Dilatory motions.—At none of the stages above set forth shall Mr. Speaker or the Chairman receive a motion that the Chairman report progress or do leave the Chair, or a motion to postpone a Vote, item, head, resolution or clause, or a motion for the adjournment of the House or of the debate, or a motion to recommit, unless moved by a Minister, and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith without debate.

This motion comes within the ambit of the motion which was passed by this House on Tuesday last. It was then decided that the debate on a motion by a Minister for fixing the time for specified work would last at most three hours. Here now a motion is being introduced to fix the time for specified work, namely, the work in connection with the disposal of the additional estimates. The work is of a two-fold kind, namely, in the first place to get approval of additional expenditure by dealing with the additional expenditure in Committee on the estimates, and thereafter the passing of an additional Appropriation Bill in connection with them; in the second place, taxation measures will then have to be passed, according to the motions of which I have given notice. We have, therefore, in the first place, to deal with the Committee of Supply, thereafter with the passing of the Additional Appropriation Bill, and finally with the taxation proposals. The Prime Minister, in introducing the motion on Tuesday, said that if it were necessary to submit proposals of this nature, adequate provision would be made for time to debate the particular business. I think you will agree that in the motion which I am now moving, adequate provision has been made. With regard to the discussion of our ordinary estimates, the principle has already been admitted that an ordinary budget debate is restricted to four days of ordinary length. That budget debate also includes the debate on the railway estimates. Here we are only dealing with a budget which affects certain votes of our ordinary revenue budget. The railway budget does not come up for discussion at all, and the debate on this additional budget will be restricted to items for which additional provision has been made. When then we make provision for two days, days which are longer than the ordinary sitting day, we may say that full provision is being made for the debate. Thereafter provision is being made for one extended day to debate the estimates in Committee. That also ought to be adequate. Thereafter we are also making provision for a debate of three hours in regard to the second reading of the Additional Appropriation Bill, and two hours for the third reading of the Bill. That period is considerably longer than the average time spent on the annual debate of the main Appropriation Bill. Then with regard to the additional taxation proposals, we are making provision for a full day of eight and a half hours in connection with the motion for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, for a further day’s debate in the Committee of Ways and Means itself— once more a day of eight and a half hours —and then we are making provision for six hours in regard to the second reading of the Taxation Bill, for another six hours for the Committee stage and a further two hours for the third reading. Hon. members, if they will notice what usually happens in the House, will see that the period which is being fixed for dealing with the taxation proposals is considerably longer than what is usually taken for that purpose in ordinary sessions. The provision which is being made is therefore full and reasonable.

I second.

In spite of what the Minister of Finance has said, I nevertheless want to protest strongly against any restriction of any such kind as has been suggested on the debates to which this motion refers. I see no reason why in this session of Parliament, and especially in connection with the matters which will be brought forward here, the Government should go out of its way to place any restriction of any kind for which the Standing Rules and Orders do not already make provision. The only reason which can be adduced by the Government why they want to place restriction on the debate is the saving of time. They want to rush the work through the House as quickly as possible in order to get away from Parliament. That we have little time is not the fault of this House. It is the Government’s own fault. In all belligerent countries Parliament practically sits continuously. Parliament only goes home now and then for a short recess, but then they are once more called back so that the Government can remain in constant touch with the legislative body of the country. This Government has acted in an exactly opposite way. It has treated Parliament with contempt. It has done the work itself, and even declared another war, without Parliament having been consulted in the matter at all. If the Government has no time, then it is its own fault. Parliament ought to be treated in such a way as to give it sufficient time to debate subjects fully, and the Standing Rules and Orders of Parliament are based on that. I therefore think that this House ought not to allow the Government to demand the passing of any further restrictions on this House. I want further to point out that the Standing Rules and Orders make full and good provision against the wasting of any time on the part of any member of this House. If any argument is repeated here, then Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Committees calls the hon. member concerned to order. There is also provision against repetition of arguments which have already been used. Further, the Standing Orders make provision that if a subject has already been fully debated, the closure can be applied. But the House attached so much value to the right of hon. members to represent their electors here, and to debate matters properly, that it would not allow that right to remain only in the hands of the Government of saying when there should be a closure of the debate and when not. Mr. Speaker has a duty in connection with that matter. If the Government wants to apply the closure it must have the agreement of the Chair before its proposal can be put to the vote. The House has laid down its guarantees. On the one hand if a matter has been sufficiently debated, the debate can be put an end to; on the other hand there are guarantees that that right will not be abused by the majority in the House, which the Government represent. The Standing Rules and Orders make sufficient provision and state guarantees which are necessary in connection with the debates in this House. It is therefore not necessary to bring forward special motions of this nature. I want further to point out that what is being asked for here from the House is a colossal sum of money, and the restrictions on this debate which have been asked for, relate to the voting of the money with all that is concerned in the matter, such as the levying of taxes, etc. I just want to tell you that in regard to one item alone, namely the money which is being voted for defence, £32,000,000 more is being asked for than what was originally asked for by the Minister of Finance for the purpose for the coming year. Adding the £14,000,000 there will be about £46,000,000 asked for for defence during the current year. The expenditure in connection with defence has risen up to £126,000 a day. We are going to expend on these defences an amount of about £1,000,000 a week, and to find all that heavy taxation will have to be imposed on the public, and the debate, to which limitations are now being placed, refer to all that. The estimates which were originally put before the House were intended to cover the whole of the financial year, and in this short session in which hon. members are now to some extent being muzzled, the provision made in the original estimates is almost being doubled. It is not just, in those circumstances, to come to this House and ask hon. members who want to criticise, to place themselves under restrictions of that nature. But there is another very important aspect of the case. I think that if there has ever been a budget laid before this House which should be submitted to thorough and unrestricted criticism, then it is this particular one. It is not merely a question of the largeness of the sum which is being asked for, but the important question for Parliament is: How is that_ large sum of money to be spent? The criticism in this House is to a great extent directed to that, and it is also for the most part necessary on that account. Is the money being wasted or is it being spent in pursuance of the object of Parliament? And now I want here to point to a quite strange circumstance in connection with this matter. It is a well-known thing that in time of war there is one department which, as a rule, can be described as a wasting department. It is the Department of Defence, which has to look after the carrying on of the war. Because the war outweighs everything, and because everything is sacrificed to win the war, as a rule the way in which the money voted is spent by that department is not regarded too strictly. If there ever was a department which should be subjected to the criticism of hon. members of this House in regard to the proper spending of the money, then it is the Defence Department in time of war. As a rule there is another guarantee that the Department of Defence will not waste money, because the Minister of Defence, who is responsible for that department and for the spending of the money, is as a rule not the Prime Minister, who is in the first instance responsible to Parliament and to the people. If the Minister of Defence wastes money and the Minister of Finance is not strong enough to prevent it, then there is always the Prime Minister left as the last, and the principal guarantee which Parliament and the public have against the wasting of money. In this case the Minister of Defence is the same person as the Prime Minister. The man who is responsible to Parliament and to the country in the first instance, in regard to the finances of the country as well, is also the person who wastes the money. I think that in those circumstances, more than ever before, it is necessary that we should not limit the hon. members of this House in their criticism on the budget. Accordingly, I want to note a strong protest against this motion of the Minister of Finance.

When this question of the eventual application of the guillotine was debated, the Prime Minister tried to present the matter in a very innocent light, and you will remember, Mr. Speaker, that towards the end of the Prime Minister’s speech I put by way of an interjection, the question to him whether it would not be possible, under his motion, to make the guillotine applicable to a debate on this budget as well. The Prime Minister hesitated for a few seconds, and he then replied to me that he gave me credit for more sound sense than to make a suggestion of that kind. It is quite clear that the Prime Minister made that remark, because the question that I put to him was also reported in the Cape Argus, and I would like to read it to him.

The hon. member may not quote from a newspaper about speeches in this House.

Then I will only say that the report of the Cape Argus clearly says that I asked the Prime Minister whether it would also be made possible for his motion to be applied to the guillotine on the debate on the budget. When the Prime Minister makes a statement about political questions, then possibly we are not always inclined to take it too seriously. But here, as Leader of the House, he made a statement, from which only one inference can be drawn, namely that in his opinion there would be no application of the guillotine to a debate of this budget.

No, not at all.

My question was very plain, and the Prime Minister stated that it would not be applicable to the debate on the budget. I want again to point out that we are not now concerned with a political statement by the Prime Minister, but a statement on a question of procedure, as to what time and facilities the Government were prepared to grant to the Opposition, and I say that we have the fullest right to rely on such a statement which was made by the Prime Minister as Leader of this House. It is something in connection with which the honour of the Prime Minister as Leader of the Government and of this House is involved. I hope that the Prime Minister will reflect on this matter, and that he will not place us in the position of not being able in future to depend on the statements of the Prime Minister. His statement amounted to this, that the guillotine would not be applicable to the budget debate. This is the chief reason that I have risen to take part in this debate. But in connection with what the Minister of Finance said here, I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) has already said, and that is that this budget cannot be compared with the ordinary budget which is brought before the House every year, and in connection with which certain rules are made with regard to the time that is allowed for the debate. I speak under correction, but when last year certain rules were made in connection with the debate on the budget, I think that those rules were agreed to after consultation with the Opposition. Be that as it may, a large amount is being asked for here for a purpose as to which there is great difference of opinion in the country. If you examine the debate of the previous budget you will find that the objections of the Opposition chiefly concerned questions of general policy, and not the details of the budget. Here, however, we have to deal with a special expenditure of over £32,000,000, for purposes of defence, a sum which must be linked up with the war. As then we are concerned here with an expenditure of £32,000,000, we have the fullest right to get a full opportunity to debate this expenditure including the details against which we are objecting. The chief reason why I have risen, however, was to ask the Prime Minister to keep to the statement which he made to me, that the guillotine would not be applied to the restriction of the debate on the budget.

I hope that the Prime Minister will explain this matter. I do not say that his statement was deliberately misleading, because in any case he had nothing to gain by it, but I say that it undoubtedly put hon. members under the impression that there would be a full debate on the estimates. As whip, I want to say that in connection with the arrangements for the debate which concluded on Saturday, there was a mutual agreement to conclude it on Saturday at 6 o’clock, and I could only obtain that agreement after I had given hon. members the assurance that the Prime Minister would give them the fullest opportunity to make their speeches on the debate on these estimates. Consequently we undoubtedly placed this side of the House under the impression that a full debate would be allowed on the estimates. I assume that that may not have been the intention of the Prime Minister, but we were placed under the impression that there would be no restriction of the debate on the estimates. In addition, I want to point out that this session is practically a special session. It is practically only a war session, and up the present in view of the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, only 23 members on this side of the House were able to make their speeches. That means that for the remaining hon. members the only chance of making their speeches will be on the estimates. If this debate now is to last for two days, then it means that about two-thirds of them will not be able to make their speeches. I do not think that it is reasonable or fair at this stage, as this is a special session, that members should be restricted in that way. In the additional estimates which have been drafted, so many alterations have been made and there are so many matters in connection with which the people are entitled to ask what the reason is for this or the other thing, that we should not allow any restrictions on the debate. Take the large amount that is asked for. One would want more particulars about the object of it, and for what length of time the provision is to be made. The Minister of Finance knows that when we met here last time he made provision for a definite period, namely for twelve months. Now he is asking for practically twice as much, and we are entitled to go into that fully, and to ask him for how long it is intended. Is it for the duration of the war, or only to the end of the financial year? These are all matters which should be debated. Take the question of the change of Ministers that has taken place. This affects a very important matter, one of the most important in our country, namely the interning of Union citizens and of enemy citizens, who have been transferred from one Minister to another. There must have been a very good reason for that. It is said that the one Minister was too well disposed towards the Afrikaners. Whether it is so or not we do not know, but we would very much like to know it in the light of what happened in the country. In this short time of two days which has been granted us, there will be no opportunity of doing so. Then I come back again to the big question. We have a democratic system of government to-day in this country, and under that system the representatives of the people have come to Cape Town to debate matters, and the first motion introduced by the Government which they have to debate here is how soon they will be sent back home again, how they will be curtailed in time and will have no proper opportunity of debating matters. I think that they will make a very bad impression on the public. Let me say that hon. members on this side are prepared to remain here just as long as the Government wants to keep them. We are here to do our duty apart from how long we have to remain here. But it is the Government, which says that they are fighting for the democratic system, which is in a hurry to get away, and which does not want to give the representatives of the people a proper opportunity to discuss the interests of their constituents properly. With these few words I want to protest against this step, and I hope that the Prime Minister will, in the course of this debate, still tell me that he will not apply this motion to the budget debate.

I want to say a few words to clear up what the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) said here. Either the hon. member is or I am under a complete misunderstanding of what took place here. I understood that the question which the hon. member put to me was dealing with the general budget, and that his argument was that if the Government could apply the guillotine, then it would be done in this case. But why should the Government not possibly to-morrow or the day after also apply the guillotine to the general budget, and thus close the mouths of hon. members to some extent on the question of the general budget of the country? That is how I understood him, and to that I replied that the Government did not have the least intention of taking that step. The time-table which is now before us here was not drawn up during the last few days. It was drafted in Pretoria by the Government, and it would therefore have been an impossibility for me, knowing that that was the case, to say that this time-table would not apply to the debate on the additional estimates. It was agreed to in Cabinet that this time-table would be applicable to this debate on the additional estimates. I can give the hon. member the assurance that I understood his question in the sense that I have explained here.

He used the words “additional estimates.”

No, at least I did not understand him so.

But there is no general budget.

There will still be one this session. I understood the argument of the hon. member in that way, that if this resolution should be passed to be able to apply the guillotine, why should the Government not later make the guillotine apply to the general budget of the country as well. Accordingly I said that we would be deprived of our senses if we were to do such a thing. I stand by that. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the question which is now being debated. I only wanted to give an explanation in connection with the point that was raised here.

With reference to the explanation of the Prime Minister, it is very clear that there was in any case a misunderstanding between this side of the House and the Government. I want to give the Prime Minister the assurance that this side, as the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) has already explained, was willing to reach an agreement in regard to the duration of the debate on the peace motion of the Leader of the Opposition, and that we understood that the Prime Minister would give us full opportunity to continue our arguments against the continuance of the war on the occasion of the consideration of the estimates. We felt that there would be sufficient time on the debate on the estimates to give hon. members on this side the opportunity of bringing their arguments before the House.

Why did he not use Tuesday and Wednesday?

Because we were definitely under the impression that we would get the opportunity in the debate on the budget. I say definitely that there was a misunderstanding, and for that reason we definitely cannot regard the attitude of the Government as fair. I think the Government will admit that the resolution to go on with the war raises many important questions, questions which we should have the fullest opportunity of debating. Have we now got sufficient time under the proposal of the Minister of Finance for that debate? The Minister of Finance says that there will be ample time. We definitely deny it. Apart from the questions which arise in consequence of the continuance of the war, there are many urgent matters in connection with the agricultural industry for which we also ought to have the fullest opportunity to bring them to the notice of the Government. I know that I cannot now go into the details, but I do want to refer to matters like the wheat industry, to the threatened tobacco surplus, and to the position of the wool farmers. Those are all matters that we must debate fully, and for which we ought to have ample time. We did not come to this House to sit for only a few days, as the Government now apparently expects of us. We represent electors, and we sit here by virtue of the same constitutional right as the Prime Minister, and for the Government now to take up this attitude towards the Opposition is certainly not fair. The Minister of Finance says that ample time is being given us. Let us go into the matter and see if that is so. Altogether, 30 hours is being allowed for dealing with the additional estimates of expenditure. That is for both sides of the House, and it works out at ten minutes per member. In view of the matters that have to be debated, a few of which I have mentioned, I now want to ask the Minister how he can expect an hon. member to bring forward the interests of his constituents in this House in ten minutes time. It is rediculous to expect it. If the Government takes up the attitude that the time table was drawn up in Pretoria, and that that time table must now be adhered to, then they might just as well not have summoned Parliament. The attitude which the Government is taking up to-day is simply turning this House into a farce and nothing else. It is nothing but a violation of democracy. That is what it amounts to. Take the time which is made available for the additional taxation proposals. As the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) has already said, the Minister of Finance has brought forward very drastic proposals here. The time which has been made available for them is even less than ten minutes per member. How does the Government expect a member to do his duty if he has such an insignificant time for debating the matter? It is unfair. I want to put a question to the Minister of Finance, to wit, whether this time table will only apply to this short session, which will end this year, or whether it will also apply to the continued session next year?

My motion of this morning is only applicable to items that are mentioned in it.

We can therefore take it that it will not apply to the rest of the session which will take place next year?

It is limited to the items which are mentioned in the motion.

The Minister is now trying to create the impression that he is accommodating. I fear that if things go still worse with the war than is the case now, then next year still less time will be given. There was definitely a misunderstanding as to the attitude of the Government, otherwise we would not have made so many concessions during the past week. Hon. members expected that they would have the fullest opportunity of bringing matters properly to the notice of the Government, which is what they regard as their duty, and there was definitely a misunderstanding. Otherwise we would not have been so accommodating with regard to the motion of the Leader of the Opposition.

I cannot help thinking of the tremendous contrast we must notice between what the Minister of Finance is now moving here and what a little more than fourteen days ago he said on the Rand. At Orange Grove he spoke about the object which South Africa was aiming at in the war. I do not want to go into that, but I just want to mention that he mentioned as the third object that we had in the war, and what we were fighting for, that “we wanted to destroy the Nazi propaganda which was directed against liberty of thought and speech.” That is what he said on that occasion, but when he comes to this Parliament then he destroys that liberty of speech. If the times were not so serious, and if the Government and the country were not in such a parlous condition, then one could call it a good joke, that while the Minister can speak of nothing else but the liberty of thought and speech, he comes here and restricts the people by a guillotine proposal, such as we have before us to-day. The old Hollanders used to say that it was easy to say a thing, but the art lay in doing it. It is easy for the Minister of Finance to speak about liberty, but to practice it seems to be a very difficult thing to him, and he does not succeed in it. He brings up a measure here to muzzle the representatives of the people. Does not the Minister know what great indignation is already prevalent in the country about the manner in which the war is being conducted, an indignation which we have to give expression to in this House? Does he not realise that the indignation will still greatly increase owing to the motion which is now being made, and by the suppression of the freedom and the rights of the representatives of the people in this House? They now bring up one guillotine measure after the other, and I want in all seriousness to ask whether it is wise in these difficult times to bring up proposals of that sort. Does the Minister not know how the blood of the people boils against the policy of the Government? Is it wise then of the Government to close the only safety valve that still exists? Does he want to make things impossible for him in the future? As the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) has already said, we have a Standing Order here which serves as a safety measure in connection with the debates, so that the debates cannot degenerate into repetitions. Why is not the Government satisfied with that? While the Government wastes enormous sums of money, a waste which the public are indignant about, and which we do not wish to call attention to here, the Government comes and tries to muzzle the people when we have information that we want to bring before the House. I wonder whether the reason why our time has been curtailed is that the Government is nervous about having those things made known. We are concerned here with additional estimates amounting to £32,000,000, and the Government is already busy hiding it from the eyes of the public, because the largest part of that amount is being borrowed, and the burden of that is being postponed. Now we may not debate the expenditure, and the waste that has taken place in connection with it because the Government is nervous. It is nervous that the real state of affairs here will come to light by means of the protest from our side against the way in which the Government is behaving, against the maladministration in the country, against the way in which money is being wasted and burdens thrown upon the public. The Government feel that certain things are not quite right, and therefore our liberty has to be restricted.

I want to express my disappointment at the Prime Minister not being in his place. If there ever was a time when the Prime Minister should be in his place, although it is the Minister of Finance who introduced the motion, then it is now. I would like to call the Prime Minister’s attention to the fact that hon. members on this side were under the impression, when his original motion was introduced, to curtail the time of hon. members and deprive them of their rights, that he would not enforce the guillotine in connection with the budget proposals. The Prime Minister now comes to-day and wants to excuse himself. But there definitely was a misunderstanding. I can give him the assurance that I was clearly under the impression that we would not be curtailed so far as the estimates were concerned. I was under the impression that we would have the right and the opportunity of bringing to the notice of the Government our point of view in connection with the expenditure on the war, and I should be neglecting my duty if I did not also protest against the way in which our rights are now being curtailed. There was never a time in the history of South Africa when it was so necessary that the rights of members should not be restricted as during the present session. The Minister now wants to make out in such an innocent way that the periods which are proposed in this motion are practically the same as those used in connection with the estimates every year. Let me just tell the Minister of Finance that there has never yet been a time like this, when it is so necessary to give hon. members the right to give utterance to their feelings and the feelings of the voters whom they represent. I just want to point out that the proposals of the Minister of Finance in connection with the taxation are such that they do a great injustice and are unfair to certain taxpayers in the country. I do not know whether it is his object and the object of the Government specially to benefit certain companies and institutions. I can, however, give him the assurance that in certain respects the taxation proposals are unjust and unfair. These things must be debated and threshed out here, and we must point out the injustice which is latent in the proposals. I just want to call to mind the fact that you find that the mines are only taxed up to 2 per cent.

The hon. member cannot now go into those matters. He must keep to the motion.

As I have already said, I merely want to point out why it is so unfair that so far as the budget debate is concerned, and the debate on the taxation proposals, our rights are being curtailed in this way, although the weight of taxation according to the proposals of the Minister will press heavily on certain taxpayers.

The hon. member cannot go into details. He cannot under this motion debate the estimates themselves.

I just want to say that there are certain matters this session which especially demand the attention of the House and the public, things to which we must call attention. It is therefore unfair not to give hon. members more opportunity of drawing attention to such conditions. It cannot be expected of a member to deal with matters of the greatest importance in ten minutes. It is extremely necessary that we should have proper time to go, for instance, into the taxation proposals. I feel that certain sections of the population are being unjustly affected, while other sections are benefited, and I still hope that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance will come to the conclusion that in this session, at any rate, we should be given the fullest opportunity of debating those matters. The Standing Rules and Orders were drafted specially for the protection of the rights of private members, who do not otherwise get an opportunity. They have been drawn up to give members on this side of the House the right, to give them the opportunity to express their views, and the feelings of the constituents whom they represent here. I think the Minister of Finance will himself admit that this cannot possibly be done in the time that is now proposed in the motion. Whether it is an hon. member on this side or one on the other side — it makes no difference — it is impossible to debate those important matters properly in the short time. The Minister of Finance cannot now come and say that hon. members on this side of the House do not take part in the debate of certain proposals. We find that they also now make use of certain rights, and we have had examples in the past of them having tried to thwart hon. members on this side of the House as much as they can. I hope that the Minister, in the circumstances, will arrive at the conclusion that it is not fair and right towards hon. members to introduce such a motion at this stage, especially as we were put under the impression by the Prime Minister that the time limit would not be applied to the budget debate, but that a full opportunity would be given to every member of this House properly to give expression to his grievances. The Government will realise that with the proposed restriction of time, that is impossible. I can only attribute the step of the Government to the fact that it is afraid of criticism, that the Government is afraid that the people in the country will really see what is going on, and therefore the Government wants, under the cloak of this motion, to force through its taxation proposals, and to place burdens on the people which will not only be intolerable for the coming year, but which will be more intolerable in the future, as long as the war lasts.

This motion of the Government is inexplicable when one has listened in the past to the high-sounding and balanced rhetorical repetition of the same group about democracy, when it comes to laying foundation stones or the opening of bazaars by the Minister of Finance, or when one has listened to the periodical speeches which are made by Ministers over the wireless for the benefit of the less-enlightened section of the population, and also when one listens to the emergency appeals of the philosopher of Irene. When we notice that, and all the repeated statements of hon. members on the other side that they believe in democracy and that they are fighting against people who are threatening democracy, then we cannot believe that they are the same people who introduce a measure like this to deprive the minority of their rights. The debates in regard to the proposal of the Minister of Finance will now simply mean that during the period of the greatest troubles in South Africa, a time of terrible waste of money, and also a time of quick succession of occurrences, that the Government, at such a time, when they are undertaking things on a larger scale than ever before, when the expenditure is doubly as large as in any previous year, when even the Minister of Finance will admit that the money of the taxpayers of South Africa is being wasted as it has never before been wasted in the history of South Africa — and I say it is not understandable that at this period, when the Opposition want to and must publish certain things, when the Opposition consider it their duty to criticise the action of the Government, that the Government should come and cut down the debates tremendously. There sits the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). I can see by his face that he is almost full to bursting point of the important matters that he wants to bring forward. He must get his chance. But this session is once more going to be characterised by the silence of the hon. member for East Griqualand. There sits the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. Reitz). She did her best the other day, when someone else was speaking, to make a speech by way of interruptions. One could see by her face that she was terribly in earnest about something, but she is being deprived of the opportunity now of making public the great ideas that are running through her brain. And there is the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) who, in the name of democracy, with a rifle in his hand, stood so beautifully that the photograph is even exhibited in this House, because some hon. members thought that it should not remain a passing matter, but be preserved for posterity. The hon. member for Troyeville with his rifle in his hand, on the outposts of democracy!

The hon. member is now wandering rather far from the motion.

I just want to point out that while the hon. member for Troyeville stands, gun in hand, to defend democracy, he is giving his vote here to crush democracy. My point is that this is a hypocritical motion and that the real reasons for this motion are not given. Possibly that is the reason why the Minister of Finance did not speak on the motion, because he knows that the professed reasons that are given for this proposal are not the real reasons. When one examines this motion, and you compare it with the object of the war—the object at any rate for which, according to Ministers on the other side, the war is being conducted and why we are in the war—then you see that the spirit of this motion is diametrically opposed to the spirit of the ideal for which, according to them, this war is being prosecuted. What are they pretending to fight for? For the protection of the rights of minorities and against the oppression of minorities. What are they fighting for? For liberty of speech in the world; but here they are suppressing that liberty. They are fighting against Nazism. They tell us that if the Nazis were to come here there would never be any further opportunity of criticising a government, but they take care that we are curtailed as much as possible. As I said, the real object of this motion is in conflict with the pretended object of the war, and in conflict with democracy. It is being moved because they are afraid of the criticism on this side of the revelation of what is going on. I am not now speaking of questions of policy, but I am only now thinking of the wasting of public money, the roundabout and topsyturvy way in which things are being done. We want to criticise it, but what prevents it? The Minister of Finance is reducing the expenditure on many important votes, such as public health, social welfare ….

How much does the reduction amount to?

Although so far as the latter department is concerned, great increases are necessary — the Minister of the Interior, during last session, openly admitted that more money was needed for that department than for any other department in South Africa—the expenditure on those important services is curtailed while other departments are wasting money!

The hon. member cannot go so fully into the details of the estimates. He must keep to the motion.

