It is represented by hon. members opposite that it is the rich man who pays these increased taxes. I would like to know from the Minister of Finance, and I want to put the question why the super income tax has not also been increased, but only the ordinary income tax. This shows that it is not the rich who are paying this increased taxation but the poor man and the middle-class man. Take for instance the increase in the letter postage, an increase of 50 per cent. of this burden. That also applies to the poor man. I want in addition to point out that the increase only affects inland letters and not overseas letters. That once more shows the glimmering through of the Imperialistic tendency of the Government. The increase does not apply to stamps for London and Europe, but does apply to the interior. When I look at these large sums of money which we have to vote—£32,000,000—then I am astonished at the speech which the Prime Minister made on the 20th May when, according to the report in Die Volkstem, he said the following—

The Prime Minister does not mind where he goes to fight Germany—therefore even if it is overseas he wants to go and fight Germany. And that is why we have to vote these large sums of money. Can no saving be effected? Yes, there can. Where? I notice that red tab on the uniforms. How much money is spent on them and why must that tab be there? It reminds us of the redcoats and “Rooineks.” If you think that that red tab should be there and we have to pay taxes for it then it certainly means that we must pay £1,000 for this red tab which is unnecessary and which is an apple of discord in our Defence Force and in our police, then I deplore the fact that we have to vote that money to create that apple of discord in the Defence Force. A person who quite possibly has the hardest time in this House and who must feel sorest about these estimates and the waste of money is doubtless the previous Minister of Finance. He taught us to be economical in many respects and he sometimes gave us a bad time by thrift. But that Minister of Finance is now wasting our money right up to England.

The hon. member who has just spoken has made statements which are wholly inaccurate, as I am sure he will be the first to admit when he knows the facts. He stated in the last two or three sentences that the super taxpayers are not going to pay this additional tax. May I ask the hon. member to turn up the relevant resolutions, and he will find that there is definite provision made for the extra 20 per cent. to be paid by the super taxpayers as well as by the normal taxpayers. It is a pity that these incorrect statements are made by responsible members of the House, who after all should know better, and should not give the impression that they lack knowledge of the true position. I am sorry that the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) is not in his place this morning, because I wish to deal with his criticisms of the budget, and also to deal with certain aspects of this war expenditure which has necessitated the Minister of Finance coming to the House to ask for this very large increase. I do not in any way wish to belittle the services which the hon. member for Fauresmith rendered to the country when he was Minister of Finance. But I could not help feeling slightly amused when he started to lecture the Minister on political economy, and referred to certain principles which the Minister of Finance is following. I could not help thinking of several occasions when the hon. member for Fauresmith was in charge of the Treasury, when he departed from the very sound maxims and canons of taxation which have been laid down by the authorities he quoted. The hon. member stated that he was not prepared to protest very strongly against the manner in which the burden is divided. I could not help feeling, when he was speaking, that he must have been haunted by memories of the past, or shall I say ghosts of the past, when he remembered how he distributed the burden of taxation in this country during the previous crisis. He stated that the main principle was not to raise the cost of living, not to cause economic dislocation, and to avoid inflation, all of which he agreed was very sound. He then went on to say that the burden of taxation should be placed on the shoulders of those best able to bear it, and should be reasonably divided among the different sections of the population and equilibrium maintained. Then he tried to show that the Minister has not achieved that object. Before going on to discuss that matter, may I remind him of other maxims of taxation which possibly he has forgotten. One of those maxims is that every tax ought to be so compiled as to take out of the pockets of the people as little as possible, over and above what is needed for the service of the country, and may I also remind the hon. member for Fauresmith that he holds the record in this and most other countries for the surpluses, the extra amounts he has taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers during the last fifteen years. There is this other maxim, that every section of the population should be taxed in proportion to its ability, having regard to the income the individuals enjoy, and in dealing with this present taxation, I would ask the House to say fairly whether that canon has not been maintained. One other maxim which might be applied to this country, and which I would recommend to the serious attention of hon. members opposite, is that in view of the vital importance of gold mining in this country, the Government must be very careful to do nothing to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. When the hon. member was referring to specific items of taxation, he mentioned customs, the taxation on tobacco, petrol, postage and internal revenue. Now I want to remind the House of what the hon. member for Fauresmith did in that famous year 1931, when he tried to preserve the sound canons of finance by still remaining on the gold standard. When he came to this House at the special session in 1931, he was forced to impose a primage tax on all customs duties in the country of 5 per cent., irrespective of whether the articles were necessaries of life or not. In the following year in March, 1932, he came and asked the House to impose an additional surtax on customs duties of 7 1/2 per cent., an additional duty on whisky of 2s. 6d. per gallon, on rice 1s. per 100 lbs. and on tea 1½d. a lb. In May, 1933, he also imposed a duty on cigarettes of 1½d. per 2 oz. Several of these items are included in the taxation which the present Minister has now introduced, and which have been attacked by the hon. member for Fauresmith as not being in the true interests of the country, and against the sound canons of taxation. One felt, when he was making his criticism, that he really was forced to support the Budget as a whole, and was looking for some matters on which to attack the Minister. One reference which I thought was particularly unfair was when he gibed at the Minister for saying that the Government, during the last twelve months was developing to an enormous extent the industries of the country. He charged the Minister with claiming credit for that, which he said was rather extraordinary in view of the bitterly hostile way in which the Minister had opposed the establishment of the iron and steel industry. I happen to be one of those who did not oppose the iron and steel industry, I am one of those who strongly supported it. I was not in Parliament at the time. The hon. Minister of Finance at that time was also not in Parliament, and not only did he not oppose the establishment of the iron and steel industry, he never publicly expressed any opinion on it, because he was then Administrator of the Transvaal. I have a very vivid recollection of the elections when he gave up his office as Administrator, and when the members of the Nationalist Party, as they were then, were doing their level best to persuade the hon. Minister to join their party. But I do want to ask the House not to persist in delving into the past, and throwing across the floor reminders of what happened ten or fifteen years ago. After all, we all make mistakes, and let me say that I think the opposition to the establishment of that industry was a mistake.

You should not claim all the credit for it.

I claim no credit. I am asking hon. members whether they have nothing with which to reproach themselves, have they nothing to regret in the past? May I remind hon. members of the action they took in supporting the maintenance of the gold standard. We all make mistakes, but the difference is this, that when we urged that that mistake over the gold standard should be rectified, hon. members over there blankly refused to do it. When they were asked to save the enormous burden that was being placed on this country, not only did members opposite refuse, but the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), backed up by the hon. member for Fauresmith and the rest of the party, said that not only would they refuse to abandon the gold standard, but if that was done at all, it would be done under the leadership of the present Prime Minister, and also that if it were done, South Africa would live to curse the evil-doer that had brought such injury and ruin to the country. The hon. member for Smithfield said he would resign, but did not do so. I want to point out that this section of the House did more than any other to restore the financial stability of this country by giving the hon. member for Fauresmith that support which was so urgently needed in 1933. The South African Party supported him because it was not in the best interests of the country to challenge the position of the Government. I want to say, let us have a little less of the gibing that one particular heaven-born financial genius has been accustomed to indulge in. I say the present financial stability of this country is as much due to the support given by the members of the old South African Party, who have stood fast against the breaking down of the sound financial structure on which this country has been built during the past 30 years, as to anything else. One of the astonishing things about the present situation is that in spite of the huge expenditure called for in this budget, very little criticism has been directed to the expenditure necessary for carrying on the efficient prosecution of the war. Whether that is due to the fact that hon. members opposite are not interested in seeing that the requirements of the country are properly filled, but I feel it is necessary to give the House some indication of what has been done and what is still required for the efficient carrying on of the war as far as South Africa is concerned. Articles have appeared in the papers showing the enormous amount of development work that has taken place, particularly on what I may call the technical side. I cannot to-day, because it would take far too long, go into the details of this development in our factories, engineering works and workshops generally throughout the country, but I do want to give the House some information on a side of the problem which has not been referred to so far. That is what I may call the commissariat side of the army, which is of vital importance, because on the proper supplies of adequate food depends the efficiency and the health of the army, and consequently in the long run, the efficient prosecution of the war. During the last two or three months our boots and clothing factories have been developed, but they are not to-day working up to their full capacity. If need be, their work can be very considerably extended so as to supply the entire needs of our army. On the basis of an army of 70,000 to 80,000 men I want to tell the House what supplies are necessary and what provision has been made to provide for such a force. Reference was made to the fact that it had been stated Britain could not win the war because she had only about 50,000,000 people against Germany’s 80,000,000 to 100,000,000. That argument was very absurd, because what is always forgotten is that we have practically the whole manpower of the British Empire, a population of roughly 500,000,000 to call on to help in the prosecution of the war. Hon. members opposite, in spite of their hostility to the war measures, are going to help, or at least their constituents are going to help, because it is a fact that our requirements in the way of preserved foods for the army and the bulk of the supplies, are going to be drawn from districts which are represented by hon. members opposite. Take the question of army biscuits. To supply an army of 70,000 to 80,000 men you require roughly two and a half times the total annual production in the country. It might be said that such a task is almost insuperable, but thanks to the support received from officials in Government departments, the Department of Agriculture and Forestry, provision has been made to supply the quantity required within twelve months. We had to obtain extra flour because the stocks in the country were not sufficient during the last few months for our internal requirements. That has been overcome without in any way prejudicing the farmers in this country. Then there is another side, the question of milk powder. There again we have been able to obtain the supplies required, but at the expense of supplying for bread-making purposes. I would ask persons who have made complaints to remember that the producers of milk powder are now supplying for army purposes. And that is only one side of the question. When you are dealing with foods you have to pack them and it may be thought an easy matter to pack these biscuits and secure the necessary wood. I may say that provision has been made to obtain the necessary tinplate to pack not only biscuits but other army food as well, and the Forestry Department has co-operated in supplying from the various forests in the Union the necessary wooden shooks to pack the different kinds of food. But that is only one side of the picture. There is another which affects this part, the Western Province particularly, and that is the provision which is required to preserve vegetables, canned fruits, jams and other items. There are certain items which have hardly ever been manufactured in this country, vegetables and other items. All these items are required for our forces when they go into the field, and in this respect too we have been able to obtain the assistance of the official body, the Canners Association. They are making plans so that should the necessity arise we shall be able to obtain in South Africa all our requirements with few exceptions such as canned meats for that force which I have indicated. We are out to see that as far as possible the whole of the requirements of our armies in preserved foods shall be manufactured in South Africa. We have ample stocks of certain items such as jams and canned fruits. Our supplies of vegetables and sweet corn and other matters for the time being are somewhat limited, but already I may say that arrangements are being made with the farmers in the different sections, and particularly in this area in the Cape, to grow the different vegetables required, and to see that the extra meat is obtained, meat which for the quantity which we want will run into some 20,000 head of cattle; and we are seeing to it that these will be on hand, and we are building up adequate stocks so that we shall be perfectly safe.

Is that meat factory working?

The meat and vegetable factory will be operating almost at once; it is a question, of course, of getting vegetables etc., but we know that we will soon be in full operation. In addition, every bit of corned beef has had to be imported so far. There is a small factory in Rhodesia which has been supplying roughly 30.000 cases per year. Their production can be considerably increased, but in view of the difficulties which are arising, of obtaining our supplies even from the Argentine which is at present the biggest supplier, investigations are being made with a view to establishing a canning factory for corned beef in this country. Investigations are being made and we know that it may not at present be strictly sound, and economic from the point of view that if you could get the necessary supplies, it might be cheaper to import, but we feel that this matter is of such vital importance that we should have such a factory in this country to create these food preserves which are needed, that it is worth spending something more than one would do from a probable business point of view, to see that this factory is established to create an industry which we hope will be effective afterwards. I may say that in this matter a committee is being established under the Department of Agriculture with experts in the different sections, and the whole matter will be reviewed to see in what way the industry can be established.

Will this be departmental?

That I would not say at the moment — it is still a matter for investigation, but I would say that in all these matters it is the experts of the Department who are dealing with the position. That not only applies to canned meat but also to fish. This country so far has depended very largely for its fish exports on its crawfish. But during the last month or two we have had experimental packs put up of canned snoek in different forms and shapes, and it has been found to be extraordinarily palatable. Although it is too late now to get any extensive quantity, it is hoped next year that a very large pack will be provided of that particular fish. Already packs are being put up and when the mackerel come in they will also be packed because it is hoped that if we can get established now a taste for these food packs, if they are palatable, and the troops like them, there is every prospect of establishing on that side too an industry which will last after the war. I may also say from the point of view of citrus that we are to-day taking all the concentrated orange juice we can get. Next year we hope that we shall have to make provision for four or five times the present maximum output of these last few months. Already steps are taken to do that, and I do not anticipate any difficulty in that respect with the help of the Citrus Board. I am not going any further into it, because my time is fairly limited, I have just tried to give a few facts on the question of food production, but I would like to remind the House that you have throughout this country a body of men from every section, comprising every industry, whether it is commercial or technical, whether it is on the agricultural side or any other side — you have people who go out wholeheartedly, practically all of them without reward — despite the remarks made by members opposite — to give their time, their knowledge and experience, to obtain what is necessary for the needs of the army, and to see that only the best is obtained and to watch most carefully the financial side of everything. I want to say that the Government has set up a Cabinet, Committee which scrutinises most carefully whatever is spent on these matters. All of us who have been working on this matter have always had that one point of view before them, that first of all we must see that you have your quality and your quantity, that the price and that the control is good, and that no one shall be permitted to make fortunes out of the war, and out of the misery of war, and to build up something which we hope is going to be to the ultimate benefit of the country.