I just want to point out that it is necessary to criticise these things: the waste that is going on, but we are cut down and must be prevented from making criticism. The waste of money in certain departments alone will take days to expose. We must not criticise, we must be restricted. The Minister of Native Affairs will probably once more want to say a few words of comfort. He told South Africa last time that South Africa was safe because of the existence of the Maginot Line, where no German could set foot. You will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that we would like to know where, in the view of the Minister of Native Affairs, the Maginot Line is to-day.

When I read the motion I put the question to myself as to what the motive behind it was, and on consideration of that question you can only come to one conclusion, namely, “Haste.” Every motion of the Government has “haste” as its motive. The war was started in haste, the people were plunged into war in haste, and now we have haste reflected in the proposals which come before us. A second motive is that from day to day it is becoming clearer to the people that the so-called champions of democracy in our country are nothing else than tyrants and despots. Every line of this motion is emphasising the greatest democratical tyranny and despotism which you could imagine. Tyranny and despotism show themselves in every line of the motion. The Government is aware of how severely the people are beginning to suffer under the pressure of the war, how since the 4th September the burden has been steadily getting greater on the people, how the pinch of taxation is being felt more and more, and this motion is simply an attempt to smother up and close the one great channel by which the attention of the people can be fixed on things. One asks oneself whether with this motion one does not practically have another repetition of what happened on the 4th September. On the 4th September a political coup d’etat was carried out so indecently that it has not had its equal in the history of our country. This morning we had a repetition of it, but this time it was not a coup in regard to the state but one in connection with parliamentary procedure. Accordingly we feel that we would be neglecting our duty if we did not make the strongest protest against it. There is great need in the country, each constituency has its particular needs, but an encroachment has to be made on our democratic rights, so that we will not have the opportunity of pointing out what the conditions in the country are. I accordingly associate myself with the protest which has been made here.

We have previously put the question as to why we now have to have an anticipated session, and why it is not a special session. Every step we take we come more to the conviction that the Government and Prime Minister and Minister of Finance in the first place, want to make Afrikanerdom swallow the bitter cup drop by drop. The Prime Minister tried to explain why a special session had not been summoned. The Minister of Mines is now discourteously engaged in talking to the only Minister on the other side who is still able to listen, and who understands Afrikaans, namely the Minister of Finance. I, however, notice that the Minister of Native Affairs is still there. He is the Deputy-Prime Minister who made that brilliant speech here to which we listened a few days ago. We have met here in a session which has been anticipated, and why should it just be brought on now? I am entitled to say that it is because special measures are to be taken under the cloak of a special session to curtail the rights of Parliament, and then this session will simply be continued next year, and all these restrictions will continue. I put the question again now to the Minister of Finance: Will these measures, which are now being taken to restrict the rights of members, also be applicable to the rest of the session next year?

This measure is only applicable to the business which is mentioned in it.

But will the Minister now give us the assurance that this measure will not be applied in this way to business next year? He does not give that assurance to us. I say, therefore, that under this cloak our rights are being curtailed, and then the people are being told that their interests are being looked after in a democratic manner. I say that this is a false and sham democracy. We object to the fact of this being an anticipated ordinary session, but the Government is compelled to turn this session into an anticipated session, in order to be able to get at the money bags of the Afrikaners in connection with this empire war. If we examine these estimates, we will see that the original estimate was £14,000,000 for the war expenditure. The Minister of Finance then held out the prospect that there might possibly be an additional £2.000,000 needed. Now we find that there will be £32,000,000 needed, and that is only part of the policy which is being announced by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister in the country when they say that they are prepared to go on with this war, that they are prepared to fight to the last penny of every Afrikaner and his last drop of blood. But they have to do it under the pretence of democracy.

The hon. member cannot discuss that question now. He may only discuss whether the time for the debate of the Additional Estimates should be curtailed or not.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but we seriously protest against the rights of hon. members being curtailed in this way in conflict with the interests of the people, because this House is the only channel through which the public can express their will, and it is being done in conflict with the rules and orders of this House. When we see that kind of democracy, then we cannot help calling it by the name that it deserves, and that is a whitewashed sepulchre, full of dry, dead bones. I see from the Press that the Minister of Finance is a man who is now advocating a new world order. Now he is no longer fighting for the old world order. He is a protagonist of a new world order, and here we now have an instance of the new world order for which he stands. Here we have the sign of the dictatorship which he wants to apply not only to the people, but also to this House. If the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have that disposition and desire to play the dictator in South Africa, then they must also have the necessary courage to live out that dictatorship in the open. The man who takes those dictatorial measures, must not merely have the disposition and will to be a dictator. It also demands moral courage. Let him say whether this measure to restrict hon. members constitutes a part of the new world order for which he stands to-day. We are living in very critical times. We are living in circumstances when measures of compulsion come from the Government, and not only that, but when we notice what is happening in the country, then we are also living in circumstances in which the public are being provoked in a grievous way, and every time when we object to it, then compulsory measures are also applied to us to cripple discussion in the House. I want to warn the Government. He is engaged in squeezing Afrikanerdom like a lemon. He wants to squeeze it till it bursts. Things are going with the Government like a stone that is rolling down the mountain. The further it goes the faster it rolls, and it ultimately rolls so fast that it runs itself down to destruction. We object to the rights of hon. members being curtailed here, when they have to make criticism on these plans of the Government to use the last penny and the last drop of blood of the Afrikaners to carry on this war, a war which is not in the interests of the Afrikaner. A tremendous amount is now going to be spent. The House is being asked to vote millions of pounds. But what must be replied to in this House is the question as to what that money will be spent on. I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is going to use this £46,000,000 to equip a South African expeditionary force, just like the British expeditionary force which went to France.

The hon. member must keep to the motion.

I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I say that what should be debated here is what this money is to be spent on, and for that we need time. I definitely object to our time being curtailed to debate that expenditure properly. I am only pointing out what it leads up to. We can only come to one conclusion, and that is that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and everybody on the opposite side are afraid of the criticism of the Opposition. When we look at the scene which took place here during the last few days, then we can only say that they are afraid of the criticism of the Opposition. There is a proverb which says: “Rather a frightened man than a dead man.” The present Government is acting in such a way that when one day it disappears from the scene, South Africa will remember it and write over its gravestone: “Here lies buried dead John and frightened John.”

I can understand that if there was a debate on the general budget, there can, if necessary, be a curtailment of time on the debate of the additional estimates, But we have not had such a general debate about the changed position which has existed in the country since we discussed the previous estimates. Since the last session tremendous changes have taken place in the country, especially in regard to questions of policy, and under this motion of the Minister of Finance, we shall not have the opportunity of debating those changes. Take, for instance, the change of policy of the Minister of Lands, which is one of the scandals that have taken place in the country. We would like to have the opportunity of debating that change. We would like to discuss with him the changed position in connection with the granting of land which is now apparently being reserved for returned soldiers.

The hon. member cannot go into those matters now.

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go into them now. I only mentioned it to show how necessary it was to have an opportunity of discussing this serious position. Before we shall have the opportunity on the discussion of the main estimates of debating changes of this kind, another six months will have passed, and therefore it is only fair that we should have the opportunity of doing so now. As there is an accumulation of wool in our country, and as we have a changed wool agreement, we ought to have a full opportunity of debating that position in connection with the altered agreement, with the Minister of Agriculture. That is the opportunity we would like to have, but we are now not going to be given that opportunity. Our time as a democratic governing body is now being so curtailed that this Government should be the last to go back to the country and to say that it is occupied in fighting for democracy.

I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not in his place, because I cannot accept it that we on this side of the House should all obtain the wrong impression that a full opportunity for discussion would be given to us in this debate, and that hon. members opposite did not also get that impression. The newspapers were under that impression, and let me mention a second point why I feel that we were justified in getting the impression that the Prime Minister gave us that assurance. Only last Saturday the Leader of the Opposition, in reference to the speeches of the Minister of Lands and the Prime Minister, issued a warning that the Government was trying to muzzle the people, and what was the answer of the Prime Minister? He asked: “When did I say that I would do so?” Nevertheless within 48 hours he comes forward with a motion to muzzle the people, and also to muzzle us who are here as the mouthpieces of the people. We are restricted, so that we do not get a full opportunity of being able to lay the interests of our constituents before the Government, and that although the Prime Minister only last Saturday gave us the assurance that be, in no circumstances, wanted to muzzle the people. He gave us that assurance on Saturday, and yet he still comes and does it now. Does this rest on a misunderstanding? Let me, in the second place, point out that we were really under the impression that we would have a full opportunity for debate on the moving of this budget. You will see that when the first motion of the Prime Minister was being debated, the newspapers said that only a few back benchers had protested against it. There was no longer any protest, because we felt that the Prime Minister had given us the assurance that we would have a full opportunity of raising our objections on the budget debate. Now we are muzzled, and we are given the excuse that this is not an ordinary budget debate, and that we already have the principle which has become a tradition in this House, that there is a certain limitation of time made on the general budget debate. The Minister of Finance points out that we are now getting two days, and in an under-hand way the details are gone into to prove that we will not suffer much loss of time. But we cannot compare these estimates with the general budget. It would be outrageous to do so. My opinion is that the seriousness of the matter should be borne in mind, and they should not say that in the past four days were given for the general budget, and that now we are getting two days. The position is that the Minister of Finance, by these additional estimates, is asking for a further £32,000,000, and he will not give us longer than two days to debate them. If we carry this argument a bit further, then the Government could, in two months time come again and say that they had underestimated the expenditure, that they could not come out, and that they wanted another £30,000, but that because it is an additional estimate, he would no longer give two days for the debate but only one day. That is the argument which is being used, and it is as clear as daylight to us that the seriousness of the matter must be taken notice of, and not the practices which were followed in the past. We see that on this side of the House only about twenty speakers took part in the debate on the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. If two days are allowed for this debate, then at most fifteen of them could take part in the debate. Less than half of the mighty Opposition which sits here will have an opportunity of submitting the interests of their constituents to the House. I want to protest against that on behalf of my consituency with all my force and power, and also do so on behalf of the Government supporters in my constituency. There are 7,000 voters there, and as their position is very serious, especially when we see where things are leading to with these large sums of money being spent, then I protest against myself and others not having the opportunity of submitting the interests of our constituents to the House. The question arises in our minds why the Government is in such a hurry to go home. We can only come to one conclusion, and that is what we see in the newspapers. The Government will be in a hurry because the military courses of hon. members opposite have been interrupted, and they want to go back so that they can once more draw double pay. It is so clear to us that the seriousness of the matter is not being realised. Perhaps the Government does not know what is going on in the country. It is striking that practically no Minister, and almost nobody opposite tried to hold any meetings in the country. The result is that they do not know what is going on in the country, and we on this side must therefore have all the more opportunity of submitting the feelings of the people to the Government. Accordingly I want to make a serious appeal that we should not be restricted in these circumstances, but that we may have the opportunity of submitting the interests of our constituents and of the people to the Government. I am very sorry that the Minister of Labour is not in his place. I put a case before him of people who could not get work even if they were willing to wear red tabs.

The hon. member cannot discuss those questions now.

I only want to refer to the seriousness of the position, and then draw the inference that these are all matters which ought to be properly debated. There are people who have no food, and they cannot get work. If we cannot deal with those matters here, how will the Government get to know what is going on in the country? I still hope that the Government will abandon its proposal, and give us a reasonable time for the debate of these estimates, because the seriousness of the circumstances demands it.

The party which I have the honour to represent in this House has always deprecated any curtailment of private members’ time and has always advocated that due consideration should be given to all matters coming before the House, but we have always stressed the point that there is no reason for these very long debates. For quite a number of years we have held that everything could be arranged in consultation with the whips of the various parties so that the viewpoint of every party can be represented through a few members, so that nothing affecting any section of the community should be overlooked. We have believed that to make the democratic system work as it is intended that it should be worked there must be co-operation between the various parties in the House, and we have stressed the necessity of all parties coming to some understanding so as to limit the debates. We do not like these guillotine motions; we have never liked any restriction placed upon members, but the Opposition should realise that South Africa is now committed to a war of the greatest magnitude that the world has ever seen. We have had a lot of criticism from the Opposition directed at the Government. They have been full of complaints regarding internment camps and internees, and now when the Government are anxious at the earliest possible moment to devote further monies to the purpose of improving the conditions of the internment camps they are doing everything possible to prevent the Government from carrying out that object. The Government and the people of South Africa to-day are committed to participate in this war. There has been no compulsion from Great Britain or any other part of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It was a free vote of the House and the people have decided that the war must be prosecuted to the end. And if the Opposition would only use a little common sense and do all they can to help our fellow-citizens who are up in the north they will be doing South Africa a very good service by co-operating with the Government in endeavouring to get these measures through as soon as possible. It is all very well for the Opposition to be decrying the democratic system; we know very well that they will be only too pleased to change this system of government, they have almost admitted it that if Hitler is successful they would be able to change this system and they will get their republic, but the very people who are decrying our present system are doing their very utmost to break it down. The session has only been going a matter of a week and the business we have done might have been disposed of in a matter of hours. The Opposition are willing to spend weeks in discussing matters which might be disposed of in so many hours. I say it is not right when the country is committed to the prosecution of war to be continually criticising Government activities in regard to it and preventing South Africa making the effort she is committed to. I make this appeal to the Opposition not to obstruct. If they do there is no other alternative for the Government but to bring in the guillotine and to get some finality to the questions before the House. So far as my party is concerned we will do all we can to expedite the work.

What party are you referring to?

The party that you would like to have behind you. There is no doubt about it, the Opposition is very sore indeed that we are not such fools as to step into the trap that they would like to have us in. However, that is by the way. The House is determined that these matters should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible and I am convinced that the people of South Africa will endorse the determination of the Government to control these debates so that the House can get through the work as quickly as possible to enable the Government to return to Pretoria and prosecute the war as the country expects.

The hon. member who has just sat down was actually pleading our cause, if we follow his argument properly. Summed up properly the position is that it is nothing less than a scandal for this House to meet, and that one of the first measures which comes up here for discussion, is a measure to muzzle the members of this House. When you think of the position in which the people of the country are, then we dare not allow that to happen. On my table here there are letters from mothers whose children have been intimidated into taking the imperial oath, but owing to this motion of the Minister of Finance we are prevented from bringing those matters properly to the notice of the Government. It is a direct attempt to rob the people of their democratic rights, and to tie up the Opposition in such a way that it cannot do what is expected from an Opposition in a democratic country. There are many other things—the campaign of persecution in the country; the dissatisfaction which there is about the calling in of rifles—they are all things which we must bring to the notice of the Government. We should do to the Government what it has done to the Afrikaner when it took that step of demanding the Afrikaner’s rifle. To be able to do all that, it is necessary to have sufficient time in the House. I can understand that there are numbers of hon. members opposite who have no knowledge of what the farmer’s rifle means to him.

The hon. member cannot deal with that subject now.

I shall not in any case discuss it now. That was not my intention in the least. I only want to point out that in consequence of all these things the people were happy when they learned that Parliament was to meet, so that the voice of the people could be heard. The people were glad that we got this opportunity of, for instance, persuading the Government not to take away the rifles from those people who were surrounded by wild animals and armed natives. Since we arrived here we have done nothing else but exhibit a good disposition in order to assist in expediting the work. I want to challenge the Minister of Finance to tell me whether we, as an Opposition, have ever, since this House met, behaved in any other way than that of showing a good disposition. When I put certain questions here and wanted to debate them, you, Mr. Speaker, pointed out to me that a budget would be introduced, and that I could deal with those matters then. The Prime Minister told us that we did not understand the position, and that there would be no restriction on the debate regarding the subjects which it dealt with. What was the result of that? The result was that my leader showed the good disposition and agreed that the debate on his motion should only last three days. I also have a constituency behind me, and have I had an opportunity of stating their point of view on this question of peace and war? No. If this is the democracy for which we have to vote £46.000,000, then I say the sooner it goes to the dogs the better. I am the representative of a constituency, and I have been sent here to come and protest against what the Government has done and is going to do again. I came here to protest against wasting money, and against the compulsory measures which the democratic Government was imposing on the people. What has the Government done? Where has it landed South Africa since the 4th September?

The hon. member must keep to the motion.

I do not intend to depart from the motion, but I say it is not fair to muzzle me. These are vital questions which are staring the people in the face to-day, and if we cannot debate those questions, then the least I can say is that the democracy for which the world is now at war, is actually of no consequence, and it is unnecessary for us to fight for it. I see that the Minister of Finance has already started pleading for a new world order. Let him give us the opportunity of debating the matter, so that we will be able to give him good advice as to how such a new world order should be established.

Yes, but he will only take the advice of Haile Selassie.

The people expect of us this session to speak up properly on behalf of the people, at least of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people. It is very difficult when we are put into the position where we stand to-day as an Opposition—it is very difficult if we are prohibited from giving expression to the wishes of our constituents. It is difficult if we do not have the right, and if we are crippled by a motion which is in the terms of the motion we are now discussing. We feel that the Government here has not the right of introducing such a motion. We, as an Opposition, have from the start shown that we want to cooperate, and the Prime Minister said that he would give us a reasonable time properly to debate all the matters that are necessary. But what is he doing now? He is depriving us of the opportunity. How many of us will have the opportunity of being able to speak on this part appropriation? Yes, I say this is a part appropriation, solely for the purpose of committing a further evasion towards the people. This part appropriation is twice as big as what the real appropriation is.

But we are not dealing with the estimates yet.

I feel sorry for the hon. member. He does not understand the position a bit. When once we are on the estimates and we get two hours, then I ask how many of us will then have the opportunity of taking part in the debate? And that is what we are protesting against, and we protest because the Prime Minister promised us that a full debate would be allowed. We, as an Opposition, are beginning to feel that if that is going to be the attitude of the Government, then cooperation will become absolutely impossible. I want in addition to say that we should get more time to discuss properly the forcing of South Africa into war with Italy.

I fear that it cannot be debated now.

Yes, that is the way things are going now. The possibility of debating that question is simply being pushed aside by means of an amendment. Only twenty members had the opportunity of speaking on the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. But the reason why this motion has been introduced is that it will be administered in such a way that there will be no opportunity given to the representatives of the people of expressing their views. We do think that, when such a thing is done, Parliament should be summoned to decide upon such an important question as the declaration of war. But now the gag is being applied to us, and we are not prepared to allow it. If this is the kind of democracy to which people have to go and fight, then we not only refuse to fight for it, but we refuse also to keep up that kind of democracy any longer.

I want to move that the hint given by the Opposition should be taken by the Prime Minister. He is not going to do so, and the reason why he does not want to do so is obvious.

Tell us what the reason is.

Yes, I will say that the reason is that the chastisement which the Government got last week was so severe that hon. members opposite do not want to see a repetition of it. They cannot resist such punishment, and therefore they are now hiding behind the steamroller.

They have not yet prevented you from speaking.

It is a violation of the rules of the House which is now taking place, and I protest most strongly against it, because it is nothing but trampling upon the rights of the members of the House. It is a curtailment of the rights of the members of the House, and that by our Minister of Finance — I may say by the idealistic Minister of Finance; but I want to add this to it, the so-called idealism of the Minister of Finance is now being ridiculed by the people of the country. The people now ridicule it when the Minister goes into ecstasies about his ideals. When he is in an ecstasy then he speaks in Johannesburg about it, and he used these words when he spoke in Johannesburg the other day and when he was in an ecstasy—

This is what the Minister of Finance said when he was in an ecstatic condition over the rights and liberties of the people — over the rights and liberties which he says that we ought to enjoy. But now I want to take another sentence out of one of his speeches, and instead of the name “Hitler” I want to insert the words “our own Government.” And here the Government is condemned out of its own mouth—

That is what the Minister said. And what do he and his colleagues do? He uses the present Government to trample the liberties of the people under their feet merely because they dare not look the truth in the face. And that is the reason why I say that the idealistic attitude of the Minister of Finance is being ridiculed by the public. The Minister has a great deal to say about the liberty of the subject, but notwithstanding everything he says, he refuses to give the representatives of the subjects the right of making their voice heard about the curtailment of the rights of the subject. The Minister comes here and the only argument which he has adduced why he considers it just to put this motion to the House, is because usually the railway budget is also debated under the budget; but no one knows better than the Minister himself that as a rule very little time is spent on the railway budget. And if in ordinary times it is necessary to criticise the budget, then definitely it is doubly so in these times. We ought to be given much more time on account of those people opposite, and the people in the country are so blinded by their British imperialism, that they are not able to find their own way in South Africa. They have become blind, and the methods that they have developed recently are so hard that they are afraid that they will be repeated again. And that is the reason why this debate must be curtailed. The Minister of Finance and the other Ministers are not able to withstand the chastisement again that they will get from this side of the House. That is the reason why they want to curtail our rights, and that is why they have come with a ready-made scheme to sound the retreat according to plan. And now they are hiding behind the steam roller. The Prime Minister told us that this plan had been prepared in Pretoria. They therefore arranged accordding to plan, to retire here.

They at least have a plan.

The Government already stands condemned in the eyes of the public, and they are afraid of the people, they are afraid that we will still further expose them, because their only hope is based on the campaign of lies which they started in order to praise British imperialism up to the skies to the English-speaking people, so that the public could no longer think clearly. But wherever they land — the truth will follow them, and when the truth exposes them then even the people whom they have fed on lies, will come and settle accounts with them. When I express these thoughts then I am speaking particularly to the Ministers who pose here as Afrikaners. I see the Minister of Mines laughing, but I have never yet regarded him as an Afrikaner. He has always yet been a “British Imperial imperialist.” This Government has by its misdeeds lost the confidence of the public and they do not dare to allow another exposé of them, and therefore they have already prepared the retreat.

The hon. member must not repeat himself so much.

I am sorry that the Minister of Labour is not in his place. Formerly while he was still loyal to his convictions he was always acting as the champion of the liberties of members of the House, but now he also is so British and so imperialistically inclined, that he also has become a “yes” man. But our Minister of Finance, so far as he is concerned, if he has any grain of equitable feeling left for the rights of hon. members, then he would to-day protest with every fibre of his being against this measure which he is now himself moving.

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

I just want to say a few words on this proposal of the Minister of Finance. There are two ways of doing a thing, a nice way and a nasty way. The nice way I think is the one which should be becoming to this House, the highest authority in the country, and the other way is not becoming to this House. The nice way was followed in connection with the peace motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, and it was a complete success. It was a motion in connection with which the Opposition could have been truculent, and which it could have spoken on ad infinitum. That was not done, and the debate was terminated in a good spirit. Now I want to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister what justification there was on his part to abandon the nice way and resort to the nasty way? A nasty way which could only have the effect of lowering the tone of the House. I do not think the right hon. the Prime Minister is desirous of resorting to that. What is the Prime Minister’s excuse? He says that we are at war, that we are in a hurry, that they have to get back to Pretoria. I just want to tell the Prime Minister that this House is not a military court martial, but a House of Parliament. We have come together here not simply for the purpose of waging war, but for the purpose of discussing many other important questions and problems, irrespective of the war.

This is a special war session.

We have been called together to vote money. The amount of money which the Minister of Finance asks us to vote is so large that that motion of his affects every individual, every home and every family in the country, and surely the very least people have the right to ask is that before they shall be taxed, before a hand is put into their pockets, we shall be given the opportunity of interpreting their views here.

There is a good opportunity for doing that.

The right hon. the Prime Minister promised us that a reasonable amount of time would be given us for the discussion of matters. If that is the other side’s conception of reasonableness — as now proposed — then their conception is just as lopsided as the conception of the right hon. the Prime Minister towards his own fatherland. The Government to-day is out of touch with the people. I do not know why that should be so. Perhaps they are ashamed to-day of coming face to face with the people, but members of the Government side of the House do not go to the platteland. They are afraid. A few of the Ministers who have gone there, have returned badly discomfited. The Prime Minister speaks about an emergency condition. I want to tell the right hon. the Prime Minister that irrespective of the emergency condition prevailing in Abyssinia, there is a worse condition of emergency in this country than what the Government realises. So far as my constituency is concerned, I can say that never before has there been so much unemployment, distress, want and starvation as there is to-day. That is an emergency condition.

They can go and fight.

Unfortunately most of the people who have been put out of employment are semi-fit.

The hon. member must not go into that now.

I do not want to go any further into that. I just want to tell the right hon. the Prime Minister that we are not just a military court martial, but a House of Parliament, and a condition of emergency exists not merely at the war front, but here as well. The Minister of Finance is plunging his hand deeply into our pockets, and everyone is affected and asked to make sacrifices. That being so, a reasonable amount of time should at least be given to this House to discuss the matter. For that reason I wholeheartedly support the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan), and I also protest against the proposed curtailment of the rights of the House of Parliament, because by doing so an injustice is also done to the people of the country.

The Deputy-Leader of the Opposition in very strong language supported by facts, protested this morning against the application of the guillotine. He pointed to the necessity of this House having more opportunity to discuss the affairs of the country at a time like the present. At the beginning there was a friendly co-operation, but to-day things are being made more difficult. We often hear the question put, whether Germany would give the Opposition so much opportunity. No, Germany does not do so, because Germany is a dictator country, but what Germany does not do is this: she does not become fanatical and she does not act hypocritically in regard to democracy in the way that this Government is doing. The only weapon we have to interpret the feelings of the country in this House is that of criticism. The people have already been disarmed, and now we are to be deprived of our rights. We are to be deprived of the right to express the opinion of the people outside. The guillotine is to be applied in order to destroy the traditional rights and I refer to this in particular —of this House—on which this House is founded, and which have always been recognised. Those traditional rights of the recognition of an Opposition are estranged and curtailed here. This inquisition which is being applied to the Opposition is reprehensible, it is nothing but a guillotine tyranny, a tyranny which should not be allowed to exist at all. The time of guillotine tyranny has long since passed. I doubt whether it is really an act of statesmanship on the part of the Government to exercise tyranny by means of a small majority in the way it is doing, and in the way it is oppressing the Opposition. It is only a Government which is not properly balanced which resorts to such methods. It will be admitted that finance plays a very important part in private life, in personal life, in business and also in State economy. It is a cardinal point in all those cases. If it is of so much importance to companies and individuals, how much more is it not so to the State? The State in particular is to a large degree the guardian, the trustee, of the people so far as finances are concerned, and the State has to control the financial affairs in the interests of the country. That is why we most strongly protest against this guillotine tyranny. Say for instance there are directors of a business who refuse to allow the Treasury to inspect their books. Would not that create suspicion? It would certainly create suspicion and give rise to a suspicion of fraud. I am not going to slander the Government, and I am not going to say that there is any dishonesty in this particular instance or that there is theft or fraud. Not at all; but I do say that the suppression of the Opposition will create a whispering campaign in the country, and it will create suspicion in the minds of the people. The Government is not prepared to give this side the opportunity of going thoroughly into the expenditure of the State. One would be able to appreciate a curtailment being decided upon in regard to other matters, but to prevent the Opposition when it wants to consider and criticise the finances of the country, is very farreaching. If the Minister of Finance does not give the Opposition full opportunity to discuss his department, he is unquestionably relinquishing his ideals of the past, just as Great Britain has run away at Dunkirk and abandoned her high ideals there.