We have before us here a war budget as well as a War Minister of Finance. With his self-consciousness of his own greatness, the attitude which he takes up, he makes me think of a bantam cock which really believes that if he does not crow first in the morning the sun will not rise.

The hon. member must keep to the Bill.

We have to deal with a budget which encroaches deeply upon the national life. Unjust burdens are being laid which shout right into the souls of the people, all for the sake of Great Britain’s war. Here millions are being asked for, to see the war through. It is a gigantic amount which is asked for for such a small country as South Africa. We hear from the propaganda that they are fighting until the final victory. We must stand behind general “Final Victory.” We hear that from Daventry, from Churchill, from the Prime Minister, and also from the Minister of Finance. We must sacrifice millions for “final victory.”

Just notice how he imitates Hitler. He is also referring now to the “generals.”

I understand that the propaganda slogan in England is even being imitated now by the parrots just as the hon. member for Kimberley. District (Mr. Steytler) re-echoes the Prime Minister. Here we are being asked to vote a gigantic amount, not for the salvation of South Africa but for its ruin. In other words, we are asked to vote £32,000,000 to destroy ourselves. Why do I say this? Because the salvation of England cannot be won with £32,000,000 but only if a supernatural miracle occurs. Bernard Shaw said that only a supernatural miracle could save Great Britain but he also asked whether Great Britain dare in fact make a claim on a supernatural miracle. I say the same. I also ask whether Great Britain can make claim on a miracle in view of its history of blood in India, Egypt, South Africa and in other countries. There are many monuments erected in our country which call for vengeance, especially the women’s monument at Bloemfontein.

The hon. member must return to the subject which is under consideration.

I say that we are wasting money on a war with which we have no concern. I challenge the Minister to show what he has done with the gigantic amounts which have already been spent in prosecuting the war. We have lost a great deal and not won anything yet. What justifies this additional amount? Up to the present they have only done retreating. I ask is that a justification for the waste of money? The only consequence is despair, misery and poverty in our country. The Union troops are dying of fever in the morasses in Central Africa. England is engaged in mortgaging her foreign possessions tor war materials and ammunition, but South Africa has no foreign possessions to pledge. To England it is now “cash and carry” and the day will come that this Government will also have to pay up with “cash and carry”. Is that just to South Africa? The people are objecting to this reckless waste of public money. The country is being heavily taxed, especially the poorer section of the population. The taxation is deadly, in addition it is a blood-letting, these high costs of living. Everything is becoming more expensive and then there are still additional burdens put on the poor man, but the mining, the money power in the country which can easily carry burdens, escapes. The mining magnates do not mind whether the country goes bankrupt because most of them are foreigners.

The hon. member must remember that we are now dealing with the Additional Estimates.

I am trying to show that the burden which is being laid upon the population only presses on the poor man and not upon the mining magnates. South Africa is being sacrificed on the alter of Imperialism and is bleeding to death. The Prime Minister does not perceive, though he can see, and is deaf, though he can hear. He does not worry himself about the condition of the country. It reminds me of a Pharaoh whose heart was hardened and who would not see and would not hear, but struck with an iron rod and persecuted the people, just as our people to-day have to suffer under the iron rod of the Prime Minister. I want, however, to remind him of the Red Sea. He is engaged in moving up to the Red Sea in an aggressive war. The Prime Minister sits here but our boys are being destroyed there. This £32,000,000 will serve for the purpose of sacrificing our people still more. It is used in order to attack a mighty enemy. That reminds me of the fight between the lion and the mouse, with the result that there was only a wet spot left. This £32,000,000 should in reality serve for our defence and not for an attack. We say that the boundaries of the Union are the Zambesi and if the Government defended our country as such, then we would have had unanimity and could have built up a strong Defence Force. But alas to my deepest disappointment the money is being wasted in an impossible aggressive war. It reminds me of the two friends who opened a bottle of “witblits.” Hardly had they got the taste of it than a mouse came out of the bush and commenced to lick the cork which had fallen down and finally he stood threateningly on his hind legs and said: “Where are the blooming cats now?” The Minister is engaged in licking the feet of the fascinating Empire and standing on his hind legs in a challenging way saying: “Where are the blooming Germans now?” Napoleon also had friends and advisers. I want to warn the Prime Minister against his advisers in connection with this war. Napoleon’s sole adviser said to him: “I warn you, this is your downfall.” Napoleon was furious and said to him he no longer needed his advice. Then he called in another adviser and he used threatening language to him and said: “Napoleon, I see your star is rising, your future is clear, go ahead.” We know what the result was. Waterloo — 1815, was the downfall of Napoleon. That is the kind of adviser that the Prime Minister has on the opposite side who urges him on to see this aggressive war through, an aggressive war against which we warn him in a friendly and well-meaning way. Our advice to him is: be careful. Nevertheless we are ignored and we are blamed as those possessing no intelligence and no sense. We see shiploads of British here, soldiers who pass, to go and assist in the aggressive war. I want to issue a warning, we must think of Norway, Belgium and France. The British soldier left his friends in the lurch. England has never won a war herself. Others have had to do it, and we are now engaged in doing it for them.

Order!

This £32,000,000 is being spent on an aggressive war, it is an accomplished fact. We are pleading here for a just cause. We feel deeply convinced that this budget is extortion and that in a very unjust way. Therefore, I make an appeal to the Prime Minister to give relief in some way or another. I make an appeal to the Prime Minister to pay attention to us and not to pursue as if blind though seeing and deaf though hearing, his mad course on the road of extravagence and destruction. There is an insistent voice calling, that of the mothers of South Africa who are calling for peace. Prevent the tears of thousands of mothers who are being plunged into mourning by this war. I ask the Prime Minister to save himself and his friends. I pray him in heaven’s name: save South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Venter) in his speech on this debate the other evening, expressed his concern about the military medical arrangements in connection with the Premier Mine Camp, and quoted certain figures. I propose to deal with these figures later on. In the meantime I should like to say that it is to the credit of this hon. member for having raised this matter here. The fact that this criticism emanated from the hon. member for Wonderboom in itself demands our serious attention, partly because the Premier Mine Camp falls in the constituency of this hon. member, but mainly because he is a man who has on many occasions in this House shown his concern for health and welfare matters. Reference to military medical matters was made also by the hon. member for Durban (North) (the Rev. Mr. Cadman). Hon. members will also notice questions on the Order Paper dealing with this service. What we have heard in this House, however, is nothing when compared with the storm which has been raging outside in connection with our military medical, services. A learned judge has, through the medium of the press, launched an attack, and almost daily letters have been appearing in various newspapers dealing with the subject. For these reasons, therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is of the greatest importance that in this House an opportunity should be taken to place before hon. members and the public generally an accurate statement, based on official figures and fact, with regard to the whole position. I desire to devote my participation in this debate, therefore, to this subject. This matter is of paramount importance and commands our most earnest attention. The provision of an adequate medical service for our fighting forces is as important, nay, more important, as it is to send them into the field adequately equipped. Quite apart from the military importance of placing and maintaining a healthy and fit force in the field, it should be our sacred duty to care for those who have come forward voluntarily to make, if necessary, the maximum sacrifice in the cause of their country’s welfare. We must leave nothing undone to guarantee the well-being of our fighting forces. It is imperative, therefore, that complaints should be subjected to an immediate and critical examination. The remarks which I propose to make have two objects in view. Firstly, I am anxious to submit for the information and consideration of hon. members of this House a frank and concise representation of the whole position. I claim, sir, that I am in a particularly favourable position to do so. To begin with, acting on instructions contained in a letter from the Director-General of Medical Services, confirming my military medical appointment, I visited, in connection with the special service which I was called upon to organise, every command, camp and hospital in the Union, excluding two smaller camps which because of the present Parliamentary session had to be temporarily omitted. In the course of this tour which was accomplished between 10th June and 18th August, one had an opportunity to interview every Deputy Director of Medical Services, Assistant Directors of Medical Services, Senior Medical Officers, and numerous regimental medical officers; as well as superintendents of the various civil provincial general hospitals; Medical Officers of Health of various local authorities, and many civilian general medical practitioners and specialists. This tour made possible an examination in loco of the conditions in the various commands and has furnished material, recently collected and personally observed, for the ensuing remarks. The second reason in support of my claim to be speaking authoritatively is the fact that I have been privileged to study the official figures from the office of the D.G.M.S. in connection with the unfortunate influenza epidemic and other matters, and that I have the approval of the hon. the Minister of Defence to quote them if need be in this debate. Finally, sir, by virtue of the fact that as a young medical officer I was seconded during the later months of the last war, when the 1918 influenza epidemic was raging at its height, to the then Military Hospital at Voortrekkerhoogte, I am in a position to compare the conditions as they then existed with the conditions as I have found them during the course of my recent tour. The second object which I hope to achieve as a result of my participation in this debate, is, sir, to submit, respectfully, for the favourable consideration by the hon. the Minister of Defence, certain recommendations which in my humble opinion would contribute materially towards the smoother functioning of this great organisation—the South African Medical Service. Before considering the various complaints in any detail it might not be out of place to point out to those who indulge in this criticism, that they should beware lest they unduly emphasise particular aspects of the problem through lack of appreciation of the problem as a whole. They should ask themselves the following question: What is the nature of the task which even under normal conditions faces the authorities who are called up to organise an efficient medical service for an army in the field? Let those who are so ready to criticise realise that it is a most formidable one. It might be described as being made up of two parts: the provision of services for the forces in the field, and the provision of services for the troops in the various commands, who are undergoing training prior to their departure for the field. It must be obvious to everybody that of the two, the one calling for the maximum organisation and effort, is that service which will ensure efficient medical and surgical care of forces whilst actually at the front. Normally the provision of a medical service for troops in training presents little difficulty. Such a service concerns itself with the provision of adequate facilities for sick parades, the care of those who are suffering from the effects of exposure, from minor ailments, from minor accidents, and from the occasional surgical emergency to which any member of a community, including the soldier, might be liable. Such a service need normally not be very extensive because we must remember that it is intended to deal with men who can justly be regarded as the fittest people in the country; men who had recently been selected and passed for military service because of their physical and mental fitness. When we come to consider the task entailed in the provision of an efficient medical service for the field then we are faced with a mighty undertaking. I wonder if people realise how many links go to make up that great chain. At the base large hospitals have to be equipped so as to provide medical, surgical and specialistic services. On the lines of communication wounded and sick need medical attention while being evacuated. This may entail the provision of hospital ships, ambulance trains, and possibly even air ambulances. The modern army is accompanied by mechanised field ambulance units which function not only as field hospitals but as rest stations and dressing stations. They are most wonderfully equipped to-day, so that the sick and wounded in the field can receive the best professional attention. Accompanying these mobile units the modern armies provide for mobile X-ray units, pathological laboratories, etc. Moreover, we are attempting to incorporate and embody in our organisation to-day all the experience which we gained through the last war and the lessons learned since then. We are endeavouring to prevent the losses through illness which occurred during the campaign in East Africa during the last war. This was partly due to the failure to recognise the importance of preventive measures against disease and amongst these and not the least important, was the maintenance of adequate nutrition. The seriousness with which we regard the feeding of troops is proved by the fact that at the very commencement of the war, at the critical time when thousands of men had become soldiers and many families had to alter the standard of living to meet a change in their circumstances, a War Emergency Sub-committee was established by the newly-created National Nutritional Council. Its function will primarily be to establish a satisfactory diet for the troops so as keep them fit physically and to strengthen their resistance to various infections. The lessons which we have learned from the past may briefly be summarised as follows: The history of war is largely a race between the development of instruments of physical destruction and the advancement of medical knowledge for saving the life of the wounded and of the sick. We medical men in time of war gain some consolation from the thought that our activities at least are reparative and constructive and that even out of the filth and carnage of the field of battle some fresh accessions of medical knowledge of use not only at the time of discovery but also in the alternating periods of peace and crisis that follow after. We appreciate that disease and infection have proved more powerful levellers than weight of metal and preponderance of fire. It is against this background, Mr. Speaker, that I propose to devote myself to the examination of the criticism which has been levelled against the South African Medical Service. An analysis of the complaints made reveals the fact that they emanate from two quite distinct sources. There are those which emanate from sources inspired by alarmist rumours, baseless in character. These rumours refer to the receipt of information from “unimpeachable authority and by most respectable people”—and consist of stories so fantastic as to make one really wonder as to the type of mind from which they could have originated. There Have been stories of wholesale deaths of soldiers from a particular disease, in a particular camp, where there had not been a single case of such a disease in that camp since the war began. As an example of such stories one need only quote the rumour circulated that two doctors had died of disease in East Africa, whereas neither of them had at that time left their training depot in the Union The other type of criticism on the other hand emanates from people who are genuinely distressed about relations (their sons or husbands or friends), who having contracted during the course of their training some or other illness, were provided, it is claimed, with insufficient medical and nursing attention. Usually these are genuine complaints. They are frequently accompanied by concrete and practical suggestions, which demand our respect, serious attention and the closest investigation. The main complaints emanating from their source were in connection with the management of the unfortunate influenza epidemic and the treatment of those unfortunate individuals who had contracted cerebrospinal meningitis. Amongst what might be termed the subsidiary complaints are included the following: That there had been lack of foresight in the preparation of the medical organisation which was intended to deal with emergencies which should have been expected in connection with a harsh winter and consequently when the emergency did arise the hospital and other arrangements which were provided proved totally inadequate. That there had been insufficient provision of essentials such as sheets, pillowslips, blankets, dressing gowns, hot water bottles, etc., and that the Defence Department did not avail itself of the offers made to it of these articles and assistance in other directions by the voluntary aid societies. That there had been a shortage of medical equipment and drugs. That men who should in fact have been in bed were compelled to parade on cold mornings and without overcoats. There appeared also criticism with regard to the rank given to doctors who joined the S.A.M.C., and that there had been insufficient co-operation between the South African Medical Association and the Military Medical Authorities. Finally, a complaint has been heard that unfit men have got into the army. Before dealing with each one of these allegations in detail let me remind hon. members that the task which faced the authorities who were suddenly called upon to create a, military medical organisation was a most formidable one Like other departments of defence, it had to start practically from scratch, and it was faced with the undertaking to create a medical service not only for the troops going North, but simultaneously also for the care of a great army of recruits called into being at short notice for local training. On top of all this descended the overwhelming influenza epidemic. It is bardly surprising, therefore, that great difficulties arose as a result of this sudden and enormous expansion. It naturally led to improvisation both in accommodation and equipment. Under such circumstances there were bound to occur deficiencies and overlapping of one kind or another. It is easy to criticise the working of schemes devised to meet improvised circumstances. It is hardly fair, however, to use this as a stick with which to beat the authorities and accuse them of incompetence, ignorance or negligence. Turning to the examination of the complaints in connection with the management of the influenza epidemic, it is well known that this disease makes its appearance with monotonous regularity in some form or another year in and year out, and is particularly prone to occur during the winter months especially when there is a tendency to herd together. Perhaps it is not generally appreciated that this disease appears in different forms which vary in severity. Some cases present symptoms which are no worse than naso-pharangeal or bronchial colds, while others of a more severe type may develop chest complications which in a number of cases go on to actual pneumonia. It must be remembered further, that in the treatment of these cases our efforts are limited to the exhortation of victims of the disease to go to bed at the onset of the symptoms, to remember that the disease is liable to relapse, to treat the symptoms as they arise, and in severe cases to provide for hospitalisation. As hon. members well know, during June and July there were hard and extensive outbreaks of influenza in most of the military establishments in the Union. They placed a strain on an already strained medical and nursing organisation. Pressure on hospital beds became very great. It is not unnatural that in an epidemic of such a nature the function of a medical organisation should pass through without criticism, It should be emphasised that the disease was not confined to military camps only, in fact very few