The Minister of Finance in advocating the procedure which now has to be followed said, inter alia, that in comparison with the procedure pursued in the past, this proposal is fair and reasonable. I want to say that if the Estimates of Expenditure which are to be discussed by us in the next few days were ordinary estimates of expenditure, and if the questions concerned expenditure which primarily was to be made in South Africa, and secondly, was to be made on behalf of South Africa, then probably there might be something in the plea put forward by the Minister, but if one takes into account the fact that this colossal expenditure is going to be used for a purpose which to the minds of a very large section of the population, and to the minds of all members on this side of the House, is not in the interests of South Africa, then I say that these estimates should not be regarded as ordinary estimates, but as extraordinary estimates; and because they are extraordinary estimates of extraordinary expenditure they also deserve extraordinarily thorough discussion and consideration. We are dealing here with the colossal expenditure of £32,000.000, or, calculated over a year, of almost £1,000,000 per week, entirely irrespective of the other additional expenditure which we «have already voted. That is not all. Not only has this extraordinary large amount of additional expenditure to be voted, but this in conflict with the wishes and desires of the majority of the people. On this side of the House there are sixty-five members who are opposed to that expenditure and who only a short while ago voted against the continuation of the war. True, they constitute a minority in this House, but there is a great likelihood of our representing the majority of the people of South Africa. In any case the opportunity has not been given to us, as we asked, to test the will of the people. That opportunity has been refused to the Opposition, and now it is an open question. We say that we represent the majority and the Government side say that they represent the majority. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to have settled that difference by having the point tested when the Opposition on the 4th September asked for that test to be made. This colossal amount of £32,000,000 is to be spent against the will and the desire of the people, and even if that section does not constitute a majority, in any case it is a tremendously large section of the people. If the Government wishes to follow a statesmanlike policy in our country when dealing with such a tremendous amount of expenditure, it should take into consideration the views of the majority, or in any case of the large minority of the people, and the convictions of those people, especially if we bear in mind that this colossal amount of expenditure will not tend towards the building up of South Africa. We are going to get very little or nothing of it.

The hon. member cannot at this stage discuss the estimates themselves; he must confine his remarks to the motion which is now before the House.

I am trying to do so, Mr. Speaker. I admit that it is very difficult, and it is very difficult indeed to have to deal with such a large Opposition as that with which the Government is faced here, and there is always a way, although it is a nasty way, as the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has said, to make such an Opposition smaller and to tie it down. And that is the object of this motion. Restrict the time and then an Opposition of between sixty and seventy members does not amount to any more than an Opposition of between twenty and thirty members. If there were an Opposition of twenty-five members in this House those twenty-five members would not require as much time as that required by an Opposition of between sixty and seventy members. Members on this side of the House also represent the people outside, and they should be given an opportunity to come here in order to interpret the views, the desires and the convictions of that section of the population. To come and curtail them here by means of the procedure which is now proposed must necessarily have the result that the views and the convictions of that large section of the population is not given expression to. No, this motion is simply a curtailment of the size of the Opposition into a smaller size, so that as the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) has said, of necessity the Opposition will not be given the opportunities here to which it is entitled. But in addition to the reasons which I have already mentioned, that we should be given more time, there is another reason which cannot be ignored, and that is why this Government wants to incur this colossal expenditure. The Government has told us that it is fighting for the democratic rights of the people. This procedure constitutes a curtailment of those very democratic rights for which this money is being spent.

The hon. the Minister of Finance has tried to make this motion look as innocent as possible. He tried to make it appear that as we are restricted to a four days debate on the ordinary estimates it is quite reasonable to restrict the discussion on the additional estimates to two days, because so he says, these estimates do not include the Railway estimates. The Minister of Finance loses sight of the fact that he is proposing by means of this guillotine motion to restrict the debate on the motion to go into Committee of Supply, the Committee proceedings, and the consideration of the Appropriation Bill. Everything has to be done within a period of six and a half hours. On the ordinary estimates four days are given for the motion to go into Committee of Supply; but it should be remembered that the Committee stage then takes about six weeks to be passed by the House. Hon. Members who are not given the opportunity to discuss their objections and the interests of their constituencies on the motion to go into Committee of Supply, are given the opportunity of doing so during the Committee stage. That, however, is not the case here. If we divide the time which is allotted proportionately among all the members it means that every member will be given seven minutes to speak on a motion to go into Committee of Supply. We are dealing here not merely with additional estimates, but with the colossal amount of additional estimates which are going to bring with them additional taxes to an amount of about £8,000,000. That means that additional taxes will be imposed on our constituents, and it is the duty of the representatives of those constituents thoroughly to go into the whole position in this House. I and other members on this side of the House have addressed meetings in our constituencies, and we now have to come and give an account in this House of what our constituents want, and the Government should give us the opportunity of interpreting here the views of our constituents. The Government is not giving us that opportunity. It is trying to smother the voices of the electors. But there is another important point, and that is that an amount of about £23,000.000 is being asked for on loan account. That involves additional taxes for the future, which is a matter of vital interest to our electors, and therefore we as their representatives must have the right to express their views here. If however, every member has to be restricted to seven minutes when we are dealing with an expenditure of nearly £40,000,000, then I say that it is unfair, and that the Government is busy smothering the voice of the people, and making a farce of that democracy on behalf of which it pretends we have been plunged into the war. The Government may just as well take this money without coming to Parliament. Why does it come to Parliament at all if it only allows each of us a few minutes to speak? It is only done in order to remove the responsibility off its own shoulders and put it on to us, without giving us a reasonable chance to go properly into matters. We are only given the pretence of an opportunity to discuss the matter so that the Government can push the responsibility on to us, and so that Ministers in the country can say that Parliament has approved of this expenditure. If they want to make a farce of this House they can do so, but they must not put the responsibility on to us.

Nothing this Government can do will shock us in future, and the farce of what is going on here becomes all the more pronounced the longer the House sits. I have no intention whatsoever of basing my criticism of this motion on the democratic system we have. When we spoke of the farce that the democratic system had become we were told that we were pro-German and we were told that we wanted to make of this Parliament what, according to hon. members over there, Hitler had made of the Reichstag. Where can we find a greater farce than what this House of Parliament has been turned into? Whatever the Prime Minister says is accepted, without any discussion, and here we again have the position that the Minister of Finance moves that an amount of £32,000,000 shall be asked for, and it is being done without the representatives of the people being given the opportunity of properly giving expression to the views of the public. We on this side of the House represent the people; there is no doubt whatever about that. Hon. members opposite also represent people in this country but they do not represent the South African nation. It is the coloured people and Jews and other non-African elements which are engaged in exploiting the people who have sent them here. If the old established section of the population is not given a proper opportunity to make clear why it cannot allow the Government to take these enormous amounts of money for a war, then I say that this House is being turned into a farce. The Minister proposes spending tremendous amounts of money and then the representatives of the real Afrikaans people are deprived of the opportunity of talking about it. I am not here by any means to put up a plea for the democratic system as it is today. If we want to be honest we have to admit that it has been turned into a farce. But so long as we have the democratic system the Minister must tell us what is the difference between the system which we are fighting against, according to the Government, and this attitude on the part of the Government which we are faced with to-day? The farce of this Parliament as it has now become is similar to the farce in connection with the war. Everything is looked upon through war spectacles, but the side of the Afrikaner nations which is represented by us here to-day is not allowed to be heard. When I was at school and I did not know my lessons I was afraid to meet my teacher, and so I developed school sickness. It seems to me that the Government is getting sick; it is afraid of meeting the teachers and of facing the teachers on this side of the House, and of facing what this side of the House wants to bring to their notice on behalf of the Afrikaans nation. If we think of the kind of replies which the Minister of Finance gave to the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition it must be clear to us why they are so anxious to-day to curtail the opportunities of this’ side to criticise them. In a sense I am pleased that this motion has been proposed. I am convinced that if the Government goes on as it is doing now there will be no need for us, who do not believe in this democratic system, further to educate the people, because the people will naturally see the farce which the Prime Minister is making of this system. But so long as we have the democratic system I want to know why it should not be carried out in its letter and its spirit. I also want to tell hon. members that as sure as we are here the day of settlement is coming. During the debate on the peace motion there were members opposite, members in the front benches, who are not part of the Afrikaans nation, members who are here by the grace of the Afrikaners, who laughed when the Leader of the Opposition spoke about the day of settlement.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

The reason why I mention this is because we are not given an opportunity of speaking as we should speak. Our people outside are persecuted, and then members opposite who only represent a small portion of the Afrikaans people, prevent us in a so-called democratic country from giving expression to our views. I am pleased the Minister has introduced this motion because by means of this motion he is going to be the cause of this so-called democratic farce in which we live being removed from the arena.

If we take into account the large membership of the Opposition it amounts to this, that a very large number of those of us who did not take part in the debate on the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition will not get the opportunity either of raising our objections against the continuation of the war during the discussion of these Estimates. I should like to know from the Minister of Finance why he is in such a tremendous hurry to get finished. I want to say to him again what was already stated in the previous debate….

The hon. member cannot say it again now.

I only want to point out to the Minister that this proposal of his is going to do a tremendous lot of harm, because we are anxious, while we have hon. members opposite facing us, to criticise them and their Government. But now they are again running away. We are anxious to have them with their backs against the wall so that we can settle matters with them, so that they will be able to defend themselves against our criticism. There is one matter which I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister of Lands. We are told that there is certain money available for the purchase of land but that that money cannot be used now. We are anxious to know what are the reasons for that, but this motion is now going to tie us down so that we shall not have the opportunity of airing our views. For that reason I want to ask the Minister of Finance to take into consideration the fact that there are a large number of members on this side of the House, and that this motion of his will deprive us of the opportunity of criticising his proposals and of saying what we would like to say.

I wish to lodge my emphatic protest against this type of farce which is carried on in this House and under which we have to suffer. I should like to place another aspect of the matter before the House. In connection with the debate on the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition the arrangement was that that debate was to finish on Saturday afternoon and we had the experience on that occasion that members opposite got up to make speeches, merely in order to waste the time of the House.

The hon. member cannot refer to that now.

The point I really want to make is that under this system dealing with the curtailment of time the Opposition does not get enough time to discuss matters.

But the hon. member cannot refer to what took place in the previous debate.

The time which is wasted by members on the other side of the House who as a rule do not say anything, when a time limit is fixed for the debate, prevents the Opposition from getting a proper opportunity of expressing its views. If the Government is anxious to push a matter through it tries to get its own members to keep quiet, and then the Opposition get a proper chance of saying what it wants to say, but under this farce we are not given this opportunity, and I wish to protest strongly against this proposal of the Government.

I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister not to insist on this curtailment of the debate. He has admitted that there has been a misunderstanding. If that is so I want to give him the assurance that that misunderstanding was not caused by this side of the House, and that being so he should give us the benefit of the doubt. True, the Prime Minister told us that they had already decided in Pretoria only to allow a certain fixed time for this debate, but he should have told us that at the very start. No, I think the Prime Minister is doing the wrong thing here. He is unduly curtailing us in connection with the important matter which is before the House. I did not speak on the motion proposed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition because I was told that I had to wait for the estimates and now the Prime Minister also wants to curtail this opportunity. I hope the Prime Minister will give us the benefit of the doubt in view of the fact that there has been a misunderstanding.

The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) will I am afraid find out that he is like a voice calling in the desert if he hopes the Prime Minister will listen to him. The Prime Minister has shewn us that whenever we make an appeal to him he does the very opposite. A motion has now been placed before this House the object of which is to curtail and to undermine the rights of the Opposition. Now I would like to point this out to the right hon. the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance. They are to-day in this position, that anything they wish to propose can be forced through the House by them with the apparent majority they have, but I also want to point out to them that never before has anything of this kind happened, that when a Parliament is almost evenly divided the Government dare curtail the rights of such a strong Opposition and dare undermine those rights. The hon. the Minister of Finance should realise that to-day with the aid of his majority, he may succeed in doing this, but the question still remains whether that sort of thing is fair and just towards the people. We are therefore entitled to remark that it is not fair and just in the interests of those whom we represent here and on whose behalf we have to plead here. This House is asked by the Minister now to vote an amount of £30,000.000 and that money has to be spent on an object which the majority of the people are opposed to, and then we are deprived of our rights to place our objections and our desires in connection with this matter properly before the House. The Minister of Finance should realise that for the time being, by the aid of his apparent majority, he may succeed in achieving his object, but he will not be able to maintain that majority for long. If the Minister of Finance did not withhold from us the right to make an appeal to the people we would show him that we represent the majority of the people. If there is any doubt in his mind as to who represents the people here I would ask him to give the people the opportunity of expressing its judgment. We find that not one of the hon. members opposite has vouchsafed a reply to our objections. They remain silent. They have been told to keep quiet, and the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have to do all the thinking for them, and have to look after the interests of their constituents. But the people see those things. It is high time the Government should realise that an Opposition has a right to speak, has a right to express its opinion in a democratic country; yet we are deprived of those rights. We have been told that South Africa is fighting against a dictatorship. Wherever has one seen greater dictators than the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. No need is there for us any longer to get a Hitler. We have two Hitlers here at one and the same time, and in certain respects they go even further than Hitler. All that is left for them to do is to put us up against the wall, but I ask them to dare such a thing. Let them try to curtail our rights any further. I challenge the Government to interfere with our rights any further. Let them put me up against the wall if I am guilty of any offence. I tell them that if they curtail and interfere with the rights of the people, they must expect difficulties, because one day things will come to bursting point. The more they curtail the rights of the people and of the representatives of the people, the more hatred they are creating. They are busy systematically arousing hatred, and one really does not know where it is all going to end.

I want to reply very briefly to the debate. Actually there are only four points which I wish to refer to. The first point is of minor importance, and I am only mentioning it because it is necessary to show how the people are being misled, to what deception by irresponsible politicians the public are being exposed. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has used as an argument that these proposals which I have made mean great economies on what used to be spent in the past in regard to social services, and in that connection he referred to two votes, namely Public Welfare and Public Health. By way of interjection I asked him what the saving was on those two votes and he could not tell me. In an irresponsible manner he makes statements without having any knowledge of the fact. That sort of thing is typical of the hon. member for Humansdorp. He had one of the figures before him and all he had to do was to study the additional estimates. There he could see that the amount saved on social welfare was only £15,000 on an amount of more than £1,000,000. That now is the great saving to which the hon. member refers. Well, I leave that point. Secondly, we are again being accused of tyranny and despotism because a restriction is placed on this debate on the Additional Estimates. But this House has for many years placed a restriction on the debate on the Main Estimates, and nobody has ever regarded that as a curtailment of members’ rights. That step was taken in the past in the interests of Parliament itself, and what we are now proposing is also in the interests of Parliament itself. It is stated that we on our side have been opposed to an attempt to co-operate. I deny that. We were quite prepared to discuss an arrangement with the Opposition in connection with the session. We made an offer in that connection and I can prove that. I can quote letters in connection with this matter which will prove that the efforts to arrive at an arrangement failed in consequence of the attitude adopted by the other side. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) pointed out that there was a pleasant way and a nasty way of doing things. We have tried to co-operate and to arrange matters in a pleasant way, but the other side has caused our efforts to fail. Now it is brought up against us that last week an arrangement was come to in regard to the discussion of the motion introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. May I just explain what that arrangement was. On Monday this House unanimously adopted a motion as a result of which all the time of the House was placed at the disposal of the Government. The motion of the Leader of the Opposition was to have come up on Tuesday, in spite of the adoption of the motion which was passed on Monday, because we made it clear that nothwithstanding the adoption of that motion the proposal put forward by the Leader of the Opposition would come on for discussion, and we made it clear that all the remaining time of last week would be placed at the disposal of the Opposition, barring the time which was required for the introduction of the Additional Estimates. On Tuesday they did not avail themselves of the available time. On Wednesday they simply threw away the available time, but it was at their disposal. They were prepared to wait until Thursday with the introduction of the motion of the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) and they then undertook that the debate would terminate on Saturday. It is their own fault that only twenty-three members on their side of the House were able to take part in the debate. It is not our fault. Finally, several members, among them the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) referred to the colossally large amount which will now have to be voted, and on that they base their demand for more time for discussion. The colossal amount which has now to be voted is £33,000,000. In the Main Estimates of last year, including the Railway Estimates, £123,000,000 were voted. For that we required four days. Now we allow two days, but each of those days is longer than each of the four days. Is that fair or not? What hon. members opposite are apparently forgetting is that the debate on the Additional Estimates is confined to the discussion of certain matters.

Are you afraid?

I am referring to the Standing Rules and Orders of this House, of which hon. members opposite are supposed to know something. Under the Standing Rules and Orders they will only be allowed to speak in this debate on matters appearing on the Additional Estimates. The hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) wants to talk about tobacco. He cannot talk about it. There is nothing in the additional estimates in connection with the tobacco industry. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) wants to talk on the general administration of the Department of Lands; he cannot do so. The vote “Lands” does not appear on the Additional Estimates. Another hon. member wants to discuss the wool agreement; he cannot do so because it does not appear on the Additional Estimates. Hon. members will see that the extent of the debate may perhaps not be what they had expected it to be. They have apparently forgotten what the standing Rules and Orders of the House lay down. In view of all those circumstances I say again that the provision which we are making is fair and ample.

The Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—82:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christoper, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander. A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper. E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock. F. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—56:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conroy, E. A.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Havenga, N. C.

Haywood, J. J.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Quinlan, S. C.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

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, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob

Wilkens, Jan

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

When the Minister of Finance introduced these Estimates of additional expenditure he started his speech by emphasising the fact that he had been obliged in one and the same year to introduce two budgets and the reason was that additional financial provision had to be made on a large scale. Well, it is not only an unusual thing for two budgets to be introduced in the same year, but what the country will undoubtedly notice is that in something more than three months, after the House had approved of the Main Estimates, the Minister had to come again along to ask for what has been called a colossal additional amount. It is true; the Minister is correct; the reason is that financial provision on a gigantic scale has to be made. By that our future economic position must be seriously affected. We all expected that that necessarily would be the case, but certainly nobody had expected that this position would have arisen so soon, within a little more than three months after we had passed our last Budget. The tempo has been accelerated more than anybody in the country could ever have expected. The Minister has given us reasons for this fact. Well, as I intend shewing later, I do not think that the reasons enumerated by him will convince anyone. We are asked here to make additional financial provision of more than £9,000,000 on Revenue Account, and £23.000,000 on Loan Account, a total of nearly £33,000,000. We cannot sufficiently emphasise that. As the Minister stated in his own words it is essential for us to lay emphasis on the financial problems which are going to be involved by this, now and in the future. The Minister has one consolation. He adds that the general financial condition in which our country finds itself is not unfavourable for the solution of the problem. I admit that is so. That is the result of a policy of many years aiming at not merely keeping the position sound, but so to strengthen the economic position that it is able to resist any normal shocks. The tragedy, however, is that the Minister, as a result of his war policy, now finds himself in the position of a man who is rapidly wasting his capital resources. However/strong his position may be, exhaustion must of necessity soon follow. We are asked this year to spend an amount of not less than about £46,000,000 in connection with the war. We have been told further by the Prime Minister of Great Britain that as he sees it this is going to be a marathon war. It will not be finished in 1940, not in 1941, and not in 1942—but they will then start with their offensive. I am not busy now arguing this question from our point of view, or from our conception of the position, but I am dealing with it from the point of view of what has been said by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, which probably is also accepted by our Minister of Finance. It will be no use asking the Minister and the Government on this occasion what the limits are which they anticipate, and what the financial sacrifices are which this country will have to make. I believe it is useless to put that question. We saw here last week that we are dealing with a mentality which holds that the country has to keep on fighting until the end, to the last man the last penny. But these are matters which the other Dominions definitely concern themselves with. We are not too well served by our news agencies in connection with what is taking place in other parts of the world, but none the less we notice a report some time ago to the effect that the Prime Minister of Australia had stated that for the time being no further forces were to be sent to England. In addition it was stated that the Australians would confine themselves further to training an army for local defence. In our country we undoubtedly failed to realise the full significance of that report. Only now that we are getting the English periodicals do we find what really happened, and it is nothing but this: That on the appointment of one of Australia’s prominent Ministers as Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States, namely Mr. Casey, a vacancy was created in the Australian Parliament which resulted in a by-election having to be held. The seat was contested by the Opposition, the Labour Party, and they contested it on the point that the time had come for Australia to lay down specifically and restrict the extent of its war effort, and the sacrifices which the Australian people would have to make. Notwithstanding the fact that in Australia they have not a divided nation such as we have in South Africa, but a homogenous people which enthusiastically and unanimously have supported the war from the very start, Australia had arrived at the point when the necessity was felt to restrict the extent of the sacrifices which the Australian Commonwealth were asked to make in connection with the war. And what happened further? The Government suffered an overwhelming defeat. The Government of Mr. Menzies thereupon had to take notice of public opinion in Australia. We also heard further that an effort had been made to prevent general election being held during the next few months, when the Government’s term of office would expire, but the Labour Party refused, and the election will take place, and the issue there will not be whether they will get out of the war; no, the Opposition takes up the attitude that the country has undertaken certain obligations and has sent an army overseas, and it will continue to support that army, but it refuses, as is now being asked of South Africa apparently, to go on fighting to the last man and the last shilling, and they demand that the obligation shall be circumscribed and restricted. Our Government apparently had never yet considered a question like that. If we accept Winston Churchill’s ideas as to the duration of the war, the prospects are that our expenditure will not be limited to £46,000,000, but that it may amount to anything up to £150,000,000. That is the amount which in that event we shall ultimately be asked to provide for. Within a little over three months of the last Session of Parliament, the Minister comes along and asks Parliament for this tremendous additional amount, and, as I have said, the reasons adduced by him will not convince anyone, He told us that the increased expenditure was principally due to Italy’s entry into the war. But from the very start there had never been any question of our preparing for any enemy other than Italy. That was an open secret. It is true that originally the war was declared against Germany, but everybody in the country, and certainly not the least the Government which had great confidence in the British Fleet, imagined that there was any risk of our being attacked by Germany. We did not prepare ourselves for a war against Germany but we deliberately prepared for a war against Italy. That is what the Government actually had in mind. The plans which were put into effect by us were put into effect in view of the possible entry of Italy into the war. There was no other possible enemy, and an amount of £40,000,000 was asked for the current financial year in connection with the war, and now that the Government, three months later, comes along and asks for an additional amount which is twice as large as the original amount, we can well understand the astonishment of the people when they heard about this, and when the amount asked for became known. The figures caused surprise among Government supporters, they caused surprise among those people who want to see the war through no less than they did among the rest of the population. I say that the reasons given by the Minister will not convince anyone. There is no doubt that what was in the minds of the Government was the deliberate misleading of Parliament and of the people, or otherwise we are faced here with an unparallel incompetence on the part of the responsible authorities. No, I say that apart from the war policy which is involved here the Government owes the public a better explanation of this extraordinary increase in our war burdens, this extraordinary increase in the amount of taxation whi ch the public had originally understood would be imposed upon them. What I want to point out is that these additional burdens are being imposed on the public in the first year of the war, even before anything is done on the military front to defeat the enemies. Germany and Italy. But what is even weaker is the excuse put forward by the Minister of Finance for this deception of Parliament and of the public, or rather the justification which he has offered, namely the comparison which he made with the war expenditure of the United States of America. Can hon. members imagine anything weaker? The United States, a country which was outside the war, and which has now decided to create a certain defence programme, while we had prepared our Estimates as a belligerent party, and very definitely took account of the amounts which Parliament and the public were to be asked to provide for during the first year of the war. I repeat that the Minister owes us and the country a better justification for this gigantic increase in the provision that is required, if he does not want to be accused either of deception or of incompetence on the part of those people who had to keep Parliament and the people informed. What I further wish to refer to is that under the system brought into being by the Minister— I do not want to criticise it here to any great extent because I do not think it is reasonable to expect everything to be very carefully specified — but under the system introduced by the Minister we are faced with the fact that we are asked to vote a globular amount on war account, and necessarily by following this procedure Parliament and the country are prevented from exercising the necessary control which has to be exercised, usually in the spending of such amounts. If we travel through the country and hear what is being told from various sides as to the way in which large amounts are wasted, these things certainly do not tend to put our minds at rest; we are dealing here, as we should know, with a position where the war driver has the reins in hand, and the Treasury which should be the only protector in such circumstances of the poor taxpayer, is apparently completely pushed aside. That is the position for which we have to prepare ourselves. But there is one consolation. Naturally there are also certain advantages, the Minister of Finance did not refrain from pointing to those advantages and benefits in connection with the expenditure of these gigantic amounts. He said first of all that we were going to get technical training on a large scale for our young fellows, to begin with for war purposes, but this training would eventually benefit the country. He further said that great industrial development would result from the war expenditure; most of that money would be spent in South Africa; he told us that originally a great many things had been ordered overseas, but that those orders would be cancelled. He stated that our own people would do the work and would earn the money and that it would be our own raw materials which would be used in the main. On account of the manufacture of war munitions there will be a reduction in imports, and as a result of the development of our iron, steel and metal industries practically 100 per cent. of the material which is being used emanates from South Africa. Those were the words of a Minister and of a Government whose supporters sitting behind that Government only a few years ago, as we remember only too well, bitterly opposed us in connection with the establishment of that iron and steel industry. Well, we remember everything done by them at the time to frustrate that effort. But I agree with the Minister that these are unquestionably laudable effects which will partly result from the expenditure of these amounts for war purposes. The question, however, arises now, would it not have been very much better deliberately to have made those millions of pounds available, and to have spent them in our own way, and to have wisely spent that money with a view to achieving those objects without securing them by plunging the country into war? I now come to the proposals put before the House by the Minister in order to meet this additional expenditure. First of all I want to deal with the expenditure on Revenue Account. As the Minister told us it would have been necessary, together with the defiicit of the year before, to find an amount of a little more than £10,000,000. He told us about certain available funds which he fortunately had at his disposal, and which will considerably bring down this amount. But one of the figures which the Minister considers will enable him to look for less money, as hon. members notice, are savings on this year’s expenditure to an amount of over £1,000,000. I feel rather sorry that my hon. friend did not give us a little more information about these savings which he proposes effecting. We are always pleased to hear that the expenditure of the country is carefully watched and that savings are made on the estimates, but both here and on the Loan Account, which I shall refer to later, large savings are expected this year, and I repeat that I am sorry the Minister did not give us a little more information as to the services in respect of which it is proposed to economise, and what the services are which three months ago were regarded as necessary and which could not be postponed, but which the Minister now finds can be postponed, so that he is able to use these amounts in order to make his Estimates balance. In connection with the Loan Estimates I have already stated that there is an amount of over £6,000,000 which the Minister wants to save, and when he replies to the debate we should like to hear from him what the explanation is, especially in view of the reassuring words which we heard from him that although we are waging this war it is none the less the Government’s intention to proceed with its programme of development and expansion in connection with capital expenditure. What makes me feel somewhat uneasy is this. I know that notwithstanding the serious efforts which have been made in the last few years, and certainly now again by the Minister of Finance to limit and curtail the loan programme — which I have also tried to do, and which he has tried to do — we have found, and he found a few months ago, that it was not possible to curtail that programme to any greater extent without considerably prejudicing the general public’s interest. For that reason he owes it to the country to provide us with those details. Then the Minister told us what is the amount which it will be necessary for him to borrow. In connection with war expenditure he informed us how he made the allocation between Capital Account and Revenue Account. The Minister pointed out to us that while it would be necessary after deduction of the available credits to borrow round about £30,000,000. it would not be necessary to impose more than about £20,750,000 war expenditure on posterity. Seeing that in the first 19 months we have spent something like £50,000,000, I am not prepared to raise any serious objection to this allotment of the Minister’s. If we want to wage war, we have to realise what the consequences are going to be, and whether we like it or not, coming generations will also feel the con-sequences of this war, and I feel that weshall have to take it that even the Ministerwould not have dared to place a largertaxation burden on the country this yearwith a view to securing a larger amount ofmoney from Revenue Account.