homes, offices, workshops or stores escaped being depleted of staffs by the inroads of this disease. People’s memories are short. We have already forgotten the havoc caused by the influenza epidemic, admittedly of a more severe type, which descended upon a weakened world at the end of the last war. I can well remember the breakdown of the medical arrangements which resulted then, I can remember still the improvisations to which we had to resort at the military hospital in Pretoria where I was stationed at the time. On a recent visit. I walked into the great hall in which, during the 1918 epidemic, were herded as closely as possible, literally hundreds of patients. Let us row examine the actual figures in connection with this disease. I should here point out that these are official figures from the office of the Director General of Medical Services. During the period 1st June to 25th August, approximately 9,000 cases of ’flu were treated in military hospitals throughout the Union, This, of course, does not take into account probably an equal number of milder cases which were treated in barracks or homes, without admission to hospital. The great complaint which one has heard has been that the incidence was very high, and that this was due to lack of accommodation, lack of bedding, mattresses, ground sheets, etc., that troops were placed in a more susceptible position to contract the disease. Hon. members will have noticed that questions appear on the Order Paper drawing attention to this position as far as the Premior Mine Camp is concerned. That the incidence of influenza had no relation to the conditions under which troops had to live is proved by the reliable interim figures which have recently become available in connection with the Premier Mine Camp. These show that the incidence of this disease amongst officers who had camp beds was 37 per cent. whereas the incidence of the disease amongst other ranks was only 26 per cent. During that period there occurred approximately 250 cases of pneumonia amongst the military cases of influenza, and not as the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Venter) has been informed, 300 cases in the Premier Mine camp alone. Twenty military deaths of pneumonia occurred throughout the Union during the influenza epidemic of which fourteen were attributed to influenza, that is to say, they were the direct complications of the disease. This figure indicates a pneumonia case mortality of about 6 per cent. It is regrettable that it is impossible to compare these figures with similar ones amongst the civil population. Unfortunately there are no figures available on which to base a comparison as neither influenza nor pneumonia are notifiable diseases. From information one has been able to gather from local health authorities and from numerous general practitioners, who were called upon to treat such cases amongst the civil population, one has no hesitation in supporting the claim of the authorities that the incidence of this complication amongst the military cases of influenza was no greater than that occurring amongst the civil cases. This is a point to bear in mind for it is being suggested that the incidence of pneumonia was very great, and that this was due in turn to lack of medical and nursing care. Hon. members, without being actual medical practitioners, know well enough that influenza does not necessarily respect the circumstances of the individual who is affected. We see it occur amongst those living under ideal conditions and indeed even under such circumstances the serious complication of pneumonia may make its advent. With regard to the criticism by the hon. member for Wonderboom that there were only 30 deaths and six nurses at the Premier Mine on June 1st, it can be said that on June 1st, 1940, 30 beds were available in permanent buildings, Premier Mine Hospital. In addition there were 60 beds available under tentage and a further 56 in camp hospital huts in unit lines. All these beds were not occupied and there was additional space in the permanent building, without overcrowding, for another 18 beds. The nursing staff in the hospital consisted of seven trained nurses and six nursing orderlies. There were also nursing orderlies in the camp hospital huts. Further there was at that time, accommodation at Voortrekkerhoogte for cases from Premier Mine. Since June erection of further hospital buildings has been proceeding. To-day the hospital can accommodate 504 beds, of which 225 are in the building, the remainder under tentage. Of these 181 beds are vacant and there are a further 304 vacant beds in camp hospital huts in unit lines. The nursing staff numbers 30 trained nurses and 40 probationer nurses in addition to nursing orderlies. Let me now say a word or two on cerebro-spinal meningitis. There occurred altogether 72 cases of this disease of which six resulted fatally. This mortality which is approximately 8½ per cent. compares more than favourably with the mortality which occurred in the British Army between the years 1914—1918 (4,238 cases), and which was as high as 44 per cent. and also more favourably with the mortality amongst the present civilian populations which is over 30 per cent. This great improvement in the mortality rate of this grave disease is undoubtedly due to the employment of M. & B. 693 in the treatment of military cases. Let us now turn to the other complaints, and deal with the one which maintained that there had been lack of foresight in the preparations to deal with the emergencies which should have been anticipated, and that the hospital arrangements were quite inadequate when the actual emergency did arise. In answer to this it can be stated that the initial great strain placed upon the available accommodation was rapidly remedied. There exist to-day approximately 2.000 beds which are available immediately for military cases, and a building programme is in hand to increase this number by another 1,000. A future hospital programme is being contemplated for camps which is based on bed requirements estimated as at 2½ per cent. of the troops, calculated as being established in such camps, with room for expansion in emergencies. The hon. member for Wynberg has raised an important matter in his question, namely the convalescent care of soldiers after their discharge from hospital. This matter is dealt with editorially in the forthcoming issue of the S.A. Medical Journal. The Department of Defence is urged to consider carefully the establishment of army convalescent homes, and to investigate the offers of homes, farms and grounds which have already been made’ to the department for that purpose. With regard to the Wynberg hospital it is, of course, a pity that it had not been rebuilt and reequipped in times of peace. It has, however, been taken in hand and under Lt.-Col. Moffat it is assuming proportions and importance of one of the principal military hospitals in the Union. Another complaint was that there was insufficient drugs and medical equipment. It is authoritatively stated that there has been no shortage of drugs and medical equipment at any time, and that the Central Medical Stores had been able to cope adequately with military medical requirements for the Union and the North, as well as for all medical hospitals throughout the Union. With regard to the criticism that there was a lack of harmony and co-operation between the Defence Department and voluntary aid societies, and that it refused to avail itself of offers made to it by those voluntary organisations it is officially stated that the relationship between the Medical Directorate and voluntary aid societies has always been most cordial. The Medical Directorate, on the one hand, has always accepted willingly any assistance emanating from voluntary organisations, and particularly from the S.A. Red Cross Society, and that on the other hand no requests for help made to these organisations were ever turned down. The Women’s Auxiliary has helped readily and willingly. It is suggested, however, that some need exists for the creation of a joint council of these organisations to co-operate with the Medical Directorate and thus avoid overlapping. In defence of the criticism by the hon. member for Durban (North) that unfit men have got into the army it can be said that whereas this might have occurred during the initial months of the war, when the medical examination was carried out in accordance with the ordinary A.C.F. form, it is hardly likely to happen under the carefully controlled scheme which is now in vogue in connection with the medical examination of recruits. In support of this contention I cannot do better than quote an official statement given to me in connection with the procedure adopted in the Cape Command. I should advise hon. members who are interested to pay a visit to the Castle and see for themselves how efficiently the arrangements are really carried out. The procedure is as follows: On making application to the recruiting officer to join the army the recruit is sent to a medical reception room. There he is given the option of being medically examined at once or, if this is not convenient, he is allowed to book a time for a future appointment. Full-time medical officers are in attendance daily until 5 p.m. and provision is also made for the medical examination of recruits in the evening, this work being carried out by part-time medical officers. Two new huts have been built at the Castle, each specially designed for the purpose. In each hut three medical off icers have a private room, and in each hut provision is made for the necessary examination to be carried out with the assistance of the medical orderlies who are in attendance. By means of this method there should b? no delay for the intending recruit, and the whole arrangement works smoothly. If the examining medical officer has a doubt as to whether a recruit is fit or not, or to which of the several categories a recruit should be placed, he refers the man to a board of specialists which meets daily. The decision of the board is final. Similar boards of specialists have been established at most important commands. All recruits who have their preliminary examination done by the district surgeon in the country must be re-examined by the board in Cape Town. In this way every effort is made to ensure that only fit men are posted to active service, and that those who have some disability but who are capable of service behind the lines should be made use of. Every effort is being made to prevent a man being employed in the army who is totally unfit for this service. Complaints have also been heard that there has been insufficient provision of essentials, such as sheets, pillow slips, dressing-gowns, hot-water bottles, etc. It may well be that due to lack of pre-war provision temporary shortage may have occurred, but this has been met without delay by voluntary help — a service which in fact is the primary function of such voluntary organisation. Every endeavour has been made to provide sufficient bedding for all recruits, but in the earlier days of the war supplies of essential articles, including blankets, mattresses and ground sheets, were most difficult to secure in the required quantities, and instances undoubtedly occurred when issues simply could not be made on the authorised scale. When it was found that the cement floors and huts, although not wet, sweated under the mattresses on which the men slept, steps were taken to provide rubberised slips to place under the mattresses, ground sheets not being available in sufficient numbers, and bedsteads were provided as rapidly as possible. Turning now to the purely medical arrangements, reference must be made to the criticism that there had been no co-operation between the S.A.M.C. and the Medical Association. In reply it can, I think, be truly stated that the S.A. Medical Association has worked, and still works loyally in the closest co-operation with the military authorities. Immediately after war broke out it compiled a register of medical men whose services were available. It created a Central Emergency Committee and Local Emergency Committees. The response to the call for voluntary service upon our doctors met with an immediate and most generous response. Many went through specially designed courses to put them through their course. In order that the local civilian needs might not be unduly embarrassed Emergency Committees were formed by branches of the S.A. Medical Association in the different centres. The defence authorities consulted these Emergency Committees in regard to the enlisting of the full-time services of doctors. The need of the local community and hospitals are carefully guarded. The complaints from some centres that the civilian population is being left unprotected medically because of doctors being “called up” is incorrect. There is no such thing as calling up. The doctors volunteer. The criticism levelled that the Medical Association does not work in harmony with the Medical Corps is, therefore, incorrect. The Medical Association works in the closest co-operation with the S.A.M.C. All appointments are made on the recommendation of their association. Through the Central Emergency Committee and its local committees the best arrangements are made in recommending doctors for commissions in the army. Criticism has also been levelled against the granting of commissions to medical men. In answer to such criticism it should be pointed out that when an officer is commissioned in the Infantry, he starts to learn his job, and as his ability increases his rank becomes higher, but a doctor who has been in practice for some time has in civilian life acquired competent experience and ability. Such a man when taken into the service, is taken in primarily as a doctor, and the better doctor he is the more useful and efficient service will he render. The criticism that doctors should not be given a rank immediately is refuted still further by the fact that an enormous amount of special knowledge is required by military medical officers. He has to have not only the necessary medical and surgical knowledge. The ability to combine sympathy with firmness on sick parade, familiarity with war diseases, ability of sorting and grading a large number of casualties according to severity of wounds, but also a sound knowledge with regard to medical matters, with regard to hygiene and sanitation and personal attainments, which can only be obtained by men who have had the education and training before being allowed to qualify as a doctor. It will be seen, therefore, that most of the reasonable complaints have already been attended to. In fact, most of them had received attention before the complaints had been made public. As a guarantee to the public that the health of South African troops shall be adequately protected, the Minister of Defence has appointed a special and independent committee which is visiting all the South African military training camps and enquiring into rumours and allegations regarding the medical treatment of soldiers. They have been asked to hear and investigate any complaints about inadequacy or negligence in regard to medical arrangements for South African troops. Reference has already been made to the hospital building programme which has figured so prominently in all the complaints. There are some recommendations which I would submit respectfully for the consideration of the hon. the Minister. These may be summarised as follows—