You say they shouldpay more?

I know that my hon.friend understands Afrikaans. I said I wasnot prepared to raise serious objections tothe allocation.

Are you satisfied withit?

I now proceed to a more important part of my criticism of the Minister’s estimates. I want to proceed to discuss the proposals which he has made to obtain the amount of £4,850.000, which has to be found, from the taxpayer. The hon. Minister, in considering this question, submitted certain principles to us which he had kept in mind in connection with the imposition of the taxation burden on the public. He first of all told us that under present circumstances it was essential that we should not do anything to raise the cost of living. He went further and he said that we should guard against doing anything which might have the effect of bringing about an economic dislocation in respect of our industries. As a third principle he mentioned the necessity at a time like the present, while large amounts were being spent in this country in connection with the war, of seeing to it that a condition of inflation was not brought about in the country. All these are very fine principles, but may I remind my hon. friend that in addition there are other great principles which are not only applicable to present conditions, but principles which are applicable in all circumstances when a responsible Minister proceeds to place taxation burdens on the public. Those principles are in the first place that it is essential to see to it that the taxation is imposed, especially on the shoulders of that section and that part of the community best able to bear it. That is one of the fundamental principles, and the other principle is that it shall be rigidly seen to that the allocation of the burden is equitable and reasonable as between the different parts of the public, and the different sections of the public, and that an equitable relationship shall always be maintained between those different sections of the taxpayers. I contend that these two principles have not been taken into account by my hon. friend in the proposals which are now before the House. Now, what is the position? He told us that in our system of taxation there are three main sources of revenue. There are Customs and Excise, there is the Post Office and then there is Inland Revenue. He made certain proposals in connection with an increase of Customsand Excise. It is here particularly that Iassume he tries to guard against an increasein the cost of living. I do not know whethermy hon. friend has been very successful inthat. Now, what do his proposals amountto? First of all we have his proposal inconnection with liquor. I am not an experton that subject, and it is a matter, there-fore, which I shall leave to other hon.members, to say what is going to be theeffect of these particular taxes, but there isanother of his proposals which undoubtedlyis going to fall very heavily on a certainsection of the population, and we must notlose sight of what the consequence of thattax is going to be. I am referring to thepetrol tax. A motor-car and motor-lorriesare no longer articles of luxury in ourcountry. The farmer, and certain otherbusiness concerns, concerns which are re-sponsible for the manufacture of goodswhich are used in connection with the needsof the consumers in this country, are allobliged to make use of this fuel. There isno doubt that this proposal of the hon.the Minister will be very severely feltthroughout the country. Then we have hisproposal in connection with an additionaltax on cigarette tobacco. There are othermembers here who will have something tosay about that. But it seems strange to mepersonally that my hon. friend increases theExcise on the local product, the productwhich is produced by our farmers, and thathe has made no provision in regard toimported cigarette tobacco. Irrespective ofthe fact that the increase will have to bepaid by the consumer, the proposal madeby my hon. friend will certainly not be inthe interest of tobacco farmers in our coun-try. Now I come to his proposal for a taxon yeast, from which my hon. friend expectsa large amount. He told us that his mainobject in this connection is to secure revenue from the people in this countrywho brew skokiaan. His conscience musthave worried him a bit, and he hastened totell us that this would not relax his effortsto cone with the illicit liquor trade, althoughthe Treasury would have a great interest inthe revenue which would be derived fromthat tax. But this tax unquestionably doesnot affect only the illicit brewer of skokiaan.We are dealing here with an essential articlewhich is not used solely by the largebakeries, and the small bakers in all partsof the country who supply bread to ourpoor people, but it is a commodity whichis also used by every housewife in thecountry. As a result of the progress whichhas been made, we find that there are very few places where the housewife still providesher own yeast. No, this commodity is usedon a large scale. I am afraid that my hon.friend is busy imposing a tax which mayperhaps have the effect of placing him inthe same position as that in which apredecessor of his was placed in connectionwith the tax on patent medicines. I think that this is a matter which he should go into very carefully. I believe a number of members have been receiving telegrams indicating how this matter is going to affect those bakery concerns which produce bread for the poorer sections of the population. I do not know to what extent that is so but there is no doubt that we are dealing here with a commodity which is used by every house wife in the country, and I am afraid that this is not a tax which falls within the scope of those taxes which will not affect the cost of living. [Time extension granted.] I now come to the more important part of my objections to the proposal of my hon. friend, but first of all let me say a few words about the postal rates. In connection with these postal rates we are dealing here with a source of revenue, namely, the Post Office, and in this connection I personally have so far always adopted the attitude that the Treasury is justified in obtaining a certain amount of revenue from that national undertaking. I know that that is a view which is not shared by people sitting behind my hon. friend opposite who for many years has been agitating in favour of the Post Office being placed on the same basis as the Railways, that is to say that it should be run on a business basis; that it should no longer stand under the Public Service Commission, and furthermore, that it should not contribute large amounts to the Treasury. I have never yet shared that view, and I am of opinion that the Treasury is entitled to secure a reasonable part of its revenue from this national service, but I believe that it was the traditional policy of the Government in the past only in extraordinary circumstances to resort to a larger letter rate than 1d. per ounce. I can only say that my hon. friend would only have been justified in getting this amount from that section of the population—and everybody in the country will have to contribute here—if he had done everything to find out whether the burden could not be placed on other shoulders which could better afford it; and that is exactly what I now want to contend my hon. friend has not done. And I say that he has neglected to give effect to these two great fundamental principles enumerated by me, namely, the imposition of taxes on the shoulders of those best able to bear them, and the maintenance of a fair relationship between the different sections of the taxpayers. What is the position in connection with the income tax proposals? Over a series of years we have had a certain fixed standard rate for the normal income tax and for super tax, which has remained more or less constant. In addition to that, and that is a point I want to emphasise, we have income-tax rates of a different nature so far as companies are concerned. During certain years in the past it was possible for the Treasury to bring about a reduction in that standard rate and to give relief to the taxpayer, which relief was given from time to time; that abatement as a result of changes in economic conditions was reduced until during the last session of P arliament it disappeared completely. I want hon. members to take note that the last removal of that abatement took place during the present year, during the last session of Parliament. The 30 per cent. has disappeared. Now my hon. friend comes along and he proposes a surtax of 20 per cent. on top of the amount which the income-tax payer has become accustomed to over a series of years. This will mean that the income-tax payer in this one year will have his income tax raised by no less than about 70 per cent., on top of the burden which he had to carry last year. Let us bear that in mind. He tells us that his proposal will bring in an amount of I believe £900,000, that is to say £450,000 from normal income tax and £450,000 from super tax. I am now referring to the surtax so far as it affects individuals. Then in regard to companies it is clearly his intention to maintain the existing basis and to see to it that they shall also bear their share in the increase; he tells us that as a counterpart of the income tax on individuals, in the case of companies the tax is 2s. 6d. in the £ and he therefore adds a 6d. and he makes it 3s. But when it comes to the gold-mining companies he tells us that the counterpart in their case is a tax of 3s. in the £ and in order to maintain the relative basis it is, according to him, reasonable also to add 6d. here which would then make the tax 3s. 6d. in the £. But then he goes on and he refrains from adding a 6d. and he decides to add a proportionate amount to the special amount which during the last session of Parliament was imposed on the gold-mining industry; and his reason, he tells us, is that he wants to emphasise the fact that this was a special contribution of a temporary nature. I want to protest at once against what emanates from that statement of the Minister’s. This special contribution, as I have always maintained, is not a tax which is being imposed on the gold-mining company. It was never the intention if present conditions should continue, that this should be of a temporary nature and the Minister is not entitled to tell the country that he is now deliberately only adding this 2 per cent. in order to emphasise that it is of a temporary nature. What is the position? In order to show at once what is the point I want to make, I want to say that the Minister gave us a hopeless instance when he tried to make us believe that, as he calls it, the counterpart of the increase in the ordinary income tax and the counterpart of the increase so far as ordinary companies are concerned, is in regard to the gold mines this amount of 3s. in the £ which he now increases to 3s. 6d. In the case of the gold mines the income tax is not 3s. in the £, but it is 3s. plus a certain formula which has been added to the 15 per cent. or 3s. as a consequence at the time of our going off the gold standard when a new division of the tax came into force, a new relationship between the gold-mining industry and the rest of the taxpayers. That the hon. the Minister ignores this must necessarily have the result that there will be a tremendous disturbance of the relationship which should be maintained between the different sections of the taxpayers. Let us see what I am basing this on. We have for a number of years had this position here, that in the case of the gold mines we have had a tax of 3s. in the £. That was during the years when gold had a stable fixed price; but there was a radical change in conditions in that time, with the change in the price of gold expressed in our own coinage, and new schemes had to be devised by the Treasury to deal with the position. What were the principles which we acted on? We know the origin of the increase in the price of gold. I always maintain—I know that many people in the country did not agree with me, but the Minister of Finance supported me in that conception—that we could not get away from the fact that the increase in the price of gold was brought about by a stroke of the pen by the Minister of Finance. Those originally were my own words, and the Minister of Finance, during the last session of Parliament, used exactly the same words. He also said that it was his view that the rise in the price of gold has been caused by a stroke of the pen of the Minister of Finance. But what did we do then? It was urged throughout the country that the whole amount should be taken by the state. We did not do that, and it would not have been a wise policy to have done that. Whatever may have been the position in theory, as sensible men we had to act sensibly and practically so that the state would get its just share, but we had to see to it at the same time that the great national interests were also cared for in connection with the gold mining industry. What did we do? We deliberately introduced a policy in regard to the encouragement of the exploitation of low-grade ore. We deliberately encouraged the development of low-grade ore. It is in the national interest to see to it that the shareholders shall get a reasonable share of the increase in the price of gold, but we also had to see to it, and we did so, that the state should get its rightful share, while the development of low-grade ore was encouraged. The income tax was then fixed not just at 3s. in the £ but at 3s. in the £ plus the additional formula tax which for years has been giving the state more than 3s. in the £, and which has kept on a sound basis the relationship between the gold mining industry and the ordinary taxpayer. Now the Minister of Finance comes along and while individuals have a 70 per cent. increase placed on their income tax of last year, he adds a trifling 2 per cent. on the special amount so far as the mines are concerned. This is violating the principles which we have always maintained, and the result is that he will necessarily be placing a heavier burden on the community in general as a result of the smaller burden which he is placing on the gold mining industry. Not only has the old principle not been adhered to, but he is also disturbing the relationship which has always existed between the different sections of taxpayers. I do not want to make any comparisons between the various courses pursued — the course pursued in regard to ordinary taxpayers and that pursued in regard to the gold mining industry. The tax so far as the gold mining industry is concerned was not 3s. but 3s. in the £ plus the formula basis, plus the special contribution, and that special contribution I do not regard as a tax but as a necessary increase in order to maintain the relationship between the one group and the other. The change was necessary in consequence of the abolition of the gold standard and no injustice was done to the gold mines, and no injustice will be done if what I am suggesting is done. I have shown in the past that I am not hostile towards the gold mining industry, and I have done everything possible to protect them against attacks when it was urged that we should take the whole of the gold premium. I stated that it would not be in the interests of the country to do so but that it was our duty to get a rightful share for the state. By these proposals of the Minister of Finance, however, that policy is being diverted from and that should not be allowed. The Minister would be able to reduce some of the burdens which he proposes imposing on other sections of the community. That is my objection. I think it is necessary for the Minister again to go into this matter, and he should then see to it that justice is done and that a proper relationship is maintained between the various sections. We cannot get away from the fact that the Minister’s proposals have caused feelings of surprise among those who are interested in the industry, not only in South Africa but overseas as well — people who realise that in these circumstances when a gigantic amount was required the gold mining industry was best able to bear the burden, was best able to contribute a just share. There is one thing which we must not forget. In considering this matter we should remember that a few months ago when the Minister of Finance piloted his proposals through the House this was the only industry which was guaranteed compensation for an increase in its working costs. It was allowed £3,000,000, and the Minister tells us that that amount will be fully used up. They have that protection which the farmers and other sections of the community have not got. In spite of the efforts made by the Minister of Commerce and Industries to control prices we know that he has not been very successful in that regard, and whatever the Bureau of Statistics may say in that connection we know that the cost of living has gone up, and that commodifies which the individual in numerous instances has to buy have gone up tremendously in price. The rise in the price of motor fuel and motor tyres again is something which will necessarily be felt by a large section of the business world, and also by poorer people such as the owners of lorries. I want to move an amendment, but before doing so I want to make a final remark, and that is in regard to what my hon. friend has said when he referred with satisfaction to the fact that he was going to get an additional £1,500,000 in revenue from the mines, and that he regarded this as evidence of the fact that his proposals in connection with the change which he introduced last year in the taxation system of the mines was fully justified. May I remind the Minister of my objection to his proposals? I never contended that under the proposals made by him he was going to get less than under the other system, but I told him that if there should be any further depreciation in sterling and a consequent increase in the price of gold, he was going to create problems which he would be unable to cope with, and he would bring about conditions which necessarily would be most detrimental to the state. My hon. friend is somewhat premature in telling us that because he is going to get £1,500,000 more from the gold mining industry his scheme is justified. My objection was that if a condition of affairs should arise, as must necessarily arise, he would find himself in a very difficult position. But now I just want to ask this of my hon. friend. Where he is now expecting £1,500,000 more than estimated under the new system, what would have been the increased amount that he would have got if the old system had been maintained? I should like to have that information. I now wish to move the following amendment—

I second.

I listened as always with pleasure to the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) and I could not help thinking that of all the compliments which have fallen to the Minister of Finance on his recent budget proposals, on his suggestions for meeting this enormous new war liability, no greater compliment has come than that contained in the speech of the hon. member. Point by point right through the budget proposals of the hon. Minister he seemed to agree with them. Where there was criticism it was mild criticism. He praised the speech of the Minister of Finance with “faint damns,” and he reminded me of the old tag, “Those who came to scoff remained to pray.” And even his amendment, declining on behalf of the Opposition to grant the Government supply unless there is a more equitable division of the burden of taxation among the people, was so ill supported with arguments that I could not help coming to the conclusion, knowing the hon. gentleman as I have done for so many years and having listened to his budget speeches as I have for so long—I could not help thinking that, had the wheel of fortune kept him in the Treasury seat, had his convictions in regard to this war allowed him to remain in the Government, this budget which is now presented by the present Minister of Finance is very much the same as the hon. gentleman himself would have presented. I don’t say that in detail here and there there might not have been a difference, but, sir, the budget now presented differs in my opinion only in detail from the budget which the hon. gentleman himself would have presented had his views allowed him to have been in a position to present one. Take the question of the division of this heavy burden of £46,000,000 for war expenditure between capital and revenue. He agrees with the hon. Minister of Finance. He agrees that you cannot expect the taxpayer in the present financial year to bear the whole burden. He agrees therefore that there must be a very substantial portion of the burden cast upon loan account, and on the whole he thinks that there has been a fair division — roughly one-third out of revenue and two-thirds out of loan. He agrees again with the Minister in making the Post Office pay, or rather in using the Post Office still further as a taxing machine. He does not agree with me on that because for years I have been pleading that the Post Office should not be used as a taxing machine. He does not agree with me, he agrees with the Minister, and says if the circumstances of the country do require more money then you can go to the Post Office users and ask them for a portion of it. The only portion of his speech in which I detected a serious note of criticism was his attack on the increased taxation on the gold mines. He disagrees with the methods proposed and as far as I can understand him he disagrees with the amount. That really seems to be the only important point on which he joins issue with the Minister. Now let me point out to the hon. the ex-Minister that in one respect, if I understood him correctly, he has seriously misstated the position. I want him to correct me if I am wrong, but he said in effect that your private income tax payer has to face an increase of 20 per cent. and your company income tax payer has to face an increase of from 2s. 6d. to 3s. and in some cases from 3s. to 3s. 6d., also an increase more or less of 20 per cent., but the mines have only to face an increase from 9 per cent. to 11 per cent., a two per cent. increase only for the mines.

No, I did not say that.

That is how it was taken by the people behind you.

I said two per cent. on the special contribution which is certainly not equal to the other.

Exactly, but quantitatively that is not two per cent. increase, but 22 per cent. If you increase a 9 per cent. impost to 11 per cent., you increase it by two per cent. on 9 per cent. which is quantitatively larger than the increase imposed on the private income tax payer or even the company tax payer. While the hon. gentleman spoke I was watching the gentlemen behind him, and although I know he did not intend it, it may go out to this country that whereas there has been a 20 per cent. increase on your private income tax payer and 20 per cent. increase on the company tax payer, the mines have got away with two per cent.

No, if the hon. gentleman will allow me, I certainly never gave that impression. I very plainly stated the position. I said that the increase in the case of the gold mines was two per cent.. on the special contribution. I certainly did imply that two per cent. on the special contribution was not equal to the increase to other companies.

I know of course that the hon. gentleman did not intend to imply that the only increase on mining taxation was two per cent., but I am quite sure that those behind him who cheered him when he made that point thought that this is what he meant, and I believe the people who reported it understood him to say the only increase was two per cent. and I wanted to clear that up. But let me get back to this question of mine taxation. You will remember the arguments we had in this House six months ago. The hon. gentleman’s policy was to fix the price of gold at 150s. and to take all the difference between that and 168s., the price at which it then stood. The Minister of Finance at the time, quite wisely as we then believed and as we still believe, decided that it was far better to obtain the same result by means of a tax on profits and in place of taking the whole difference between 150s. and 168s. he placed this extra 9 per cent. burden on the mines, and he got not only the same yield but a little more by this way, and that was represented at the time as the limit of the permissible taxation on the extra profits of the mines. That limit has now been increased from 9 per cent. to 11 per cent. and is thus taking an additional £800,000 from the mines. My hon. friend began by quoting Mr. Churchill who said this is going to be a long war, this is a war in which we will only be able to assume the offensive two or three years or possibly even four years from now. We are in for a war in which the burdens laid by this budget are only the beginning of a series of recurrent burdens which the taxpayers of this country must expect from year to year. Mr. Speaker, for three days we have been listening not to him but to my hon. friend’s friends, not himself I admit but his friends on the opposite benches, telling us that the war is over and that the war has been lost, there is nothing more to be done and we have got to hoist the white flag and make peace as quickly as we can. Now comes their chief financial spokesman and says: “Oh no, I agree with Mr. Churchill, I agree that this is going to be a marathon war and I warn the taxpayers of this country that this is only the first of a series of war budgets.”

That is a very poor effort.

You may think so, but poor effort or not that is a fair reply to your criticism. He says in effect: “I warn the taxpayers of this country that this is only the first of a series of war budgets and that the burdens they are now shouldering will as time goes on be more and more increased.” My hon. friends opposite cannot have it both ways. If we have lost the war, if it is all over bar shouting — we had the shouting last week — then, sir, what remains of this point that he now makes. I will say this of the hon. member, he did not make that point, he did not say that, he was one of the few speakers on the Opposition benches who did not say that, and I take it that his speech this afternoon represents his true belief, the belief of all of us that the end is not yet, that we are at the beginning of a long and weary war. None of us rests under any delusion about this that it will be a long war and a costly war and that the burdens will be heavier as time goes on. I agree with the hon. gentleman in that, but do not let his friends come here and tell us that the war is over.

He distinctly said that that was not his point of view.

Why bother about it then? Why make the point if it was a bad one? My hon. friend went on to talk about Australia; he said that in Australia they were beginning to draw in their horns, to contract their war effort.

No, I said that was an issue, I did not say that was the Government policy.

What I understood the hon. gentleman to say was that the result of a by-election after the appointment of Mr. Casey to Washington was that it was a win for the Labour Party and a defeat for the Government and therefore a defeat for the Government’s war policy. And that that tended to show that there was a strong movement in Australia for the curtailment of that country’s war effort.

No, for definitely circumscribing ….

Now let me say that I read the Australian papers fairly often, and the hon. gentleman will know that this was a bye-election some six months ago. Australia is now facing a general election on September 21st, and I invite him to watch with me the results of that election. I know that the Labour Party through its leader, Mr. Curtin, declared a week ago that the Labour Party was as keen to promote the maximum effort in Australia — just as keen as the United Party.

It was to be an issue.

I am quoting the statement that the Labour Party did not stand back for the United Party in its wish to promote the country’s war effort. But I think we can afford to wait and see what the new Government of Australia will do — if there is a new Government — and what the results of the election are going to be. I recall that in Canada some nine months ago they fought an election in war time when the issue between the parties was who could do most to promote Canada’s war effort — the one was trying to outbid the other in that respect, as to who would be the most zealous in regard to the promotion of the war effort in Canada.

I know nothing of the Australian war policy, I said that the people there were not as homogeneous as you want us to believe.

I had the papers from Australia sent to me very extensively concerning that by-election in Victoria to which the hon. member referred, and it was stressed, for what it was worth, that the election was of purely local importance and that it was largely a question of the personality of the candidates. At any rate, what is the use of talking of by-elections held some time ago in this changing world when Australia is shortly going to have a general election, and when in a few weeks we shall know what the result is going to be. Then the hon. gentleman, in expressing his surprise at the enormous jump in our war expenditure, said in effect that the Government well knew of this heavy expenditure that was to come when the Minister presented his Budget some months ago.

What I said was that the Budget was passed a little over three months ago.

May I point out to the hon. gentleman that the Budget was presented nearly six months ago.

Surely, if you saw that the position had changed, you should have amended it.

I am trying to present the hon. member’s arguments and deal with them. The hon. member said in effect that the Government very well knew that it was Italy that we were arming against, and that we had to provide against, and that if the Government wanted this extra money it should have asked for it at the time, it should not have asked for £14,000,000 at the time and now come along and ask for all this extra money. But the hon. gentleman omitted to mention the most pregnant fact, namely, that Italy was then sitting on the fence and that no one knew whether it was going to climb off it.

Of course, we all knew it.

Perhaps the hon. member did. It was apparent, of course, that it would climb off on the Axis side if it did climb off, but it was not evident that it would climb off at all. and in the meantime, two months ago, Italy did climb off the fence and did declare war, and then this country declared war against Italy, and two days ago this Parliament expressed its approval of the action of the Government in declaring war against Italy.

Against the wishes of the country.

Surely the hon. member will admit that that changed the whole position in this country, and that that is why this extra war expenditure is asked for.

So that you are not really preparing for anyone.

Order, order!

Oh. I do rot object to interruptions. The hon. member must know that in March last year we were faced with a complete deadlock in the war position. It looked as if the two armies were dug in against each other, and it looked as if they might continue to face each other indefinitely.

That is what you thought.

We know what has happened since, we have had the complete collapse of France, Holland and Belgium, and Norway were overrun, and we have had the entry of Italy into the war, and the suggestion that in the present circumstances the Government should not have taken a totally different view and should no longer regard this as a “phoney war”, as the Americans call it — the suggestion that now that we are engaged in a life and death struggle should not have induced the Government to change its attitude — surely the hon. member will realise all these facts? We discussed the rights and the wrongs of our war policy last week. That has been settled by the third vote taken in twelve months. This country has decided to continue the war, and surely, if you are at war, you are in it “boots and all”. You cannot conduct a war in a halfhearted fashion, you cannot be half in and half out. You are either in. and then you are all in; or you are out, and then you are all out. The arguments of those who advocated that we should keep out of the war were dealt with last week, and I have nothing to say about that; but now that we are in the war. we have to fight in tins war to win it. The hon. member made light of the comparison with the United States — he made light of the comparison instituted by the Minister of Finance. The Minister, in defending his own sudden jump in war expenditure, referred to the United States which had increased its own war expenditure in precisely the same way. not once but two or three times, inside a financial year. The United States had to come for bigger and still bigger appropriations for home defence, and what is the reply to that by the hon. member for Fauresmith? He says the conditions are not at all comparable, because the United States was neutral and still is, and we were at war a year ago and still are at war. The answer is that we were in the war six months ago in a way different from what we are in to-day. To-day the war is in Africa, it has come to Africa, and rightly or wrongly the policy of this country is to defend South Africa on its northern frontiers, to defend Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda.

Was not that what you were preparing for three months ago?