1. (i) Closer co-operation between the military and civil authorities (authorities in charge of provincial hospitals, local authorities in charge of fever and isolation hospitals, etc.). Tribute is due to them for the very substantial assistance they have already given and are still giving to the military authorities.
2. (ii) Closer co-operation between the nonmedical officers and the medical officers. It should be emphasised that the responsibility for the care of the sick is not only the responsibility of the medical officer. Every commanding officer is responsible for seeing that the men in his command get proper medical attention when they require it. Closer co-operation would facilitate sick parade problems as well as premature return to duty and allied difficulties.
3. (iii) Closer co-operation between the military medical authorities and the voluntary organisations, e.g. the Red Cross Society and the Women’s Auxiliary, etc. The establishment of a Joint Council might produce a closer understanding between military medical authorities and the various voluntary bodies which are anxious to co-operate in the work of caring for the sick. This co-operation has not always been guided and directed as clearly as it might have been.
4. (iv) Closer co-operation between the office of the Director-General of Medical Services in Pretoria and the Assistant and Deputy-Directors of Medical Services in the various local commands. This can be effected by the appointment of a liaison officer who would be constantly visiting the various commands and maintaining constant personal contact.
5. (v) Granting greater local autonomy to the Assistant Directors of Medical Services and Deputy-Directors of Medical Services in the various commands. This would facilitate the purchase of essential equipment and drugs, and the arrangements with regard to personnel.
6. (vi) Enlisting, to a greater extent, in the areas of certain commands, the services of medical men practising in these areas, on a part-time basis if necessary. This would relieve to some extent the work of the full time military medical men in these commands.
7. (vii) An attempt to use the personnel in their specific spheres. There are complaints that surgeons are doing examination of recruits; that specialists are doing general practice; chemists are in the ranks, while unqualified sergeants are doing the dispensing.
8. (viii) An improved dental service.
9. (ix) An extension, in certain commands, of specialist services. There are many specialists in these areas who are anxious to give their services either voluntarily or on a part-time basis. Such an arrangement would also, from a financial point of view, prove economical.

I have no doubt that when examined in retrospect those who are to-day most ready to blame will be the loudest in praise of an organisation which, when confronted with an overwhelming emergency, not only dealt with in a most satisfactory manner, as is being proved by figures such as are now becoming available, but at the same time did not slacken in the slightest degree with the very essential war effort to train, equip and send north fully organised medical units. A fair view of the medical arrangements is that the medical authorities had been faced with great problems due to the sudden expansion of the army, the wide distribution and necessary movements of troops and to their allocation for various reasons in unaccustomed areas. These difficulties were further aggravated by the severe weather and the accompanying epidemic of influenza, and to some extent by other infectious diseases. The Department concerned, however, did its utmost to remedy the deficiencies and shortcomings. All complaints and criticisms which had been received were promptly and carefully investigated. In the last war the Army Medical Service was one of the few services which emerged not only with credit, but with an enhanced prestige. There was no reflection whatsoever on its efficiency. It is hoped, therefore, that when the full extent of the help which the service is contributing towards making the present war machine work smoothly, is realised by the public, appreciation from those quarters that are now inclined to criticise without full knowledge of the facts will be as whole-hearted and as generous as that of the Department of Defence.

Whether we wish it or not certain war burdens have to be borne. Not only have taxes to be imposed on the people but there are also other burdens to be borne. There is, for instance, the rise in the cost of production and in the loan charges. Let me say at once that while these burdens of rising cost of living always press on the people, we have the Minister of Finance coming to impose new burdens.

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

Before the interruption of work I was engaged in pointing out that not only were further taxes being laid on the people but that other taxes as well had to be borne by the people in consequence of the war policy of the Government and that no section of the population had got any concession from the Minister except the gold mines.

The mealie farmers are getting £500,000.