At that time the enemy had not entered that arena — Italy was still on the fence. Now that Italy has come in. our preparations must be doubled and quadrupled. And also in those days we had the French in the French colonial empire — but that colonial empire has been lost. We lost in one fell swoop the whole of French Africa. Thank God we have regained half of it, and thank God we now have a cordon of French Equatorial Africa between ourselves and the Italians, but the hon. member surely does not expect us to take any chances. Is not this cause enough for us to spend money? Are we not all prepared to stand up for the defence of this country, even to the last penny? And if it is our policy, the declared policy of this country, through this Parliament, the thrice declared policy of this country that we must be in this war, and defend ourselves on the northern confines of South Africa, who will grudge the rightful expenditure of this money? I could detect right through the hon. member’s remarks his unspoken agreement with that policy. Once you concede the fundamental that we are in this war, I am sure that many hon. members on that side of the House will agree that we must fight the war in a proper way and use all our resources for fighting that war. Now let me leave the hon. member for a moment to give the House my views on the Minister’s Budget. As I have said, the question of whether we are in the war has been decided, decided I hope for the last time in this House — and I do hope we are not going to be dragged through another of these peace motions — but at any rate for the rest of the present financial year the question has been decided and the only other question is this in a war session: how much money do we need, how are we to raise it and how are we to spend it? The present budget shows that this country realises that it is no longer playing at war. In this Budget we are asked to pay as much as we had to pay for the whole of the last Great War, and that will convince our enemies, and it will convince our friends as well that there is no holding back in South Africa, that we are in it and that we intend to see it right through to the end. Now I think I can with fairness congratulate the Minister of Finance on his present budget. No one likes being met with a sudden demand for this extra money. No one likes being told, after you have voted your money for the year, that you have to find an extra £33,000,000. The member for Fauresmith said that it was a shock. Of course it was, but you cannot wage war without money, and in modern warfare money seems to be the prime consideration; but I will say this, that the shock came when the estimates were presented, when the country knew that it had to find £33,000,000 of new money. But when the budget came it was almost in the nature of an anti-climax. The country was so pleasantly surprised to see the way in which the Minister proposed to raise the money that it has recovered from the shock, and business is buoyant and the country is meeting the new burden, and the Chamber of Mines ….

The Chamber of Mines has recovered.

What are the main characteristics of the present budget? The first is the very small amount of new money to be raised by new taxation. The Minister is expecting us to finance between £9,000,000 and £10,000,000 of the new expenditure from revenue, but he has been able to find various nest eggs, reaching nearly half of that total, with the result that something under £5,000,000 has to be raised by new taxation; and with all respect to my friend, the hon. member for Fauresmith, I cannot follow him when he says that the burden has not been evenly distributed between all sections. Customs and excise, which one might call general taxation falling on every taxpayer, accounts for £2,160,000 of that total. Income tax, falling on the specially limited class of income taxpayers, including company tax, accounts for £1,800,000 of the total, and gold and diamonds for £865,000. It is in my humble submission a fair distribution of the burden of taxation between these three classes. Then the next characteristic of the budget, one that has been stressed by the Minister of Finance, and admitted by the hon. member for Fauresmith, is this. The position in the last 25 years has changed almost completely in South Africa as regards our industrial position.

For the worse.

We are to-day in a position to manufacture most of our war equipment. We cannot manufacture aeroplanes or big guns, but nearly everything else we can make, and therefore the greater proportion of this war money will be spent in South Africa. I am under no illusions; whether you spend the money in the country or out of it, it is extra money, and sooner or later this country will have to pay it.

Yes, and you will not be here to pay it.

But if I am going to spend money on a war, I would rather spend it in my own country than spend it overseas, and only a small proportion of our war expenditure will have to be sent overseas. And the next thing I would remind the hon. member for Fauresmith of is this: the burden of this new taxation will, as to say 90 per cent. of it, fall on the shoulders of that class of the community represented by this side of the House and not on the shoulders of the sections of the community represented by his side. It will be borne by the big towns, by the income taxpayers, by the mines, by the industries, and so on. I do not say that to the extent of 100 per cent, it will be borne by these people; I am generalising.

It is a pity we cannot separate them.

Yes, it is a pity.

I would have no objection if you were prepared to carry the burden if we could only separate them.

He will not do that.

To a large extent that is so. It is true, and the hon. member knows it, that the burden of taxation in this country as to 90 per cent. — that is a guess figure, of course — is borne by the big towns, by the big industries, by the mines and by the income taxpayers.

By the privileged classes.

And that class of the people is represented by this side of the House and not by hon. members opposite. And I can say that the reaction of those taxpayers has been most satisfactory; there has been no outcry, there has been no semblance of a shock; there has been a general feeling of pleasant surprise that the burden has been so small, and so wisely distributed. The share market, that inevitable barometer of the economic life of the country, has reacted very favourably.

Hear, hear.

Yes, hear, hear; and I may say that the hon. member for Fauresmith was in his day the darling of the share market.

Oh, come, come!

Oh yes, he was, so he should know. And the next characteristic of this budget is that there has been nothing directly laid on any essential commodity except perhaps petrol. Yes, petrol and yeast.

Very essential commodities.

But these taxes will not in themselves cause any material rise in the cost of living. I agree with the hon. member that you cannot put on a tax which will not hit someone and which will not raise someone’s cost of living, but on the whole these taxes, so far as they are laid on the general body of the community, are laid in such a manner as not to be on essentials but on luxuries, and they will not in general adversely affect the cost of living. They have been wisely thought out and I cannot pay any greater compliment to the hon. member than to say that this would have been the same kind of tax as he would have introduced if he had been sitting here. Now in regard to the income tax, the income tax payer of all classes is the most hard hit. Take the taxpayer whose assessment was £100. He got a 30 per cent. rebate, so he paid £70. That 30 per cent. was taken away at the beginning of the year and now 20 per cent. has been added, so now he has to pay £120 which, as the hon. member said, represents an increase of 71 per cent. So it is true that the income tax paying class as a body is probably hardest hit by this taxation. Yet I have not heard any complaint, and for this very good reason, that the income tax paying class in South Africa represents on the whole the upper middle class of South Africa. We have in this country a primary abatement of £400 for a married man. We allow £100 for every child, and £50 for insurance, and therefore a married man with two children under the age of 21 who keeps a normal amount of insurance does not pay one penny of income tax until his income reaches £650 per year. In England, Australia and Canada, and every other of the countries at war your income tax commences at levels very much lower than that. Now, the Minister has adopted the easy device of simply clapping a surtax on the income tax, but if, as the hon. member for Fauresmith thinks, this is going to be a long war, a war which will make great demands on our taxable capacity, then this device will not answer, and it is obvious that the time will come when the Minister of Finance will have to adjust the Income Tax Law so as to seek a lower level for the income tax payer. Instead of placing it on the £600 mark for the man with two children, he will have to put it on, say, the £400 mark. Of course, that cannot be done this year. You have fixed your tax for this year, and you cannot now alter it, but I am sure that the tax-paying public of South Africa will, like the tax-paying public in Great Britain, be disappointed if a fair share of the burden is not laid right throughout the community.

Disappointed!

Yes, disappointed. If we are in this war every section of the community will have to pay for it.

They are paying for it.

And speaking as I do, and representing an urban community, an ordinary middle or better class working man constituency, I say that my constituents will be satisfied if in the next budget the income tax limit is substantially reduced from what it is to-day.

Will they?

Now, in regard to the tax on petrol. My hon. friend will remember the time when he put a tax on petrol and raised it from 3d. to 6d. at the time when money was badly needed and when the taxable capacity of the country was far below what it is to-day. To-day the public will not grudge that extra 3d. on petrol. And if it has the effect, so longsought by the Minister of Commerce and Industries, of decreasing joy-riding and of inducing people to use petrol only when it is needed, then so much the better for this country. In every way I give this budget, and the means by which it is sought to raise money, my blessing. I cannot conceive that the Minister could have done it in a more equitable manner, or in a manner less calculated to cause disturbance to the economic life of the country. But the raising of money is only part of the problem of the Government. The big problem comes in the spending of the money, and the taxpayer of the country has the right to expect that this money taken from him by way of extra taxation, and by way of loan, will be spent wisely. The defence problem of this country is this. The predecessor of the present Minister of Defence confessedly—I am not going to pillory him now—framed the defence policy of this country on a basis that this was to be a neutral state, and it was to have a small skeleton army. Well, this Government has adopted a different policy and twelve months ago decided that the country was to be in this war, and the present Minister of Defence has had to face the tremendous task of having to build up almost from scratch an army of 100,000 men. In no country in the world, even in a country of admitted supermen ….

I want to point out that that question was fought out on the Main Estimates. We cannot have that again. The hon. member must confine himself to the reasons for these additions.

I am doing that. I think that this additional £32,000,000 is for defence, and I am going to deal now with the present state of the defence of the country.

The question the hon. member is raising was dealt with on the Main Estimates and we cannot have it again.

Naturally I bow to your ruling, but that will mean that I cannot deal with the Defence Force, and that will apply to every other speaker as well. I thought the state of the Defence Force and criticism of its efficiency could be dealt with in this debate.

The efficiency can be discussed, but we cannot discuss the matters which were discussed on the Main Estimates, namely, that there was a deficiency of equipment at the beginning of the war and all those things.

No. I began by saying that I was not attempting to pillory the hon. member for Gezina. I was pointing out that we had to build up this huge force almost from scratch, and I was going to say that in those circumstances there was bound to be a certain amount of waste and overlapping, and a certain amount of misspending of money. That I am sure of. And I have heard stories—and every one of us has heard stories—which tend to show that within the last few months there has been a great deal of disorganisation, disorganisation which in the nature of things was inevitable. But we know that we are gradually emerging from that state, that our army is now an efficient one, and that most of the inefficiency has been eliminated. Nevertheless, unless war expenditure is supervised there is bound to be waste. In England war expenditure is supervised to a large extent by a committee of the House of Commons called a Committee on War Expenditure. Its chairman, Sir John Milne, visited this country some four or five months ago. He told me that it was a committee which was in permanent session throughout the war and it took into review the various items of military expenditure to see that the money was wisely spent, and to suggest economies here, and to present waste there. If we could have such a committee in this House, if the state of political feeling in this House would permit of such a committee, I would welcome it, but I have my doubts, especially after the feeling shewn in the debate last week, whether such a committee would function in this House. I doubt whether my colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee representing the other side of the House, would be prepared to co-operate in an audit of this war expenditure. However that may be may I say that I am convinced in my own mind that some form of supervision and check of war expenditure in this country is necessary. I know that that is happening to-day through small committees of the Cabinet, but what I have in mind is something outside the Cabinet, which will be able to advise the Government from outside, some body which will be able to watch the expenditure and see where economies can be effected, where abuses can be remedied, and where overlapping can be prevented.

That is the job of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock).

No, no.

No, that is not his job.

No, his job is the supervision of the production of war equipment.

He is spending the money.

Are you still unemployed?

Well, that is a suggestion which I throw out to the Minister of Defence who happens to be the Prime Minister, in order to avoid the inevitable post mortems, which in every country follow a war where waste and extravagance are bound to occur. Such a body would bring extravagances to light. I suppose this war will be no exception. If we could follow the precedent of the House of Commons, and have a committee of this House in semi-permanent session, and supervise war expenditure in a useful spirit, not to find fault but to be helpful, I think it would be most useful. In that way millions of money might be saved. Because I agree with the hon. member for Fauresmith that this is the first of several war budgets, and the burdens which will be laid on this country in the end may be very heavy ones. [Time limit.]

Because the amendment of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) amounts to a refusal to vote funds, unless the war burden is distributed more justly over the population, the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) tries to create the impression that we are now prepared to grant the Government a blank cheque in respect of the continuation of its war policy. I want to emphasize here that this side of the House feels as strongly, if not stronger, in regard to the position and is opposed to the spending of every penny which is to be voted here for the war. We are against the war and against a penny being spent on it. This House outvoted us and decided in favour of the war, but we know that if the people had had to decide this issue, the decision would have been the reverse. Until such time as the Government finds the courage to refer this serious matter of life and death back to the people in order to receive a mandate from the people, we shall fight the Government to the very last. The Government continually harps on the argument that in time of war we cannot hold an election. An election was held not so long ago in Canada. As the hon. member for Fauresmith pointed out in his speech, an election is to be held in Australia because a large section of the population is opposed to greater expenditure.

The period of service of the Parliament has elapsed there.

As long as the Government has received no mandate, we maintain that this war has been imposed on an unwilling people. The people did not want the war and if the Government approaches the people with this matter, it will be defeated. Until such time as the Government gathers enough courage to face the people, we shall oppose the spending of any and every penny. I now want to discuss the amendment of the hon. member for Fauresmith. We are against the budget first of all because the burden is being distributed unfairly over the various sections of the population. This budget of the Minister primarily affects the poor section of the population, for we shall have to economise on essential services in this country. If the hon. member for Kensington goes through the speech of the Minister again, he will find that there will be economised on authorised services to the extent of £7,000,000. Who are the people going to suffer as a result? The hon. member for Kensington lives in Johannesburg and does not know the conditions in the country. Does he know that the Government is stopping the soil erosion schemes and that consequently many poor people in this country being deprived of their only income? Does he know that other schemes are gradually being stopped? Does he know that by its war policy the Government is busy driving poor people on to the streets day after day? Through its war policy the Government is creating the most terrible unemployment problem amongst the poorest part of our population. In my district there is now more distress and poverty and want than in the worst depression years. The people are being robbed of their bread and butter. To-day they come to me and tell me they want work, that they cannot exist. They are not fit to fight, they are semi-fit. If they go to the magistrate to-day, they cannot receive assistance. I want to ask the Minister for God’s sake not to economise on essential services. He thereby hits the poor section of the people which cannot defend itself and he creates poverty.

Give us examples.

I have already mentioned the stopping of the soil erosion schemes. In my constituency alone there are 30 people who have lost their living as a result, and what happens there, happens in every part of the country. Settlements are also being stopped. The poorest part of the population are being hit hardest and I want to appeal to the Minister ….

I want to point out to the hon. member that he cannot discuss the votes which do not appear in this additional budget.

In his budget speech the Minister said that he is going to save £7.000,000 by curtailing essential services which have already been authorised. I should like to draw attention to that point. The Minister tells us that he saves £1,000,000 under revenue and £6,000,000 under loan funds. This affects the poorest part of the population and unemployment and distress are greater than ever before. I want to ask him to take this into consideration from a humane point of view. These are persons not fit to fight, and moreover they are not fools enough to do so. The second objection to the budget is that that part of the population which is actually in the best position to carry the burden of taxation escapes practically unscatched; I mean the Chamber of Mines, the gold bosses of Johannesburg. I want to try to give a short summary of the viewpoint of the hon. member for Kensington. His viewpoint is this: We are in the war and have to see it through to the last man and the last penny. The hon. member for Kensington says that the population should be taxed and he indicated means by which the Minister can extract still more money from the pockets of the taxpayers. The viewpoint of the hon. member for Kensington is that the people should be burdened until they groan, that it should be burdened until it stoops under the burden. But right through his speech there is one thing that emerges clearly: Burden all but one privileged group of the community, the gold magnates of Johannesburg.

That is unfair and you know it.

The Minister of Finance needs £32,000,000, and all he demands here from the mines is a paltry £855,000.

Do you know that the mines are already paying £35,000,000 in taxes, etc.?

Does he want to deny that only £855,000 is being asked here from the mines and that moreover the mines have not yet contributed another penny to war expenditure since 4th September? With the exception of the £855,000 which is now being asked, the mining magnates have not contributed anything yet. Do not tell us that under the last budget they have been assessed for £7,000,000. That was done before the war started.

Two weeks before that.

In any case before the war broke out. It would have been the same if no war had broken out. My point is that the mines did not contribute a penny since 4th September towards war expenditure.

Technically.

Technically! I want the people outside to know these things too. I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. members on the other side. They tell us that the mines are the vineyard of Naboth on which the eyes of the Nazis have fallen. They tell us that this is the one thing desired by the countries of the world. We were told last week that if Germany should win the war it will in the first instance collar the mines. In other words, hon. members want to tell us that we fight for the preservation and safety of the gold mines. For that purpose we have to spend £46,000,000 per annum. But if we come to the payment of the war they declare: Take everything you can from the other people, confiscate the rifles of the farmers, double the income tax, but for God’s sake do not take anything from Hoggenheimer. The hon. member for Kensington said that the English-speaking middle class was mainly contributing to the war expenditure.

I did not say “English-speaking.”

The hon. member said that the middle class on the other side of the House pays for this war. This means the English-speaking, for there are no longer many Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa belonging to the other side. I want to say that primarily the poorest part of the population are being hit by the economising measures. They lose everything — their work, their income — and they have no food to eat. Secondly, and I admit that, the middle class is affected, English-speaking as well as Afrikaans-speaking. The taxes now being imposed are a heavy burden on them. Everything in their daily life is affected and becomes more expensive.

Whisky and cigarettes and beer.

The income tax is being increased to twice the former tax. The hon. member talks about beer. The beer and whisky of the middle-class man is taxed but on the imported champagne of the mining magnates there is no additional taxation. The cigarettes of the middle-class people are taxed, but do they also put more tax on the fat cigars smoked by Hoggenheimer in Johannesburg? This tax is a burden on the middle class, and this includes English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people. I very frequently meet people of the English-speaking middle class here in Cape Town. I stay in the same hotel; I travel with them in the train and I converse with them about these things. We hold different opinions. They are loyal, but I feel that their loyalty is the wrong kind of loyalty. Their affections are more concerned with England than with South Africa. I, however, found out one thing in this connection. They are loyal and they want to carry the burden loyally, and if there is a collection for war funds they are the people who contribute and they do it willingly. But what does one find here in this House? Double salaries; that is what they are after. They first look after themselves and in the second place after their bosses, the gold magnates of Johannesburg. We protest against that and we shall protest against it to the end. The mining magnates have not yet been approached for a single contribution towards the war expenditure since the 4th September last. This amount of £855,000 is their first contribution. I am not speaking now about the £5,000 they contributed towards the Governor-General’s Fund. We in this House maintain that the mining magnates are the people who can best afford to carry the war burden. They never knew a depression. It became quite clear during the discussion of the last budget that the mining magnates during the past seven years harvested £200,000,000 from the gold premium only and the state received only £80.000,000 of that amount, so that the mining magnates pocketed £120,000,000, or twice the total capital invested in the gold mines. If there is one section of the community which can afford to pay taxes it is that of the mining magnates. The paltry sum which is now being taken here is a trifle. This is not fair. There is another point which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. In the course of his budget speech the Minister said: “The burden is heavy, but, thank God, South Africa can shoulder it.” I wonder whether the Minister realises how heavy the burden is he puts on the shoulders of South Africa. I am convinced that in his budget speech he tried to withhold from the people how heavy the burden is to-day, and what results it will have in the future for South Africa and its financial position. He then drew a comparison between the defence expenditure of South Africa and that of America. He said that whilst he demands from South Africa an amount of £32,000,000 only, in America an additional amount of £1,1.55,000,000 is asked for defence purposes. But let us compare the populations of the two countries. America has a population of 130,000.000, and the extra burden amounts to. £9 per head of the population. South Africa has to find an additional £32,000,000, and for the white population this means £16 per head. Let us now take the usual basis of calculation and put the non-European population equal to 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 Europeans.

Three non-Europeans are considered the equivalent of one European.

No, it is never reckoned that way. Even the Cape Times puts four non-Europeans as equal to one European for calculations of this nature. If we thus calculate it, the burden in South Africa works out at £8 per head of the population. But America to-day is the supplier of all nations. It makes more money than ever before, and it is, therefore, not fair to draw a comparison between America and South Africa with its poor population, as is done so often. I just want to tell the Minister that however much he may try to disguise the matter, the people outside are becoming restless.

About Hitler.

Because they feel that no country can continue spending money on a war in that way, and the country knows and we know, and the hon. members on the other side know, that if it goes on like this, not only South Africa but the whole world will be bankrupt. The Minister ridicules the fact that there were many people trying to find safety for their savings by hoarding silver. When I read about it I also laughed about the simplicity of the people who think that silver is now the best means of safeguarding money. But I want the Minister to consider this as a symbol of the nervousness of the public, and that we are on the brink of a panic. People to-day are looking for a safe investment. They see the way the Minister is carrying on and realise that if it has to go so far that we spend all our wealth in the war, South Africa will be bankrupt. The Prime Minister speaks of a new world order. Well, the way the Minister is going on now, there will be nothing left of our possessions after the war, everything will then have disappeared in smoke and steam and we shall have nothing but debts. But I know that at the end of this war, there will emerge a new South Africa. I also know that that new South Africa will no longer know the capitalist domination which we have to-day, that Parliament will no longer be an instrument through which the mining magnates and the rich will escape taxation whilst the taxes are placed on the poor people and the middle classes in our country. So much I know. Then South Africa will no longer be there to be fleeced by the rich people overseas. This is my consolation. Whilst to-day there are only poor Afrikaners doing pick and shovel work on the roads, under the new world order we may all be poor, but the people working on the roads will be the Jews and the jingoes.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell), who spoke a short while ago, again mentioned something we on this side of the House have to fight. He clearly said that those who are represented by us here in this House will not have to carry the war burden. He is not alone in proclaiming that theory. The Star and the Rand Daily Mail said the same thing. If we analyse this Budget, I think we can summarise our criticism in the following few words: The Minister of Finance has burdened the poor and borrowed from the rich. Take, for example, the articles tobacco, beer and brandy. The poor man who is impecunious, as well as the well-to-do man, make use of these articles. The Minister of Finance will at once reply that it is not absolutely necessary for the poor man to drink or to smoke, but if he takes that away from the poor man. he gives an additional privilege to the rich man who is still able to drink and to smoke. But the Minister of Finance does not argue in that direction, for he has counted upon the income from these sources at the present rate of consumption. On the Witwatersrand there are at least 100,000 Nationalists who are consumers of tobacco, brandy and beer, and not only on the Witwatersrand, but right through our rural areas there are thousands and tens of thousands of Nationalists who consume these articles. How then does he venture to say that our people are not carrying the burden? They may maintain that they fight this war with volunteers, but in any case the expenses are not being paid by voluntary taxpayers. There is, for instance, the duty on petrol. This is a burden on the poor man. I do not now talk about the man who is better off and lives in the suburbs of Johannesburg, climbs in his motor-car in the morning and drives to his office, but there are thousands of people who have to make a living from transport vehicles and there are thousands of people who have to go to their business by car. Some of them reside ten miles from their place of work, for they cannot get a house near their work. They will have to pay for it, and I can assure the Minister that there are thousands of Nationalists among them. I only mention the mine workers on the Witwatersrand. As far as motor-car tyres are concerned, the same applies. As far as this is concerned, the poor people are just as well consumers as the rich people of the hon. member for Kensington. Nowhere in the Budget did the Minister of Finance mention anything about the people who are unable to carry it having to carry the burden, or the people who want the war or who profit from the war going to carry the burden. No, the Minister of Finance has put everything he possesses in that wonderful brain of his into the Budget, but for one great characteristic of the Minister, something of which he is proud, viz. his honesty. If the Minister of Finance would be honest in regard to this Budget, he would not have put the burden on our people. I can understand that the Minister does not drink and does not smoke, and he drives in a Government car. so that these charges do not worry him. It looks to me that the Minister taxes everything he does not like, with one exception: he did not tax mothers-in-law. The Minister has to obtain £10,000,000 from revenue this year, but he is in the fortunate position that he will only place a burden of £5,000,000 on the people. He says that he will obtain the other £5,000,000 from other sources, and he mentions the fact that he will get £3,000,000 from taxes which have already been imposed by the previous Budget. His reason for thinking that he will obtain that £3.000.000 are the following. He compares the import duties for January—June of last year with those for the same period of this year, and the latter compare favourably. But the Minister of Finance should remember that this only includes three months of the current financial year, and I think that the Minister of Finance should realise that the sea-borne traffic has become much more difficult since June last, and the way things are now developing overseas, it will most likely become much more difficult still. It really looks as if he is too optimistic with this estimate of £3.000,000. If he does not get it, we shall have to pay more taxes next year. There is another aspect of the problem which is not satisfactory. The Minister put too much taxation on the consumer. He put nothing on the trade as such. I am not an advocate for the man who drinks whisky. In my opinion we should all drink brandy instead of whisky in these days, because brandy is our own product. But the additional tax which has been put on whisky makes a difference of ⅝d. per tot. We find, however, that in Johannesburg the price of whisky per tot has already been increased from 1s. 3d. to 1s. 4d. That additional profit is pocketed by the trader. They have at once increased the price of cigarettes on the stocks they had in hand already, and the Government does not receive the tax from the traders.

No, the state will receive the taxation on those stocks.

I am glad to receive that assurance from the Minister, but then we still have this aspect of the matter, that the traders will increase their prices by a greater amount than is the actual tax increase arid the Minister ought to protect the public in that respect. The petrol distributors have at once increased their price by 3d. per gallon, and I understand that the tax on their stocks will also go to the Treasury. This, however, means that the consumer has to pay the full 3d. He has to carry that. The same applies to the other articles. The Minister tried to evade his responsibility by saying that the reason for this additional budget is the entry of Italy into the war. It looks as if the Minister not only did not know how much would be needed for this war, but apparently he did not know either that when Parliament was assembled here during the last session, the people in Pretoria were already busy spending money on such a scale that it was absolutely certain that we should have to come back here to vote more money; this was a certainty already before the end of the last session. It was a public secret, as the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) has already pointed out that they were preparing for war against Italy. I put this question to the hon. Minister and the members on the other side. They were taken into the Government’s confidence, were they not, and they well knew before the session here in Cape Town had ended, that the expectation was that Italy would almost immediately enter the war, and it did enter the war within three weeks of that date. At Kimberley the Minister of Mines already declared that they expected Italy to enter the war. The Minister of Finance either deceived us or he was incompetent as far as this matter is concerned. I maintain that apart from other matters, he is the sole reason for this session, and if Mr. Speaker would tell me how much this session is going to cost us, I maintain that that is the price we have to pay for the incompetence of the Minister of Finance or for his political dishonesty, if I may put it that way. I personally think it was a matter of incompetence, for I know that the Minister of Finance is too honest to deceive this House intentionally. As it may be, we cannot leave the matter there. The Minister of Finance expects a long war. He told us that we should expect that the country will have to face further burdens in the future. What is going to happen to all that money and where are we going to get it. At the end of his speech on Saturday last the Minister said that we shall go to the very end of the road. Can we imagine what condition that road will be in? And if it is a long road, if we have to continue burdening the country in this manner, we can only think of the position of our country when the end of that road has been reached.

It is not a question of dishonesty on the part of the Minister that this House was deceived about the war expenditure, but it is a question of the atmosphere in which he finds himself within the Cabinet in which he holds a seat, the atmosphere that they no longer can straightforwardly say what is actually in their minds. In war time the world’s position becomes so involved that it becomes part of our actions. My criticism on this budget is that the future of the whole country is being sacrificed, that the financial stability of the country is being ruined because we are now suddenly compelled to spend a sum of £32,000,000, and we can only guess what the future will be like. At a later stage I shall point out why, in my opinion, this amount is millions too large, if the Government were to conduct the war efficiently without being so extravagant for reasons which have nothing to do with the war. The Government now suddenly requires such an enormous amount of money; all of a sudden this money can be found; all of a sudden it is good policy to spend this money in the country and the Minister even waxed eloquent about the soundness of it all. His argument was not that this would be a good thing because victory would be won by it, but because the spending of it would bestow certain benefits on the people, because our young men will as a result of it receive technical training, because our soldiers will learn discipline and because they will be made into men. We all know that there are quite á number of advantages attached to a war. I pointed that out during the last session already. But I also say that the sudden expenditure of this money and the way in which the money can be found now, shows us very clearly the hypocrisy that existed when essential matters were refused last year because supposedly there was no money. We have pleaded here year after year for certain absolutely essential things which had to be done for the people. Year after year we pointed out that there are poor people in South Africa suffering starvation, partially as a result of conditions in the country such as droughts, partially as a result of bad conditions of health, but mainly as the result of the ruination which has become their share in consequence of the wars of the last 60 or 70 years. There was not sufficient money for those things. Now we are again entangled in a war and all of a sudden all that money can be found, and we can only draw one conclusion, namely, that there is a protected section of the population, that there is a rich section and a poor section and that the rich section for the sake of its own protection is willing to make any financial sacrifices when a war breaks out which threatens their favourable position; that that section of the population needs the war, that the war is being waged for their benefit because they know that if certain things are not protected, the advantages to that section will no longer exist, for they will no longer be able to exploit the rest of the population. I do not say that the governments of the past have been guilty of exploitation, but I maintain that those who enjoyed that protection are now willing to use all the state’s money for the war, whilst in peace time they are not prepared to sacrifice anything in order to effect certain things for the country so as to put the rest of the population on their feet and to build them up. I now feel myself that the steed is stolen and that nothing will be or can be achieved with the Government we have at present. We cannot convert them, but it is necessary that we warn the people at this stage of what is going to come. The Minister of Finance himself spoke of that new order which has to come, and I allege that here in South Africa we now find the start of what is going to be the final knock-out blow to that privileged group in our country which by its financial might has the power to exploit the other section of the population. I do not mean this in any bad sense of the word, but by their financial might they have that power. I myself realise that all of us who earn more than is good for us, are in that privileged position. We are in a privileged position if compared to the other part of the population, a position in which we should not be and which is not going to be tolerated in the future. Therefore the time has come that we should begin to prepare for the new order. I feel, however, that the Minister of Finance submits to all these things. He has found his position in that Government and that Cabinet and he simply shrugs his shoulders and does not care, for even he wants a new world order.

And so do you.

Most decidedly. I maintain that the conditions we had in the past will never return. I want to issue a warning that the time has come for a new world order and it is to be regretted that at this stage the Minister of Finance does not actually want the world order yet but only talks about it. The Minister of Finance could for instance have taxed incomes of £5,000, £10.000 and £20,000 according to an increasing sliding scale. All he does is to put an additional 20 per cent. on those incomes, the same as on the smaller incomes in this country. The man with the highest income is not effected to a greater extent than the man with a small income. During the last session I pointed out that under the system which the Minister introduced, a man with an income of £20,000 may perhaps not be called upon to pay additional taxation, whilst a person with a relatively small income may have to pay 10s. in the £ to the state. This has now happened. Among our soldiers there are officers who had to go to the front. Their income tax has already been made up, and we find a most unjust state of affairs. Young men who may in that one year have had a fairly large income, have to pay the war tax. They may pay £300 or £400, whilst people who have earned thousands of pounds more, do not pay that tax. My words have already come true. This is something that should never have happened. The tax should have been increased according to a sliding scale in proportion to the increases in the larger incomes. Other speakers have already pointed out that as far as the gold mines are concerned, the Minister was not quite serious. We know that he represents those interests here in Parliament. The Minister represents the gold mines in this House and certainly in the Cabinet also. It is his duty, knowingly or unknowingly, to protect them. He has done so with the greatest success, and he not only deserves to be returned to his seat here, but also to become an honorary life member of the gold mining interests. Wherever in the past we tried to build up certain things for national purposes, to do certain work which would benefit the state especially at this time when its young men have been called upon to fight, we found that we could not obtain sufficient money from the Government in that particular year to adequately deal with one aspect of the problem. We obtained small amounts of money, but we never succeeded in obtaining sufficient to put a particular organisation on a sound footing and to deal with a certain part of a problem in a satisfactory manner. Let us view for a moment the problem of housing, for which the Minister voted millions in the past, but which nevertheless proceeded so slowly in the rural areas that our people are to-day again crowding the slums of the dorps in the same numbers as was the case a few years ago. The problem grows. Never on any occasion could we obtain those few million pounds needed to accelerate the matter sufficiently. I do admit that there was a certain amount of acceleration, but we could never at one stage obtain sufficient funds to tackle the problem comprehensively. The result is that the problem grows, and what is going to happen after the war when we shall have impoverished as a result of the burdens imposed to-day? Let us consider another and more serious matter, such as the health services of the country, where a contribution of £2,000.000 from the Government was needed to give the people a national medical state service. Not national insurance, but a national medical service on the part of the state could have been established with that assistance from the Government. We could then have solved the health problem of the whole country and have saved the position if in peace time we had made one-tenth of the sacrifices which we are now prepared to make in time of war for something which is not going to mean anything in the end, but which is going to have very serious consequences for all of us. I think that the expenditure we are now going to incur will mean the ruin of a large part of our population. The only opposition to it comes from this side of the House. On the Government side they have adopted the attitude that the Government is in the war and that it therefore has to continue the war, apparently until it has delivered us into the hands of Hitler and Mussolini. Nobody understands what right the Government has to drag South Africa into this danger and to endanger our freedom and our country, for which it needs these enormous sums of money. I agree with my hon. friend who spoke before me that the Government is plunging the country into a serious economic danger, but that danger is small if compared with the danger to our freedom which is being brought about by the actions of the Government. Last year it declared one war; this year it declared another war and who knows how far this all will go. I want to touch upon another matter, The Minister boasted of the fact that our young men are now going to receive a technical training. I just want to point out that I have pleaded for many years that every son and daughter in our country should receive a properly directed training, so that they might become an asset to the country. I have broached that subject year after year and pleaded that this technical knowledge should be given the Afrikaner in a sensible manner, but my pleading remained largely unanswered. The Minister now praises the fact that the people will receive technical training. A small group will receive that training, but it is a technical training which will mean very little to them in peace time, and as long as this Government is in power it will mean nothing at all to them, for this Government will not stir a foot for the development of those industries and undertakings which will be necessary if we want to provide employment for those technical people in our country. We know the history of the people on the other side of the House Their history is that of people who do not allow the establishment of industries in South Africa where our young people can be usefully employed and where goods can be produced which can be imported from Europe and more in particular from England. There are many things which can be made in South Africa, but in the past those people have shown that they want as much imported as possible. We know full well that the technical knowledge acquired by our young people will certainly not be granted useful application by that section. The words of the Minister of Finance simply intended to camouflage their wrongdoings in the past. It makes one sad if one comes to think about it,

You make us sad.

The hon. member will become much sadder still. The one consolation we have is the knowledge that this Government will not be in power any more when the time comes for the reconstruction work in South Africa. They will have to go. There will not be room for them, and they even will not have the chance of concluding peace. They have committed themselves to that extent. This is the only consolation South Africa has, namely that this Government will no longer exist when the day dawns, when this maimed and weakened people will have to be built up again. We shall be confronted by great problems, but to-day we are already looking ahead to the future and are planning already the reconstruction work and the assistance to that section of the population which will suffer most from this war. All we can expect from the present Government is that it will spend money in a way which is not to the advantage of South Africa. There are other things also to which I drew the attention in the past and which to-day have all of a sudden become of such vital importance to them, although in peace time they never contemplated doing anything in that direction, namely in the direction of that section of the population which has not the intelligence and is not able to look after itself, not be because it is too stupid for it. It has the intelligence, but it has never yet had the opportunity in the past to develop its intelligence in such a way that it might become an asset to the state. The time will come when we shall have to make a radical change, and it is quite clear to me that this Government will most definitely not be able to effect this change.

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

When I stopped at 6 o’clock I was explaining that in the past we could not get one-tenth of the amount which is now being asked for war purposes, for the essential needs of the country, essential, fundamental requirements of the country, not for those things which the people needed, and I have specified them: housing, health services and work for the people. The most necessary thing which the people always had to have was work, and to provide the people with work you needed factories, industries and agricultural institutions to give that section of the people the chance of getting work. The third requirement is work. In the past we never listened to the voice of the people, that the people might get the ingenuity, so that they might become trained, to be able to work. Now, it is said that the object of the whole of these estimates, the object of the money is to provide work for the population. Unfortunately, that is filled with hypocrisy, with dishonesty, because it is trifling with the real need of the people and poking fun at their needs. When we really want to supply these things to the people, while we are systematically out to supply these things to the people, the Minister comes here and tells us that in consequence of the money which is now being voted, technical knowledge will now be provided for them. I say that it is necessary that the needs of the people should not be ridiculed. We realise, as I have already said, that when we make appeals, our words fall on deaf ears. No one listens to them, because they are busy waging war. To sum up, I just want to say this: We have been satisfied for years with a soul-deadening conservatism, with a policy, for financial reasons, which has a paralysing effect on the people and which has given a large section of the population no opportunity of being trained, has given them no opportunity of housing or of health services. With one-thrid of what is being asked for to-day we would have had more than enough to supply the people all these years with the absolutely necessary things. Therefore I feel that this is an occasion for serious thinking. We must enquire whether we can continue with this hypocrisy. I am not speaking of hypocrisy on the part of a few, but of all the hypocrisy under which the rich man will retain his riches and the poor man will remain poor until the day of doom. Poverty under existing circumstances is a thing which cannot be tolerated. I would rather see the Minister adding another £5,000,000 to the budget to give the poor section of the population a chance in life. Then I would say he needed the £30,000,000, but he was giving at least another £5,000,000 to the people themselves. Then we can have respect for what he wants to do. I conclude by saying that our intentions with regard to the needs of the people are not honest — the attitude of many people in that connection borders on hypocrisy, and that of the Minister just as much as the rest of us. While we are prepared to make sacrifices for certain things we ought also to be willing to make sacrifices for the poor section of the population, and therefore it is a sign of weakness on the part of our community to act as we do, and therefore I say it is time for us to be more honest in connection with the distress of the population.

We have listened to two interesting speeches from the Opposition. On the one hand we have had from the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga), who is a responsible member of the Opposition, a carefully reasoned argument, and although one may not agree with what he said, there was a certain amount of reason in what he put forward. The hon. member also submitted an amendment to the budget and that amendment is simply based on one point. It does not raise the question whether there should be any expenditure on the war at all or not. The amendment simply objects to the incidence of taxation, but does not deal with the question of the need for taxation for war purposes. It is, therefore, no use discussing the war policy further; the fact of the matter is that the sum total of the official policy of the Opposition is now enunciated in the amendment. Now we find the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) coming along and saying: “I am not concerned with the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Fauresmith.”

I never said that.

In effect he simply said: “I am opposed to the war and to any expenditure on war, and because of that I am opposing this budget.” Surely there is a direct conflict between the two members of that party, and the party should say which of those two members they want to follow. Then we had the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) to whom one always listens with considerable pleasure. He said that whenever we require money for war it is at once forthcoming, but when it is required for the betterment of the poor people no money is available. I have a great deal of sympathy with that point of view, which is a point of view which I have repeatedly put forward myself. But the position is this, that at present, unfortunately, we require money for war expenditure. I want to remind my hon. friend of this fact. The hon. member for Fauresmith was Minister of Finance for fifteen years. He was Minister when the financial position of South Africa was good, and when there was no need for any substantial expenditure on defence. In fact, so much so, that we now find ourselves in the position of our having to find money for defence which the previous Government failed to do. During those fifteen years was the time to lay down the principle which the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet enunciated to-night, and to say: “We refuse to vote a single penny unless we supply enough money to improve the lot of the poor.”

Do you support him now?

Yes, I have always taken up that attitude. We have often heard it said that we want the money to improve the lot of the poor people, and invariably the reply has been: “Where are you going to get the money from?” Unfortunately this is the case everywhere. Money can be found for defence, but not to improve the lot of the poor. In Germany especially has this been the case, where the principle of guns rather than butter was being carried out. My hon. friend suggests now that he would prefer it if the Minister should come along and, in addition to the expenditure he requires for defence, impose taxation to raise another £5,000,000 to improve the lot of the poor people. Well, I think it is a very sound proposition, but the question is this. Are our friends opposite prepared first of all to vote the money necessary for war expenditure, and, in addition to that, the money required for the poor people — are they prepared to vote the money for war expenditure on condition that the money required for the poor people is also provided?

You could have saved the money for the poor people if you had not spent it on the war.

One point made by the hon. member opposite is that money has been saved on certain votes in consequence of which poverty is allowed to increase. That is not the case. We know that out of the total amount required by the Minister a certain amount is being provided by an increase in the surplus of more than £1,000,000 and by a reduction in expenditure of something like £1,000,000. The saving of that money cannot be said to have been intentional on the part of the Minister. Now the position to-day is that although only £1,000,000 has been saved on expenditure from all services, we are still providing £15,500,000 on capital expenditure in spite of our war expenditure, and in addition to that we have to remember the fact that to-day, in consequence of the war position, millions of the money which is being voted for war purposes will be utilised and spent in South Africa, and that money is being circulated among the people of the country. Take the question of munitions, and of war materials. We have been told by the Minister of Finance that practically 100 per cent. of the raw materials required for the manufacture of munitions in South Africa, and the manufacture of military material is actually being obtained in South Africa, and, therefore, to a considerable extent the money now being voted is money which is being expended on the development of South Africa, and on the welfare of the people. The circulation of that money is bound to he advantageous to all sections. And then I think one might emphasise the other scheme which is being carried out by the Government, the Van der Byl scheme. It was my privilege a week before I came to Cape Town, in company with Professor Orr to visit the works at Milner Park, where that scheme is being carried out. and there were something like 3,000 young fellows working there. Practically 99 per cent. came from the platteland, and they are being trained there in industry at a wage which they would never have earned on the platteland, a wage which will not only enable them to maintain themselves, but which at the same time is providing them with a useful occupation by which they will be able to earn a livelihood, the like of which they have never had the opportunity of doing in the past. And if that scheme is carried out to the fullest extent, it will provide for some 24,000 people mostly from the platteland, who will be able to become trained artisans. Is not that something to the general advantage of the country, and to the advantage of the people for whom the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet has been pleading? Those are aspects which we have to consider, and if you weigh up the pros and cons, you will find that by this very expenditure which we are asked to pass here, we are actually helping and not retarding the vast majority of the people of South Africa. Then I come to the last line of criticism of the hon. member for Fauresmith, and also of the hon. member for George, which was just touched upon by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, and that is that we do not extract sufficient of the taxation required from the mining industry. There again let me say that I can understand the proposal that we should take 100 per cent. of the earnings of the mining industry and utilise it for this purpose, but we have to remember that if we did that, it would have the effect of closing down the industry, and of achieving the very opposite of what we want to achieve. The whole object of the hon. member for Fauresmith and of the Minister of Finance has been so to arrange the taxation on the mining industry as to get the fullest amount of revenue for the state, and at the same time to encourage the working of the industry and more particularly the working of the low grade ore, and give employment to thousands of people who otherwise would be out of work. The policy of the hon. member for Fauresmith was to take everything over 159s. per fine ounce from the sale of gold, that is to say the difference between 150s. and 168s.. and to take that for the state. Where the Minister of Finance altered that policy he introduced the formula under which we are working at present, and not only has he succeeded in securing the same amount of revenue as his predecessor would have secured, but in actual fact he has secured more revenue than he would have secured under the policy adumbrated by the hon. member for Fauresmith; and what is more, not only does he get more revenue, but at the same time he helped to continue the policy of extending the mining industry and of enabling the low grade mines to continue, and he enabled new mines to start up, and thus provide work for large numbers of people who would otherwise not have been employed. If we had pursued the policy of the hon. member for Fauresmith I believe that to-day the position would have been that we would not have got the revenue which was required, and in addition we would have had thousands of people unemployed by reason of the closing down of a large number of mines which at present are able to continue working as a result of the formula adopted by the Minister. Then there is the question of the general taxation proposed. There again I think it is only fair to say that the Minister of Finance in the proposals he has submitted has been very careful to ensure that the cost of living shall not be increased in this country. Articles which might have increased the cost of living have been left alone. Take, on the other hand, the case of petrol. I say that in that regard the poorer people are not affected by the increased tax on petrol.

Motor cars are used by the poor people too.

The people who will have to pay the tax are the people who are better off, and what is more, in imposing this tax let us remember that for years we have been complaining that one of the difficulties of the agricultural industry has been the habit of people to keep on buying new motor cars, so that last year we found that next to the United States of America South Africa had most motor cars per head of population in the world, and we have been told that it is not a good thing for the economic life of the country that all these people should have expensive motor cars, and one of the effects of this tax will be to reduce the number of motor cars used; and the same applies to the question of the consumption of spirits and beer, the taxation on which will not fall on the poor people. Beer I admit is a beverage used by most people where their revenue enables them to buy it at all. But the total amount to be raised from beer is only something like £40,000 per annum, and taken over the whole of the European population it is a ridiculous argument to say that it will bear hardly on the community. There is another aspect of this type of taxation and it is this. One could almost imagine that the Minister of Finance had been introducing taxation in order to meet the sentiments of the Opposition. The majority of the people who support the Government will not hesitate to support the Minister’s proposals. They will not hesitate to drink a little more whisky or to spend a little more on petrol, but I think the Minister has almost played into the hands of the Opposition here. He has given them the opportunity of avoiding to make contributions to the war expenditure. He wants to raise money for war purposes, and he wants to get something out of spirits, beer and cigarettes. Here is their opportunity if they wish to show that they are up against the war—they can refuse to contribute any money towards expenditure and say, “We are going to become teetotallers, and we are not going to smoke any more.” The last item with which I wish to deal and in respect of which criticisms have been levelled is the 20 per cent. surtax on income tax. There again what is that? I think in the first place hon. members should take cognisance of a very outstanding fact. The latest estimate we have been able to get for 1934-’35 shows us that the total annual income of South Africa is £327,000,000 per annum. We know that the total number of income tax payers was something like 68,000. 68,000 out of a total white population of two million or a total population of ten million. The comparative figures for the present day are relatively about the same because both the national income and the number of taxpayers has increased. 68,000 out of a total white population of two million, or a total population of ten million! Income tax payers are people earning more than £400 per annum and since there is an exemption of £100 for each child some people in receipt of £600 per annum are exempt from income tax and therefore exempt from the new tax which is now being imposed. Under those circumstances when you see that the national income works out at £38 per head of the total South African population whereas those who pay income tax are in receipt of over £400 then I submit that it is not only unreasonable but grossly unfair to suggest at the present moment that the tax imposed by the Minister is going to press hardly on the poorer sections of the population. On the contrary, sir, the whole taxation that we are faced with at the present moment is taxation which extracts money from those who are the better able to pay and leaves those who are unable to pay entirely untouched. That is a policy on which the Minister is to be congratulated. I will admit that there are defects in his budget. I would like to have seen a differentiation between those who are earning incomes and those who are in receipt of unearned incomes. I would have liked to have seen steeper taxation on super tax payers. I would like to have seen the excess profits tax graduated up to 100 per cent., but I realise that the Minister has to be prepared for further exactions in the future and I think therefore we should accept the position as he has presented it. The Minister believes, as we all believe, that although confident of victory, this war is likely to drag on for some considerable time and therefore he has budgeted on the basis of increasing taxation as it becomes necessary. Of course if my friends over there believe that the war is over I do not know why they are criticising the budget at all. If the world war is finished then it is only a joke imposing taxation at all. We, however, believe that not only is the war not finished but that its prosecution will involve more expenditure in the future and we believe the temper of the majority of the people of South Africa is such that that expenditure will be borne with confidence and satisfaction by people who know that they are fighting for freedom and economic security.

The whole of this question is a proof to us of the difference in mentality and point of view between this side of the House and hon. members opposite. The fact that we have a mentality and an outlook on the opposite side which plunged South Africa into a war on the 4th September, before ever the people had had the opportunity of considering the complications which would be brought about owing to the war, is proof of the serious difference in up-take and outlook which exists with regard to this matter. The Government side of the House consists of a large percentage of members who undoubtedly do not have that love for South Africa in their hearts which 100 per cent. of members on this side possess. A large percentage of the members opposite have come here from elsewhere to establish themselves. They do not have that love for South Africa which is inborn in every child of South Africa, and for that reason they remain more indifferent towards these matters than this side of the House does. We need only refer to the speech made here this afternoon by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell). Where do we find a more telling exhibition that his mentality is of such a kind that South Africa can simply be thrown on the gambling tables of the European game, and it does not matter what the ultimate result is going to be. He is prepared to throw South Africa as one of the pawns on the European chess board, and he is prepared to sacrifice in that gamble, the last shilling and the last man in South Africa. If he had had the real love for South Africa that he ought to have, then he would act differently, and he would have realised that this country ought to be careful when it goes and throws itself into the maelstrom of European jealousy, envy and gambling. South Africa, with its small European population, cannot afford to take part on this large scale in a war effort. If large states like the United States of America, and Ireland, which is on the threshold of Great Britain, consider it necessary from fear and anxiety to watch that gambling and if Ireland is concerned about its own country, how much the more should South Africa not be careful and anxious? On the other side you have the hon. members who are prepared to sacrifice everything on the altar. But just as ready as they are to put everything on the altar now, just as readily will they like rats leave the sinking ship if South Africa is landed into disaster and misfortune, if South Africa lands in a financial morass and bankruptcy in consequence of this war. To-day they are willing to place everything on the altar in order blindly to follow the path on which they find, themselves. We are not prepared to do so, because if that evil day should come then the majority on this side of the House, with our followers in South Africa, will remain here. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) has already moved from one dominion to another, and he will once more move to another place if it suits him. We on this side know no other country and have no love for another country, but only for our own country, the Union of South Africa. To-day also we have in the country a very strong feeling that in consequence of the line which has been taken, there are some of our most honourable veterans remaining locked up with clean-shaven faces and heads, because they had serious objections to surrendering their rifles. Some of those veterans of 1899-1902 who were in the field along with the Prime Minister, and who sacrificed everything for their native land, not for payment and not for this or the other thing, but only because they loved their country, honourable people who constitute the nobility of the people, and they are sitting behind bars to-day. Can the Minister imagine himself being in the mental condition of those people and realise what the bitterness is which exists in their souls that they for the sake of their lawful property, should be locked up in prison? That they should be treated on an equal footing with criminals? In such circumstances hon. members opposite must not blame us if we say that we feel hurt to the quick, and that we deplore that this Government has dealt in that way with the Afrikaner section of the population in these days. I for my part will readily acknowledge that our British friends opposite love Great Britain. I want to respect that love. I know they are walking about to-day with anxious hearts. They are also consumed with anxiety about what is going on overseas. I can understand it and I sympathise with them. As a child I saw personally what it meant for a country to get into subjection. As a child I experienced how burghers, with tears in their eyes, after they were defeated, had laid down their arms. As a child I saw how the Vierkleur was pulled down in the Free State and how the Union Jack was hoisted in its place. As a child I experienced that, and my English-speaking friends on the opposite side must not expect it of me, and must not expect it of those of us who have passed through such experiences, to be imbued with the same enthusiasm about the fate of Great Britain and the other great nations in Europe. You cannot imagine the mental state in which those people live. You must make concessions, and you dare not apply measures which are being applied to these people to-day, and you must see to it that this embitterment is eliminated; you must see to it that the Prime Minister no longer goes to work along the lines he is doing to-day when he imprisons some of our most honourable people, purely and simply because they feel strongly on this question and neglected to surrender their arms. This is an incident which has contributed to the putting back of the clock of the Union of South Africa, not for 50 years but for 100 years, and the Prime Minister ought to know it. He knows the soul of the Afrikaner, and he knows what value those people attach to their arms, and what value they attach to the possession of a rifle. It is an injustice which is being done to them. The Minister of Lands also knows the platteland, and he should also give advice to the Prime Minister immediately to put an end to that persecution, and an amnesty ought immediately to be granted to the people who have already been condemned for not having handed in their arms. It is a national insult to the Afrikaner people which they do not deserve. It is wrong to inflict these punishments on them, and we have already heard that there is some talk that the regulation under which it is being done is ultra vires. There is, therefore, all the more reason for the Minister of Justice immediately to give orders for this regulation to be suspended and for the individuals to be honourably reinstated. If that is not done then there is an evil day in store for South Africa. Allow me to say that I can understand that a man like the Minister of Commerce and Industries could sneeringly make use here this afternoon of the expression “the ignorant backveld.” Let me, however, very definitely tell him this, that I know that many townsmen are obsessed with the idea that there is an ignorant backveld. But I also in the same breath say that he must be careful. We have a very large percentage of enlightened citizens on the countryside, people who are better informed than many of those who live in the slums of the towns. On the platteland you have a large percentage of the South African citizens who read both the English and the Afrikaans newspaper and who are au fait with what appears in both newspapers, while you have the greatest onesidedness among a large section of the English-speaking public who only get their information from one side. Any news that appears in the Afrikaans newspapers simply leaves them cold. They do not try to make a study of the soul of the Afrikaner section of the population, and the Minister of Commerce and Industries should be careful about referring sneerlingly to the “ignorant backveld.”

When did he say that?

He said it this afternoon by way of an interruption. Then I also want to say that the platteland has during the past seven or eight years undergone a complete revolution. Petrol has become just as vital a necessity on the countryside as food. You find far distant parts of the countryside, far from the railways, where it is necessary for the people to keep a car so as to be able to do their business quickly. Their presence on their farms is of the utmost importance. The day for carts and horses has gone by. These people are hit by the petrol tax to the very depths of their existence. I represent a grain area where a great deal of use is made of motor lorries and cars, and the petrol tax is going to hit that part of the countryside very hard. The Minister of Finance on one occasion referred, with a certain amount of scorn and ridicule, to the big protest meeting at Bloemfontein. He said: “Let them go on holding demonstrations; the state gets revenue out of the petrol tax.” I did not know that when he said that, that was when he was thinking of imposing a direct tax on the countryside on an article which was a vitally important factor to the countryside in its economic life. The petrol tax is an unjust and undeserved one and it ought not to be imposed. I want to add that the increased tax on yeast will possibly not hit the countryside so badly, but I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) said here, that the Minister should take care that what happened to the late Mr. Burton in consequence of his tax on patent medicines, does not eventually happen to him. If that day comes then he will have to blame himself for it. I now want to show that the Minister of Finance had already in his previous budget made suitable provision for the gold mining industry in case an increase in cost and expenditure came about in this time of war. Does the countryside receive the same consideration? Does the Minister not realise that during the past months the fertiliser account of the farmers has almost become unpayable? Does he not understand that during the recent war months ploughs and other agricultural machinery have gone up in price by a very large percentage and that it has been made almost impossible for the well-to-do farmer to buy articles of that kind, because they have almost without exception to pay cash and because the implements are so dear? Not the least concession is made to those people. On the contrary we find that the average farmer is being unfavourably affected by the income tax. There is a large percentage of them who pay income tax just like the town dwellers, and not only a small percentage as the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) stated here. Take the other items. The farmer’s existence on the countryside is largely dependent upon the way his farm is fenced and divided into camps. Wire and iron poles have become almost too expensive to buy. A roll of wire which used to cost £1 now costs £1 12s. 6d., £1 15s., up to £2 for the same roll. Iron poles which formerly cost 1s. each, now cost 2s. 6d. and in some cases 3s.

They can manage without iron poles.

We can understand that the Minister of Lands can manage without iron poles. He sits there nice and snug and glorious in a Cabinet office and he has possibly completed the fencing of his farm and making camps on it with jackal-proof fencing. But there are numbers of struggling young farmers who are now being ruined because they cannot afford to enclose and to make camps on their farms. For that reason I strongly object to the taxation by the Minister of Finance, because no concession is given to the farmers in respect of the increased costs which they have to bear in consequence of the war conditions. I want also to point out that if this taxation was to be used for the further development of the Union then we would have had no objection to it. We like to see our sources of revenue employed for the development of South Africa. But these taxes are simply imposed on the people to be able to find this money to go and waste it on troubles into which the Union has been plunged, by plunging the Union into a struggle with which it has no concern and out of which it has nothing to gain. I want further to point out that our financial position is becoming unsound in an alarming manner. During the years 1911-1912 our expenditure was £16,500,000. In the years 1938-’39 it had already risen to over £47,000,000, and this year we have already under the previous budget voted £58,750,000 and now there is an additional estimate of a further £33,000,000. According to the statement of the Government we shall be spending over £100,000,000 in one year. Can South Africa with its small white population go on permanently on this basis? I say that we may be able to maintain it for one or two years but I want to tell the Minister of Finance that his name and the name of his Government will go down in history as those who plunged South Africa into an economic morass and economic ruin. They will have to bear the blame for it. I further want to show that if South Africa had remained outside this struggle, as the United States and Ireland have done, then South Africa would have been in this position that like the United States it would have stood outside of the struggle and then Briton and Boer would have understood each other better than ever before. But now we once more have the old struggle and all the suspicion and bitterness has been set going again with the results which already exist and I would like to ask the Prime Minister to be so good as to take some steps to see that influence is not used on minor young men in an irresponsible way and that they are not smuggled out of the Union to go and fight in the north. I have a letter here in my possession from a father of such a lad which is pathetic to read. He allowed his son to go and serve in the Defence Department in South Africa. That son is a minor and he was simply talked over to go to the north without his parents having known it.

It cannot be that any compulsion was used. You cannot prove it.

The Minister wants me to prove that compulsion was used in his case. I think that it is so obvious that compulsion is being exercised to-day that it is not in the least necessary for me to give proof. The fathers protest against it and the boys are still minors. We know how it goes. Such a lad is got round at some time or other and he takes the oath. I want, with all the seriousness of my soul, to protest against our young Afrikaner boys being talked over to go to the north and fight there in a war in which we have not the least interest. I say again that the Government of the day has put the clock of South Africa back a century. The Government of the day has once more gone and interfered with the good feelings which were developing in the course of years with a recklessness which is unforgivable and for this reason I protest against this budget and the taxation proposals.

The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) in opening his speech referred to the difference in outlook between members on his side of the House and members on this side, and in the course of his speech it became obvious to me that there is a very big difference indeed in our outlook, particularly in the matters with which we are concerned today. First there seems to be an entire lack of appreciation by the Opposition of the fact that we are at war. Although we have had a peace debate lasting three days, during which all sorts of things were told us would happen in the very near future, yet we have had a speech made by the member for Hoopstad in which he makes an urgent plea on behalf of the poor users of petrol in the countryside. The hon. member must believe that if Herr Hitler came to South Africa they would not need petrol in the countryside, they would have to walk on their feet. [Interruptions.] Apparently hon. members over there don’t believe it or don’t want to believe it. The hon. member for Hoopstad also said, in reference to the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell), that he was one who could quite happily go to other places so long as there was an opportunity for him to make a satisfactory living, but the ware Afrikaner had only one land, South Africa. He knew no other land. But, sir, may I remind the hon. gentlemen over there that there are other races in South Africa who also know only one land, who also were born in South Africa and who look upon it as their country and are prepared to make some contribution towards its security.

They should not be prepared to gamble it away.

I will leave the hon. member for Hoopstad for the time being, but I am coming back to him again. I want to say a few words in regard to the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) who said, inter alia, in his criticism of the budget that the Union’s future economic position would be seriously affected by this supplementary budget. Surely, sir, that is an extraordinary statement to come from a man who was Minister of Finance only 12 months ago and who told us over a period of 15 years what a wonderful financial position South Africa occupied, that we were financially the finest country in the world, and for him to suggest that the taking of a mere £32,000,000 from South Africa’s wealth would seriously cripple the economic future of the country, takes a great deal of understanding. I repeat again, that our future economic position is of minor importance compared to our task of helping to win this war. When we have done that then it will be time enough to consider how we can rebuild what has been broken down. I hear some remarks from the hon. member for Massel Bay. I would advise him to keep very quiet because I might have to say something to him which he might regret; he is asking for it.

Do not say it.

I would just say this to him. I understand that not long ago he made a statement at a meeting that he hoped Germany would take the “great” out of Great Britain.

You are dreaming.

That is how it was reported in the Press. Let me tell the hon. member that long before that happens his friends from Zeesen will be no more and Mossel Bay will be long, long forgotten.

Is that all you are going to say?

If I said all I want to say to the hon. member, you, Mr. Speaker, would order me out of the House. If one compares the amount of money that is voted for our future war expenditure in South Africa in proportion to the amount spent by Great Britain on her defence, and by the other dominions, it must be agreed that the public of South Africa have got off very lightly indeed, and there is no doubt that this budget has come as a pleasant surprise to the people of South Africa. It was generally anticipated that a far larger sum would be necessary and furthermore, that the amount to be derived by direct taxation would be considerably greater than the amount proposed by the Minister. In this respect we are extremely fortunate, but I personally believe, as many others do, that our expenditure in regard to this war, will have to be increased tenfold at least, because we are up against circumstances and dangers such as we have never known before, and it may necessitate the complete conscription of the wealth of our allied nations in order to fight this war and bring it to a successful issue, and we in South Africa should be prepared to be called upon to make as great a contribution as other nations. I have found in. the last few months that the response to the call to duty by South Africans is something we can well be proud of. Men have come from all walks of life. Not, as the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Viljoen) said, men who have been coerced to sign on for service, but men who have come forward voluntarily. We do not take men unless they are prepared, of their own free will, to attest for service anywhere.

That is untrue. Are you speaking about the coloureds?

What I say is an absolute truth. But I believe the response, fine though it has been, could have been even better, and with the help of hon. members on that side of the House the success of our efforts could have been double what they have been, and I am still hoping that notwithstanding what has been said by them, notwithstanding the feelings that have been aroused, that they will be prepared to come forward when they fully realise the great danger in which South Africa is placed to-day. They have told us when that time came, they would be the first to come forward. Well, that time has come. No one in his senses can doubt it. They themselves have told us that Germany was going to win the war. If they believe that, then it is time for them to come forward to defend the country which they pretend to love so well. I was supposed to make a recruiting speech in the City Hall to-night, but I think it would be better if I were to make it here.

Are we not doing the same as you are doing, sitting over there?

My reply is that if the hon. member had done one-tenth as much as I have done, it would have been a very good thing for South Africa. Apart from the help which we might have got, and may still get from hon. members opposite, I believe that there are many men in our cities throughout the Union who could still came forward if they desired to do so, or if their employers would allow them. I want to say how much I deplore the spirit of certain firms who have put every obstacle they could in the way of their employees who want to join up. Fortunately these firms are few and far between, and I believe that most of these firms are either controlled or owned by supporters of hon. members opposite. I could give the names of these firms, but I do not want to do so across the floor of the House, but I do hope that those firms will not allow their worst judgment to influence them in refusing to allow their men to join up.

Are you a key-man?

One of the matters which I particularly wish to bring to the notice of the Minister is a matter in connection with key-men, that is men wearing “on service” badges. I do not know who was responsible for originating the idea of the “on service” badge. I admit it is a splendid thing for those fellows who, while wishing to join up, are engaged on essential war work, but I do not think the “on service” badge should be given in blank form to whole concerns as has been done. And I think it is wrong to ask any civilian to attest on the service oath unless he is actually prepared to go on active service. This is the oath which the key-man has to attest to—

God save the King.

Now, that oath is to my mind very sacred. A man who takes that oath is a man who is prepared to go on active service immediately if he is required. If a man wants to go on active service, he must first of all be medically fit, because we do not accept unfit men, and I say that no man should, therefore, be allowed to wear the “on service” badge until he has presented himself for examination by the medical authorities and passed fit for service.

I think the hon. member is going rather far when he speaks about the “on service” badge. Discussion should be confined to the items in the Estimates of Additional Expenditure.

Part of the money is expended on these “on service” badges. However small the amount may be. I feel that this is a matter which falls within the scope of this debate.

I do not think it can be discussed now.

Make your speech in the City Hall.

I just want to say a few words more on this matter. I feel, without wishing to question your ruling, that the Government should take into consideration the possibility of reconsidering the method by which these badges are awarded, and if they do that, it will cause much greater satisfaction among the general public.

Order, order.

The hon. member must not evade my ruling.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled, after your ruling, to speak on this matter?

I have called the hon. member to order.

I am indebted to the hon. member. He has given me time to read my notes. Another matter I wish to bring to the notice of the Government is the question of compensation for any damage which may be done in respect of any property through either an air raid or any other cause as a result of the war.

My word, are you expecting air raids here?

You had better be careful; you may get hurt.

I understand that the Chambers of Commerce and the Chamber of Industry have already approached the Government in this regard, and they have requested that some scheme should be introduced. preferably an insurance scheme, whereby policies may be taken out by people to cover their properties against the risk of war damage. I hope the Minister will give us some information as to whether the Government will consider that suggestion. Now I want to say a few words about the proposed coloured pioneer battalions.

That would suit you better.

Which one do you belong to?

I must say this, that I have been disappointed that although quite a long period has elapsed since the Prime Minister announced that he intended forming these pioneer battalions, only one coloured unit has so far been established. There are thousands of coloured men waiting to come forward for military service, and they are most anxious that the Government should give them the opportunity of showing their worth at the first possible opportunity.

Are you going to be their commanding officer?

What are you doing? Have you joined up yet?

When I hear the jeers of hon. members opposite I cannot help telling them that I have more respect for a coloured man who is prepared to otter his life for his country and who joins the army than I have for people like hon. members opposite who take shelter in the funk hole of a spurious Nationalism.

Why do you not join the coloured corps?

I said earlier on that I would come back to the hon. member for Hoopstad. I merely want to say that he spoke accurately when he said that there was a great difference of outlook as between members on this side of the House and members on that side. The outlook of members on the other side of the House, if I may paraphrase a well-known poem, is “Ours not to do or die, ours but to reason why.” And in contradistinction to that I would tell hon. members opposite that although there may be among our party members representing the natives, members representing the coloureds and the Jewish race, and the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people, at any rate we are representative of all sections of the people of South Africa.

I do not think you are.

We represent the people as a whole, and the spirit which permeates us on this side of the House and that of our men on active service can best be put in the words of a great South African poet—

I sat and listened attentively to the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) and tried to the best of my ability to follow him. I can only come to one conclusion and that is that the plea which the hon. member put up was merely to justify hon. members on the other side of the House standing here and talking with their hands in their trouser pockets and drawing a double salary while the public have to bear the increased expenditure, and that they do not possess the courage of a cat to take up arms and go and fight against the enemy. It is easy to stand up and talk there with your hand in your trouser pocket but quite another thing to take up arms and go and fight against the enemy. I think the time has come for the people of South Africa to know what is going on here. If it is a matter of patriotism in their case being as strong as they want to make out, then they must be prepared to make the same sacrifices as the foreign soldiers who walk about the town. When you talk to them they tell you that they get 10s. a week. But what sticks right across my throat, and I think of every citizen, is that when you go to-day to Pretoria and other large towns you find a group of these mighty people with red tabs who go about and try to create the impression that everybody feels as they do, and the poor people of South Africa have to pay for it. I think that the time has come for us to make that kind of thing known to the people. Consequently I have risen to make a protest against any expenditure which the Government wants to incur to glorify the Empire. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) said that the Prime Minister knew the soul of the people of South Africa. I differ from him. I am prepared to agree with him when he says that the Prime Minister should do something to counteract the injustice which is being done to Afrikaners, but I differ entirely from him when he states that the Prime Minister understands the soul of the Afrikaner. He ceased being a Boer general forty years ago and consequently he no longer knows what the feeling of South Africa is. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) spoke as if he was quite in agreement with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer). We have been asking in this House for years for more money for the establishment of factories and we have been opposed by no one more than by hon. members on the other side. To-day, when the people of South Africa are constantly having to be taxed more heavily to put the war of the capitalists through, they have suddenly become the protagonists of the poor man in the Union and they want to pretend that they are so very much concerned about the poor people. It is hypocrisy and nothing else. I think that the people of South Africa have woken up. The people were always asleep and their eyes have opened and the day is not far off when the people of South Africa will no longer allow themselves to be trodden down and will no longer be servants in their own fatherland. The hon. member for Troyeville said that the extra tax on petrol did not affect the poor man. I do not know whether the hon. member knows what he is talking about. Conditions have so developed that the poor man and the middle-class man in the Union have to-day to try to make a living in all kinds of ways, with the result that to-day they are transport riders, while in the old days the Voortrekkers had to use the ox-wagons they are now doing transportation work with, lorries. They have to compete with the motor traffic of the Government. with the result that the extra petrol tax will hit these unfortunate people hard. I cannot understand how the hon. member for Troyeville can say that the extra petrol tax will not affect the poor man. Does he think he is dealing here with a group of people who have no commonsense? I think the time has gone by when the people of South Africa will allow themselves to be led any longer by that kind of thing. We are in favour of factories being established in the Union and for development work in the Union, but we are definitely opposed to a penny extra taxation being imposed on the people of South Africa to see a war through for the British Empire.

I have only got two points which I want to discuss, arising out of the Minister’s supplementary budget proposals, but before going on to those points I want to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit), who apparently has raised a hornet’s nest on the other side of the House, and among the remarks I heard made was one: “Why do you not go?” and then I heard another remark by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop): “Safety first.” I think that these honourable gentlemen are not aware of the fact that my hon. friend, the hon. member for Cape Flats, was one of that gallant band of heroes of South African youths who went through that hell at Delville Wood, and if that is not sufficient to test his courage I do not know what these people want.

Were you there?

And I want to tell them that any man who questions the courage of a man who went through that terrible ordeal at Delville Wood is either a fool or a cad. It may be ignorance, but there is no room for ignorance now that I have told them what happened in the past of my hon. friend’s life, and that should be sufficient to guarantee his courage both in this House and outside. Now, coming back to the Minister’s proposal, I want to compliment him on having prepared additional estimates which are very difficult of criticism either by his friends, or by the Opposition. That is very evident from the poor standard of criticism which has been advanced by hon. members opposite, and I think he is also to be congratulated on having obtained most of the money he wants during this period of the present crisis without inflicting any additional hardships on the shoulders of the poor of this country. On that he is to be complimented, and while some of our friends on the opposite benches are endeavouring to pick out something which they can honestly say bears hardly on the poor, I am very positive that it is impossible for them to do so — not even that additional tax on petrol which seems to be a sore point with some of my friends opposite. It certainly does not weigh heavily with me, because I have very vivid recollections of paying considerably more than that not more than six years ago. Therefore I do not think there is anything to be alarmed about in this additional tax, but if it does tend to make some of our people more thrifty it will be a very good thing. We have people here who run motor cars without being in the financial position to do so. Personally in my own constituency I see young men running about in motor cars when I would much rather see them putting that money aside to build a home for themselves, and obtain a stake in this country which would make them better citizens. Reference was made this afternoon to the Minister’s proposed tax on yeast, and mention was made of telegrams having been received by members of this House as to its effect on master bakers in the Union. I did not receive a telegram, but I was interviewed by a master baker from my constituency, and incidentally I might tell the House that the principal bakers in Port Elizabeth are situated in my constituency. I have five of them, and they have sent with other towns in the Union a deputation to the Minister to make representations in regard to this tax. And I understand from information given to me that the Minister has, I think, unwittingly suggested a tax which is going to have a disastrous effect on the bakery industry in this country. In some cases it is going to reduce the profits almost to vanishing point, and in other cases it is going to wipe profits out entirely and create a loss. I am not going to give any figures — I believe that they were given to the Minister. I understand an offer was made to him to investigate the balance sheets so as to enable him to see what the actual position was in regard to some of these master bakers who are making bread for the people of this country, but I do think that in his attempt to get at the illicit liquor brewers he has erred. I admire his efforts to try and reduce the manufacture of illicit spirit and so on, and I think he might have gone much further than the 1s. he proposes. I think he might have made the tax as far as that side of things is concerned, very much steeper. I do not think 1s. will have the desired effect in regard to restricting these people to any considerable extent. If he made it very much dearer it might have that effect and might possibly drive them off in some other direction to find some substitute for yeast. But I want to warn the Minister that the effect of this tax, if persisted in without any abatement or relaxation may be disastrous to the baking industry in this country, and, sir, the reaction undoubtedly will be that the master bakers will come along and ask for power to increase the price of bread. I, for one, and I think the majority of members will be opposed to any increase in the price of bread, which is already dear enough, in fact it is dearer than it ought to be. I sincerely hope that the Minister of Finance is going to consider very carefully the representations made to him by the deputation of master bakers this morning with regard to the proposed tax upon yeast. One other point, and that is the Minister’s proposal to tax cigarette tobacco 6d. in the £. It is so small that it seems almost not worth considering, when one considers the taxation placed on tobacco in some other countries of the world.

It is 1s. 6d.

This amount seems to be very small indeed. I think the tax in Great Britain is 14s. in the £.

Seventeen shillings.

That is adding the new increase. The Minister is now proposing to tax cigarettes an additional 1s. 6d. I don’t know why he has exempted other forms of smoking tobacco, and I think he should have imposed the same tax upon the pipe and cigar smoker. I do not see why they should get off at the expense of the cigarette smoker. This would not hurt the tobacco growers, and it would not make an atom of reduction in the amount of tobacco consumed in this country, but it would add considerably to the revenue which the Minister can derive from that source. This tax on cigarettes recalls to my mind that not so long ago the manufacturing companies issued coupons with cigarettes in respect of which they gave valuable presents for certain numbers when they were handed in. When the coupon system was done away with, cigarette smokers, rightly or wrongly, were under the impression that they were going to get a reduction in the price, or an additional quantity of cigarettes for the same money to counterbalance the taking away of these prizes, which must have meant a saving of many thousands to the tobacco companies. I don’t think the tobacco companies should get it both going and coming, and I am rather surprised that the Minister did not penalise the tobacco companies on a parity with the consumers of cigarettes. In my opinion—I have no inside information—the tobacco companies could afford to pay something as an off-set against the additional tax which the cigarette smokers are expected to pay. I can assure the Minister that if he did increase the tax as far as the tobacco companies are concerned, and see that it was not passed on to the public, the people would appreciate it, and he would feel that he had done a good job.

After having been fully a year at war it looks as if not only the people do not yet know why we are at war but even the Government itself does not yet know the reason. The Government recently sent its most learned and possibly its most capable Minister, namely, the Minister of Finance, to go and tell the people why we were actually at war now. I refer to the speech which the Minister of Finance made about fourteen days ago at Orange Grove. I have not the time now to enlarge on the four reasons which he gave there but I should possibly remind the House of what he said on that occasion. The first thing for which we were fighting, according to the Minister of Finance, is—

That is the first reason that was given as to why we are participating in the war. The second is this—

I must honestly say that if this second reason were to apply and we voted this sum of £32,000,000 in order to carry on a war to attain these things, then we can quite understand the Government having found it necessary to send its most able Minister to convince South Africa of the reasons why we were at war. It looks as if the Government was engaged in resurrecting a corpse, forming a new League of Nations. The next reason was this—

I need say nothing about this. I said on another occasion that one could only think that the Minister was a good humorist. I thought freedom of thought was already in existence in the Union and now we have to spend such sums of money to obtain it in South Africa. The last reason which the Minister gave was this—

Let me just say this in passing in connection with this last reason. Perhaps the Minister spoke the truth here. But why did he, when he made a speech in this House to ask for the money, come and tell us that we were engaged in defending the Union? Why did he constantly bring in the word defence? And that although he knows that we are not defending but that, at any rate so far as our aeroplanes are concerned, we are engaged in attacking in Abyssinia. He possibly said the right thing that we were engaged in fighting in an attempt to bind ourselves closer to the British Empire in the north. I want to tell him that a large section in South Africa is not satisfied with that. Before I go further I want to say that the whole of my speech deals with the two sums in the budget, namely, the £8,500,000 to be got out of revenue, and the £23,500,000 out of loan funds. The people of South Africa do not approve of the spending of this money because we are plunged into a war and into misery and it is an attempt to bind us more closely to the British Empire. I shall not enlarge any more on this now. It was possibly necessary for the Government to select its most learned and able Minister to go and tell South Africa why we have to spend this money. I was in Durban recently for a few days. I spoke to some English-speaking friends there and I now want to state here what one of them said to me. He said this to me, inter alia—

He added to that—

It is somewhat of a disillusionment to me to hear a remark like that from an English-speaking person in that Imperialistic town, Durban. They do not know what they are fighting for! I am not speaking here of people who live in our circles but who live in the most Imperialistic circles, namely, in Durban. The position therefore is that when it comes to the point of the English-speaking people, or their sons having to go and fight then they inquire what they are fighting for.

The hon. member cannot discuss that matter again. It was disposed of in the debate last week. We cannot now go into the reasons of the war.

No, Mr. Speaker, I am not going into the reasons for the war, but into the misery of the war. I say that the people do not even realise why all these things, that we are talking about, are happening to South Africa. We have to interpret the feelings of the people by these sums of money which are being spent on a war which is not a war of South Africa’s and which is bringing distress on to South Africa. When the English-speaking people are faced by the question that they are now at War and have to go and fight they ask themselves why they are actually fighting? Apart from them I say that the Minister of Finance spoke the truth when he gave his fourth reason. What happens to our troops in North Africa? Who has the military command in his hands in East Africa? General Dickinson! He is an English general and he has the command of the Union troops in his hands. I have noticed that we who want to fight for white civilisation and who want to spend these tremendous sums of money are now in the position that our troops are fighting under an English General and shoulder to shoulder with natives, who are being used in Kenya, and also Indians and Arabs. In other words, we have to go and fight there for civilisation and Christianity along with the heathen, Hindus, Mohammedans and Brahmins. Those are the things for which we have to vote this money. I go still further. The English newspapers on the Rand called our recruits in the north the secret weapon of the British Empire against the Italians. How much then does that concern the defence of South Africa? The English newspapers on the Rand admit that we are being used there to fight on behalf of the British Empire and that our troops are the secret weapon of the British Empire. The Afrikaner people, fortunately, or at any rate a very large part of them, still have a feeling of honour with regard to such things in this time of war. We feel that these tremendous sums of money are being spent to play that kind of role in East Africa, about which I was speaking a moment ago, and our own schemes here have to suffer. As the Minister described it, amounts were being saved there, but those amounts were saved at the expense of the development of South Africa. Money is being wasted to turn our troops into a secret weapon of the British Empire against Italy. Let me say this, that the strongest proof that we are not engaged on the defence of South Africa is this oath which the troops are called upon to take. If we were engaged on the defence of South Africa, then our army could have remained under the Defence Act. The Government is not going to defend South Africa with this money which is now being asked for, but it will use it for troops who will have to take the Africa oath, by which the Government admits it is not engaged in operations within the four corners of the Defence Act, but that it is engaged in spending money, for the sake of England, outside of the boundaries of South Africa. That, moreover, is why the Government says that it is fighting with volunteers. If the Government wanted to act wisely, then it could actually have done something. I do not say that I am now speaking here on behalf of my party. If the Government thought that there were some of our English-speaking fellow-citizens who were still so attached to the British Empire and England that they felt that they had to go and fight for England, then he could have allowed them to go and fight. That is what a wise Government could have done, although I would not like a National Government to have done that. Such English-speaking citizens could then have gone to fight for the British Empire, but at whose expense? It should have been done in the same way as when the Canadians came here to fight during the Boer War. In this connection I would like to quote what Sir Wilfred Laurier said in connection with the Canadian troops who came to fight in South Africa—

And then comes this important part—

I say here in all seriousness that if there were a wise Government in South Africa, persons who sympathised with the British Empire could have gone to fight against Italy, but at the expense of Great Britain, and if we consider the population of South Africa, then that is as far as South Africa could have gone. She could have allowed the English-speaking citizens to go and fight outside our borders in the interests of the British Empire, but then it should have been done at the expense of Great Britain. That happened in the Boer War when 4.000 Canadians came and fought here. They were allowed to come, but they came at the expense of the British Treasury. Then we would not have wasted so many million pounds, causing distress and damage to the Afrikaner people and this hatred and jealousy which was the result of the declaration of war. To-day we have this big expenditure with the distress which it involves, and we have this hatred and envy which is aroused and these reproaches which are going to be made, which the Leader of the Opposition warned the Prime Minister of from the start. He said to him: If you do these things, then you will cause estrangement between English-speaking people and Afrikaners for the next 50 years. Now I say this, if the policy were followed which Canada followed, then that feeling would most certainly not have existed here and we would not have had that misery, and it would also not have been necessary to vote these millions of pounds which are now being wasted. I speak of millions which are being wasted, and I want to give a few examples here of the extravagance which is going on. I learned of these things in Pretoria, and I had them sent down to me. I want to submit a few of them to the House so that we can see how the money is being spent. They are small instances, but it gives us an idea of what is going on there. At the Premier Mine, 30 miles from Pretoria, there is a large military camp. A wheelbarrow got broken there and subsequently Voortrekkerhoogte was telephoned about it. Then a lorry was sent from Pretoria to the Premier Mine to go and fetch the wheelbarrow and to take it back to Voortrekkerhoogte. Then a second wheelbarrow broke at the Premier Mine. Again a lorry was sent to fetch that wheelbarrow. The first wheelbarrow was then repaired and again a lorry was sent from Voortrekkerhoogte to deliver the wheelbarrow. That, notwithstanding that the Voortrekkerhoogte lorry had gone and delivered the repaired wheelbarrow. I mention these things because there are plenty of similar things in Pretoria. Let me give another example. It is ridiculous to think that such a thing could take place. The Premier Mine sent an order for 300 buttons for uniforms. Voortrekkerhoogte sent them by means of a large lorry with two men on it. They went to deliver the buttons, but at the Premier Mine it was discovered that there were only 299 buttons, and what did they do? The lorry with the two men on it went back to Voortrekkerhoogte and the next morning they turned up again at the Premier Mine with the one button in the lorry. There is also such a tremendous administrative staff in Pretoria that they can no longer be housed in the building on the road between Johannesburg and Pretoria. They have requisitioned Impala House in Pretoria as well, and I understand that nearly all communications have to go by telegram. Only a little while ago we had an instance of the wife of a soldier who had to receive £4 and was sent a telegram which would cost 15s. And yet the wife has not yet received the money. The extravagance has become proverbial on the streets of Pretoria, arid they now no longer speak about Impala House and the Defence Department, but they talk about Mompara House and of the Expenses Department. The waste of money is terrific, and you hear how parcels with meat and other food are sent to private people in the town, in that way you get an idea of what is going on there. I am mentioning these things because they happen. Things are so bad that this House ought to appoint a commission to institute an inquiry as to where this money is being wasted. I will now leave the illustrations there. I have a good many of them, but I cannot go any further into this point now.

It is nonsense.

Then why not have an enquiry held? If the hon. member opposite talks about nonsense then I challenge the Government to have these things enquired into. Then we shall also find out what this money is being wasted on. In the meantime enormous burdens are being thrown on the people, and they are hushed up, as I have already said, because the largest part of the expenditure is paid out of loan funds. Out of the £32,000,000, an amount of £23,500,000 is being borrowed. That means that the people do not feel it immediately, but anyhow we cannot borrow without paying interest, and without subsequently having to pay redemption money. The Government is putting a tremendous debt on the people, and hiding the matter by trying to pay it out of loan money. What is the effect of the policy which the Government is following in connection with the war on the life of the people in South Africa? It is a pity that the Prime Minister is not in his place at the moment, but in a private conversation he told me the other night—it is not a secret—“a very ugly spirit was exhibiting itself in South Africa and we must try and stop it. We have to live together again after the war.” We have heard the same thing from other hon. members. Where, however, does the thing come from? I just want to point out a few things that have happened. I recently had to visit a friend at the East Rand. I will not mention the name of the village for a moment. There were two others with me in the motor car. We then drove through part of the East Rand, which was completely new, with brand new streets, and when we went through one of the short streets, we noticed that in that short street alone there were thirteen houses for sale or to let, brand new houses. What is the cause? We also noticed that numberless shops on the Rand were to let. What do the words “To let" mean? I want to tell you about one case which I investigated. It was the house of a young man who lived there a year and a half ago, and who drew a salary of about £40. He had held a good appointment, and could well fulfil his obligations out of his salary. Partly under compulsion he had to join the army, but he was told that half of his salary would still be paid to his wife and child. What, however, did she receive? I went to see her, and she got £10 a month and the husband also sent her £4 or £5 a month out of his military pay. She therefore had £14 or £15 a month. The house was bought on the hire purchase system. The furniture was bought for payment on instalments. They had to find £12 10s. a month for paying instalments, which they could well do out of the salary. But if the wife has to pay £12 10s. out of the £15 she gets how can she and her little child exist? What was the result? She gave the house back, and also the furniture and today she is in a boarding-house and is trying to live while her husband is absent, if he ever does come back. That is the sort of devastation which the war is causing in households, and for that, £46,000,000 of the country’s money has to be paid in one year. That is the effect in our country. What is happening to the farming population? I cannot go too fully into that, but I just want to point out that the wool farmers cannot export their wool except by means of a permit.

The hon. member cannot debate that now.

I do not want to go into details, but only to mention the financial side so far as it is affected by the war. The sale is restricted for the duration of the war, and for a year thereafter.

The hon. member will be able to debate that when the War Measures Bill comes up. On these estimates no provision is being made in connection with the matter.

If you give us the assurance that we can debate it, I will abandon the point. I just want to say that the scheme has the result that the farmers of South Africa are asked specially to contribute to carrying on the war, because the farmers have to do it in the form of 50 per cent. of the price of their wool, which enures to the benefit of the British Treasury. I will go into that later on however. I need not speak at length about what is happening in our streets, about what is happening in Cape Town, East London and Port Elizabeth. The free and honourable citizens, of whatever section of social life they may happen to be members, cannot venture to walk through the main streets of their town at a certain hour of the day without being assaulted. The Prime Minister says that we will have to live together again, but who is the cause of these things happening and of the Afrikaners’ souls’ revolting? Things are done by soldiers in our streets that are so disgusting that I do not want to say much about them. I have in my hand, for instance, one letter in which the state of affairs is described. At 12 o’clock noon prayers are offered up in the streets, and then all the annoyance starts, but the Government remains quiet, like Gallio, and takes no notice of the matter when in the same streets on Sunday night, when there really ought to be silence, soldiers walk down the street singing “Tipperary” loudly, so that it reverberates through Cape Town. I have a letter from an officer in the defence force who writes—

When an officer writes in that way about things that are going on. then it is unnecessary to say anything further. Perhaps he was thinking about the action of the soldiers at the Pretoria University, which in consequence thereof had to close before the end of the term. Perhaps he also thought of the happenings at Potchefstroom, when the students, during their singing practice were attacked and beaten, when furniture was broken to bits, and buildings stormed, when even the Bible was not sacred to the soldiers, because even the Bible there was torn into tatters by the khakies. When soldiers act in that way do you still expect respect for our own troops? Do you expect respect on the part of the Afrikaners for the uniform which the soldiers are wearing? I was myself driving through one of our streets with a friend when there were troops marching down. They were marching in companies with intervals between. They turned out before us and I thought that I could drive through the opening. There were quite a number of other motor-cars behind me. When I wanted to proceed I was threatened and told that they would put a bullet through me if I did not wait. Those are the things that are going on, and which make for so much bad blood. It really looks as if the Phillistines had been let loose amongst the people of South Africa. What happened at Baviaanspoort? Things happened there which are a blot on the good name of South Africa. On a Sunday the authorities went there and said that two of the German internees would be taken out of the camp and locked up in a different place. No reason was given. The other Germans said that they would not allow two of their companions to be put into gaol if they did not know the reason why. The next morning 950 police were sent there.

That is untrue.

I am saying it. The Minister can speak later on, and if he denies the things that I am saying here then he must not leave it at a denial, but then we demand an enquiry by a judicial commission. I may be a little wrong on some subordinate point or other, but taken as a whole, what I will communicate is the truth. At the back of the police force machine guns were put up. Another section stood with fixed bayonets and another section with pick-axes and sticks and batons. They rushed in at 6 o’clock in the morning, or even earlier, while some of the internees were still lying in bed. The alarm was suddenly given, and the internees came out, as many of them as could; others were beaten to the ground, and they were injured so much that about 80 had to be removed to the hospital. Thirty had to have their wounds stitched up by the doctor. I was informed that some of those who were carried on the beds, were knocked out of the beds a second time and kicked while they were lving unconscious. But what is more the attackers went through the drawers and took everything they could get hold of. Watches, etc., were stolen, and I believe that private property up to an amount of £1.250 was stolen. The Minister may laugh, but we demand an official enquiry. Will the Minister who is laughins like that deny that even a minister of religion, a certain Brunner, while he was on his knees before the morning service, was knocked head over heels? He is not even a German subject,. but a Swiss subject. They had no respect for anything. It is a scandal the way in which the police behaved, just like barbarians. If it amounts to that — I cannot do it here now — I am prepared to give more information which I have at my disposal. But then I expect a judicial commission to be appointed. These are all the consequences of the foolish war policy for which we are asked to vote money. I put certain questions on the Order Paper to find out how many people in the police service, and in the defence force and the public service, as well as the railway service, have been transferred or discharged owing to their political convictions. All the Ministers evaded the questions, and they said that no one had been victimised. South Africa knows, and those thousands of people know that victimisation has gone on on a large scale. Questions have been asked by me about the sudden transfer of one person, for instance, who had been for 9½ years in the service at a certain village in my constituency. I asked whether his transfer meant promotion, but the answer was: “No.” Then I asked whether there was any complaint against the man in connection with his work, and again the answer was in the negative. But suddenly, in the middle of the year, he was transferred, after he had been working for 9½ years in the village. His eldest boy was half way through his matriculation course, but he was transferred and his family had to manage as best they could. There was no complaint about his work, and he was transferred in spite of the fact that he noted an appeal. Why was a man from De Aar, who had been in the service for twenty years, recently victimised by making him do work which was below his grade, seeing that there was no complaint against him? Why is a man who has been ten years in the railway service and who still had five months to serve before going on pension — two months of which would be passed on leave — suddenly transferred on 24 hours notice from De Aar to the South Coast of Natal? Three months before he went on pension he was transferred. Dozens of cases have come under my notice. The Government is guilty of persecution right through the public service and the police force and in the defence force. I can give names of persons who were discharged from the defence force because they would not take the imperialistic oath. When one puts questions on the Order Paper they are evaded. The Prime Minister says that we will have to live together again, but I tell him that the Government has released forces here, spiritual forces, which it can no longer control. There is jealousy right through the public service and the police force and the railway service, and knights of truth are being used to make complaints when there is a man who would like to have another man’s position. I am prepared to submit specific cases, provided that a proper enquiry is made. There is a tremendous separation between Afrikaans-speaking people and English-speaking people, and also a separation between the Jewish population and the Afrikaner population. I do not know how it will ever be put right again. Take, for instance, the case of Louis Wiesner, who was thrown into the streets while the Jew Egan was re-employed by the broadcasting station. Take the case of the Jew Berman who took the lead in Cape Town to banish the music of Wagner. In their hatred of everything that is German they are losing their heads. I do not want to say much more, but owing to the war spirit, by acting like that, you have upset everybody in South Africa. The farmers in the Karoo had to hand in their rifles, and could not any longer shoot long-eared jackals and cranes which were ruining their wheat. I end by saying what is stated in this book, a prophecy. The writer says that if you attack the nationality of a people it means that you are destroying the Empire. The Prime Minister and his satellites are busy treating the Afrikaners’ national sentiments contemptuously by the war spirit, in order to try and make slaves of the Afrikaners, to try and bind them to the war chariot as the Romans formerly used to do with their prisoners. But instead of destroying the national pride of the Afrikaner by compelling South Africans to take part in the war, we notice all over South Africa a tremendous enthusiasm is arising to get away from the British Empire. Never before was the feeling so strong. The Government is afraid to allow the truth to be told to the people. I myself had the privilege of addressing 8,000 people at Germiston with the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and Germiston (North) (Mr. Quinlan), and the next day there was not a single word in the Rand Daily Mail about it. The hon. members for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) and Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) addressed 10,000 to 15,000 people at Linden, and there was not a word of it reported in the English Press. They do not want to let the English-speaking people in South Africa know the indignation existing among the Afrikaner people. The Minister of Justice is unfortunately not in his place. But what happens when he holds meetings? He did me the honour of addressing two meetings in my constituency, one at Zeerust and one at Marico, and Reuter broadcast that the Minister had received two motions of confidence. How many people were present. Precisely 42 at Zeerust and 46 at Marico. [Time limit.]

I know the hon. member for Marico (Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) could have dealt with the matter that he spoke on to-night from a larger and broader point of view instead of bringing up all the trivialities which he mentioned. I do not know why he did it. But may I mention a few things which I feel are to a great extent being over-looked? In the first place the hon. member for Marico did not debate the point that when we are conducting a war, we must inevitably spend money if we attach any value to our freedom.

Money for the defence of the Union, yes.

That is not the question at the moment. We had in any case to spend money in connection with our defence. If, since the last world war, we had annually spent the necessary amount, then it would not have been necessary for us to find such a large amount now. It is so much the more necessary for a small country with a small population to earmark an amount every year for its defence, in order to train and to teach discipline to the small force which we can put on foot. But it cannot be doubted that in consequence of our membership of the League of Nations, we possessed such an amount of protection that we did not consider it necessary to spend large sums on our defence. That side of the matter is not dealt with by hon. members opposite, but they merely want to give the public the impression that money is being uselessly spent now. But there is hardly a country in the world to-day, even if such a country is not in the war, which does not spend just as much as we do or more. The question of the money which is being spent ought not to count so much as the question as to what benefit we will have from it, and the question as to why we are in the war. If I feel convinced that I had gone to war because it was right to do so, and because it was for the benefit of the country, and to some extent because I took part in principle and in consequence of promises which the country had made, then I cannot make any objection if money is required to-day for that purpose.

What promises?

I am coming to that. I can quite agree that hon. members opposite have their reasons for their attitude, but I cannot understand how they can refuse to vote the money which we require to defend ourselves in this war. There are different ways to defeat an enemy. You can defeat him on the battlefield by shooting him, and by diminishing his forces, until you get the upper hand. Another way is to weaken an enemy by an economic war, a blockade. That also requires money. Then there is yet another way of waging war, for which possibly no money is required, and that is if you support and encourage a spirit of defeatism. If you succeed in wakening such a spirit in your enemy, you can defeat him in that way to. If hon. members opposite do that, then they are ranging themselves on the side of the enemy, Germany. That is one of the ways to suffer a defeat. We shall, after the war, once more have to live together in this country, and that action necessarily causes a feeling about which we may yet have regrets. Now I want to remind hon. members of the fact that they sat for years and years on the Government side, and voted money for Simonstown, to defend Simonstown if a war should come.

The hon. member is again entering into a debate about a matter which has been disposed of in the past. The hon. member cannot debate reasons why the war is being waged.

Money is again being voted now for the defence of Simonstown, because the defence of Simonstown in time of war is not restricted to the naval station itself. To protect that station we may possibly have to go far to the North to carry out our defence there.

The matter was disposed of on the main estimates. We can now only debate increases which appear on the additional estimates.

I must accept your ruling, but I want to point out that more money is now necessary for the defence of Simonstown. To defend Simonstown properly, it may be necessary to dircet our defence far to the North, in order to prevent the enemy approaching near to Simonstown with aeroplanes, sea planes for instance. Now my argument is that hon. members on the other side voted the money all those years for the defence of Simonstown.

That matter was agreed to in principle on the main estimates. We cannot debate the principle, but only deal with the increase in the expenditure on the original budget.

My argument is that the Minister is now coming and asking for more money because Italy is in the war, and it has become necessary to place our defence on a broader basis. France has been defeated, and that also makes it necessary to extend our defences. Seeing that hon. members have voted the money all these years, why do they now object when we spend money to defend the country properly? Their argument is not that the country cannot bear the expense, their argument is not, in the main, that the cost is too high, their argument is not that it is possibly causing unnecessary friction between the two sections of the population, but their great objection is a different one. They do not want to provide the money because they wish Germany to win the war. That is, in reality, what is behind the matter, and now I ask hon. members over there whether we can go into the future with confidence if hon. members, in connection with this war, give the English-speaking people on the other side a slap in the face, and so deeply wound their sentiments? Can we be surprised that people outside of our country would in that case say that you cannot trust the Afrikaner? A little while ago they even said that if anyone wanted to come to take South-West Africa then we would defend it.

The hon. member is off the rails once more.

It seems to me that I shall have to wait for another opportunity, because I have prepared my ideas on those lines.

In two days time this country will have been at war for a year, and such is the condition in which we find ourselves that under the Constitution members of the Opposition are able to speak here and to do everything possible to undermine the position the Government has taken up in connection with the war. That is the greatest tribute to the Constitution under which we are working in this country. And that Constitution drafted as it was by South Africans for South Africans makes it hardly to be wondered at that there is on the other side of the House a difference of opinion as to whether the Constitution should be changed in favour of another system of government.

Have you joined up yet?

The position, however, is such that members on that side of the House do not seem to realise the fortunate position in which we find ourselves to-day.

You do not know how lucky you are.

They do not realise first of all the fortunate position in which they are, as a result of the protection of the British Navy.

God save the King.

Which, during the past twelve months, has safeguarded these ports from enemy attacks.

Under what item is the hon. member addressing the House?

I am coming to that point.

Well, get a move on.

The second point is this, that we are to-day able to spend no less than £46,000,000 on the prosecution of the war without it in any way handicapping the economic expansion of this country.

While the poor are starving.

That position is due to two things, or rather I would like to persuade myself that it is due to two things.

Cannot you persuade yourself to sit down.

It is due first of all to the fact that we abandoned the gold standard in 1933. Then also I want to persuade myself that it is due to the fact that for a period of eight years there has been co-operation between the vast bulk of the people of this country.

Have you also been co-operating?

The hon. member must remember that we are dealing with Additional Estimates, and he must confine himself to the items on these estimates.

So try again.

Am I allowed to enlarge upon the facts that the economic system under which we are working is by itself the system which enables the country under these conditions to spend £46,000.000 on defence during this year?

I am afraid the hon. member cannot discuss the economic conditions. The main estimates were the occasion for these matters to be discussed. He must now confine his remarks to the items on the estimates before the House now.

Try to persuade yourself to sit down.

The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) in the course of an address said that countries which measured their wealth in gold were retrogressing and the countries which did not have gold were going to win the war. Will you, Mr. Speaker, allow me to enlarge on that?

I am afraid not. The hon. member must defer that till the next main estimates come on.

Then I am afraid I shall have to confine myself to a few points that were made by the Opposition. One or two hon. members on that side drew attention to the increase in the price of petrol consequent on the increased import duty. I should like to point out in connection with that that in 1935, under absolutely normal conditions, the Government took in duty and railage from petrol no less than 1s.1½d., which was reduced in 1936 by 4d.. so that to-day with the increased price of 3d. the public is still a penny better off than it was in 1935. To-day even with the imposition of this 3d. the public is better off than it was in the piping times of peace in 1935. So that I do not think a very serious criticism can be levelled at this impost. I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that the vast bulk of the people of this country are entirely satisfied with the budget. I claim that we on this side represent no less than 70 per cent. of the population of South Africa. [Interruptions.] Hon. members question that figure but it can very easily be proved. Not less than 45 per cent, of the people of this country— and that is a conservative figure — are English-speaking, and I think we can claim to represent no less than 100 per cent of the English-speaking people. Of the balance of 55 per cent of Afrikaans-speaking people we represent not less than 45 per cent. I think there is no doubt that is the correct reflection of the position based on the election results which have taken place since this Government came into office. That makes a total of 70 per cent. While that large majority of the population is quite prepared to bear the burden, I think it is entitled to demand that the Government should take steps to see that whatever money is spent for the purposes of this war is spent in such a manner as to avoid wastage. In Great Britain the position is met by a committee which is known as the Parliamentary Committee on War Expenditure, and that has been appointed notwithstanding the fact that Parliament continues to sit almost throughout the year. I think it might be a good thing if more frequent sessions could take place in this country. But that would involve moving Parliament to Pretoria. I as a Pretorian would very much welcome a move of that kind. It would redound to the efficiency of Parliament and to reduction of public expenditure. As that cannot be done I would bring to the notice of the Minister the advisability during the recess of appointing a committee which could scrutinise war expenditure and obviate wastage as much as possible. Another thing which the Minister should take into consideration is that the Government should undertake to compensate persons who have been injured by acts of sabotage, dynamite outrages and violence of that character.

Like Potchefstroom.

Acts which can reasonably be attributed to opposition to the war. I think that type of injury to individuals is hardily distinguishable from the injury which is done by the enemies of the state. Most countries compensate their citizens for damage done by enemies of the state and that is a thing which our citizens could reasonably expect of the Government. With regard to the burden on the gold mining industry I consider it is fairly imposed, but I feel that the industry should be called upon during the ensuing year to mine a slightly better grade of ore. The higher grade might be very slight but its effect would be to enable the industry to bear the increased taxation and at the same time not reduce the dividends paid to shareholders who already are called upon to bear increased taxation as ordinary income tax-payers. If the possibility which hon. members on the opposite side appear to envisage should be realised — I mean if the Germans win the war — according to the hon. member for Gezina gold would lose its value, this country would at once collapse and there would be nothing for us to look forward to except looking after sheep and growing a few mealies.

What item is the hon. member discussing now?

I am coming back to the idea of the gold mining industry being called on in these critical days to mine a slightly better grade of ore, which seems to me economically a sound thing to do.

When the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) spoke here to-night he was, in my opinion, completely off the rails, and if he had rather gone to the City Hall to address the meeting there then it would have had more advantage for him. He, however, said something here of which I want to take a little notice, and that was that he had more respect for the coloured man who was willing to join up than for a “spurious Nationalist.” We know now where we must place the hon. member for Cape Flats, not amongst the Europeans, but amongst the coloured people, where he belongs. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Johnson) wanted to tell us about the bravery of that hon. member, because he fought in Delville Wood. He apparently left all his courage in Delville Wood, and that is why he is now remaining on the home front. We do not find him in North Africa. If we had protested against this war with all the seriousness of our being a year ago, a war which we at that time characterised as unnecessary, unreasonable and a foolish war so far as South Africa was concerned, then I think that we have so much the more reason to-day to protest with still more seriousness against the continuation of this reckless war.

The hon. member cannot go into that matter again now.

I would like to point out the waste which it involves. We are putting £46.000,000 on to the shoulders of the taxpayers of South Africa. The Minister of Finance is a fluent speaker, and he can carry people away with his magnificent language. He told us that it was a little more than £5,000,000 with which he was taxing the people, but he did not also add what was being obtained from Loan Fund. Interest has to be paid on that, and the burden of that debt remains on the shoulders of the small population of South Africa. Our posterity will for a long term of years continue to go bent under that enormous weight of taxation. I do not see how we, with this small population, can ever think of redeeming that debt. He tried to comfort us by saying that so many industries would spring up in the country. We are prepared to agree with that. During every war industries spring up. That has also happened in South Africa, but if the Minister of Finance had kept out of this war, and he only used £10,000,000 out of the £46,000,000 to encourage industries, then just like America we could have provided other countries so far as their requirements were concerned, and we could have used the money received from them for the use of the population of our country. More than one speaker on the opposite side enlarged on the petrol tanks. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell), in regard to the speech of the Minister of Commerce and Industries, said that it might possibly put an end to the joy rides. The hon. member for Kensington lives in Johannesburg, and is surrounded by all the pleasure resorts. He can hold a few meetings in his constituency and has then reached all his constituents, and he can go on foot from one meeting to the other. But the man on the countryside does not have the privileges and opportunities that the hon. member has, and there they will very really feel that that petrol tax presses heavily on the public. It does not only affect people who take joy rides and commercial travellers. The farmer is very hard hit by this tax on all his transport to the central points where his produce has to be delivered. There are transport riders who carry that produce for him, if he does not do it himself. Those people live from that occupation, and they are obliged to put up the transportation charges on grain and wine, so that this tax ultimately falls on the farmer. The hon. member for Kensington said that we on this side will not have to pay a large part of the tax, and that hon. members opposite would be the ones who would carry the taxation. He and his constituents have enriched themselves over and over again out of the gold mines, and they are increasing their wealth every year by thousands. They will pay, but they will not, by a long way, pay what they ought to. The gold mines have been so fairly treated by the Minister of Finance that even the English newspapers, which speak on behalf of hon. members opposite, tell us that the gold mines do not come too badly out of it, and that this taxation will not make much difference to their dividends. That is a striking proof that the Minister of Finance has not made the gold mines pay their legitimate share of the taxation. Then there is another objection to these taxation proposals of the Minister of Finance. He has increased the import duty of 48s. a gallon on whisky by 7s. 6d., so that to-day it is 52s. 6d. a gallon, while our brandy in England has to pay 72s. 6d. a gallon. In addition to that, an additional duty of 2s. 6d. per gallon has to be paid on the inland article, on our own brandy. Here now the Minister had an opportunity to effectuate a kind of protection for South African brandy, by levelling up the duty on whisky closer to the duty which is paid on our brandy in England. On the contrary, he taxes the local produce, and the poor wine farmer has once more to pay taxation in the form of additional Excise. I also want to prophesy here that that 2s. 6d. will not be taken off again, because owing to the terrible accumulation of the war debt there will, in the future, be no opportunity of taking that 2s. 6d. off again. We have now spoken of the material debts which have been incurred by the country. Let us now look at the moral damage which this war will bring to us. I notice on the other side a large number of members who are all brave and who have joined up with the forces, but they remain on the home front.

I do not think that the hon. member should speak about that now.

But their pay comes out of this £46,000,000 which we are now voting.

That is a matter which has already been debated — during the discussion on the Main Estimates.

It may possibly be just that amount which has fallen short. But I merely wanted to say that we can sing them the little melody “Sleep Peacefully. Brave Heroes”. Reference has been made to the divisions which have come between the two races in the country, and more than one has said that the clock has been nut back for 50 or 100 years. The divisions are sharp. The line has been drawn very sharp between the two races — it is all owing to the war conditions that exist. We see what is going on in our services, and it is becoming worse, although the Minister gave a negative reply on the question whether people were being intimidated and victimised. There are nevertheless hundreds of cases of that. They are probably badly informed by the head officials who drafted the replies to those questions. It still happens to-day and those who refuse to wear the red tabs have no hope of promotion, and if there is the least opportunity then they are discharged on false pretences. That forces those people subsequently into having to lower themselves by telling lies in order to assure food for their families. It is a scandalous thing that our people should be forced against their wishes to do things which they cannot do according to their consciences, and then we find people on the opposite side, some of the foreign people who have blown over here, such as the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell), who wants to come and dictate to us what should be done and what not. Those are people who did not assist in making this country what it is. Which of them dare venture to ask the Afrikaner to go and sacrifice himself on the war altar in this war? They dare not do it, and we may not do it, if we want to be true to ourselves. Bravery? The bravery appears every day on the street here, bravery in persecuting other people who are not able to protect themselves, and who do not receive the protection of the Government that they ought to get. Those people are brave at fighting with women and children on the streets, whom they want to compel to pray and to be hypocritical. The people who stand there do not stand to pray. All those things contribute to make the Afrikaner people more sure of their objective and more determined. And as the hon. member for Marico (the Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) said, they are nails in the coffin of England, so far as South Africa is concerned. I say that the moral and intellectual damage which the people of South Africa suffered is incalculably more than that £46.000,000 which the Minister of Finance is now asking us to vote for this senseless business.

There is no one in this House for whom I have a greater respect, and who has forced greater admiration to be given by me from my experience of him, than the late Minister of Finance. If there is one man in this House who, in my opinion, tried to do his duty conscientiously to the House on every occasion, then it undoubtedly was the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga).

At 10.55 o’clock p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 3rd September.