In answer to the hon. member I just want to say that there is a great deal of suspicion amongst us that the £438,000 to which the hon. member referred, will not go to the mealie farmers but to the Empire. What I want to bring to the notice of the Minister is that he said when he announced his taxation proposals that he had been guided by certain principles in the fixing of the taxation, but the Minister forgot to apply one principle in imposing these taxes and that is the principle of justice. Now I want to ask the Minister, in view of the increased cost of production which the farmer has to bear in consequence of the rise in the price of his requirements, whether the Minister thinks it fair to saddle the people with the additional petrol tax. In the case of the mines the taxation is only increased from 9 per cent. to 11 per cent., i.e., 2 per cent.—the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) manages to work it out at 22 per cent. The mines get a subsidy of £2,000,000 by the concession of the Minister but the other sections of the community have to pay. We have often heard the pleas on behalf of the middleman, the small income tax payer. Their burdens are being increased. The Minister is now talking of the fact that they are suddenly in favour of industrial development but companies which come here and develop have to pay an extra tax of 20 per cent. The Minister brings up an excess profits duty which was introduced last year and if a company is flourishing it will be taxed to such an extent that it will only be able to have a struggling existence. It is clear to me that the Minister forgot the principle of justice when he drafted the taxation proposals. I do not want to go into details, but I just want to point out that the Minister could have got more from certain sources which are already taxed. Take, for instance, the tax on spiritous liquors. The tax has been increased by ¼d. on a tot. Who is going to get the benefit of the tax? Not the state, but the middleman. The Minister ought to know that the consumer has to pay 1d. more in that case, and the id does not go into the Treasury, but into the pockets of those people. I do not know whether this is a concession to the liquor kings owing to their voluntary contributions to the Mayors’ fund. I referred a moment ago to the petrol tax. The cost of production of the farmers have already gone up considerably, and what is going to be the result of the petrol tax? Then in various villages and towns the bus tariffs will probably be increased, and then the poorest of the poor will be hit by the taxation, and the town councils will have bigger profits, so that they contribute more to the Mayors’ fund. Then there are people who have entered into contracts which extend over long periods. The petrol tax makes such undertakings unprofitable in many cases. It is once more the less privileged people who are affected by it, the people who have to make a living out of transportation work. Then I am thinking of the persons who in consequence of the centralisation of schools, have got contracts from the provincial councils to transport the children. Their buses use a good deal of petrol, and now that they have the contracts they will be hard hit by the extra tax on petrol. It is the small things which sometimes deprive people of their living. I have a telegram here from the three bakeries in my constituency, who sent it jointly—

Those are the people who are being hard hit. They can only just make a living, only just, as the Englishman says, make ends meet. Now the Minister is making the existence of these people practically impossible. When one notices hon. members sitting on the other side who draw double salaries, then one asks where the justice is. When last year we pointed out that it was the intention of the Government to provide double salaries for members of Parliament it was denied. Now we find that a whole list of names has been given in reply to a question, all names of members of this Parliament, who are getting double salaries. I hope the names will be published far and wide so that the country can see how the pals on the other side are provided for, while the livelihood is taken away from poor people. There is another item that I want to say something about. The Minister asks for £50,000 more for internment camps, as if the scandal of the internment camps has not been sufficiently great. I can give the Minister the assurance that he need not be afraid of violence or an inland rising, and it is not necessary to vote more money still further to prosecute Afrikaners, and to victimise and intern them. Not that our people are afraid of that. I do not believe you will find that there is one of the followers of hon. members on this side of the House who is afraid of the internment camps of the Government. We are made fit in concentration camps, and we are standing up for the rights of our people. There is no Afrikaner who will be frightened at the thought of the internment camps, but it is unnecessary for the Government to do these things. The Government has placed a sufficiently large smudge on the name of the Afrikaner by the way in which it has treated the people in the internment camps, that we should now go and double that shameful smudge by the money which is being voted here. It is unnecessary to vote these amounts for purposes which are not actually required. I made the charge here that it was not only the political opponents of the Government who were being persecuted, but in reality also people who were in the service of the Government. In terms of their pious war declaration, people offered themselves to do service for the defence of South Africa, people who however are not prepared to take the “red” oath, and even those people are now being victimised. I have here a letter in my possession in regard to someone in the service of the Government, who is being persecuted because he will not take the “red” oath, and I would like to quote that letter here—

Then he adds that any information I might possibly want him to give he will be pleased to furnish. When we read the resolution which was passed by this House on the 4th September last year, we find that the wording of that resolution is that the Government will do everything in its power to defend South Africa, and here, where people have complied with that definite resolution, and where the Government has accepted those people in our armed forces, we now find that those people are victimised because they have loyally obeyed the terms of the resolution, but are not willing to go further than that resolution. They are not only being persecuted by the Government, but by the people who are watching them. I can tell you that municipalities and public bodies are following the example of the Government. I ask the Minister of Finance whether it is fair and just to allow this kind of thing. I want to appeal to him and to hon. members opposite, to all of them, that they should stop that kind of thing in the country. The Leader of the Opposition warned the Government that this action of theirs would lead to our la using again into the old bitterness, and a still greater bitterness than we had in our country before. When he uttered those words of warning here, the Prime Minister said that it was a bogey. But what have we discovered during this debate? The gulf is becoming unbridgeable, and hon. members opposite realise it. They are beginning to complain, and to weep about it in their speeches, and they are beginning to tell us that we really ought to live together again in the country. But what are they doing? Even in the course of the debate on this budget we find that a person like the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) makes the charge against us on this side that there is no use in our objecting to the taxation proposals because we will anyhow not have to pay that taxation. I want to warn hon. members opposite against that kind of thing. They must be careful with their remarks. In the first place, that remark is not quite true. There are actually some of us on this side and some of our supporters who are assisting in paying that taxation. But what that hon. member must not forget is that in 1902 the Afrikaners were impoverished down to the depths, and thousands have not yet recovered themselves sufficiently to be able to pay taxes. Nevertheless that is no reason for the hon. member who assisted in robbing us of our inheritance, and in causing us to be impoverished, to use that language towards people who have to crimp themselves owing to their poverty. And what is the Minister of Finance doing now? Will he assist those people who owing to the action of foreign adventurers, who have robbed the people of their inheritance, will he help these people who are at the moment actually dying of poverty? No, he does not assist them, but in order to save the gold mines further burdens, he adopts the step to cut down the auxiliary services which we have to do for those people, to an amount of £6,000,000. He does that for no other reason than that the Minister of Finance is not prepared to lay further burdens on the gold mines of South Africa. For that reason this gigantic sum of money is being saved on these impoverished people. I want to give the Minister of Finance a very good hint, which he really might consider and carry out. It will contribute a great deal to alleviating and eliminating the bitterness and estrangement in the country. I want to suggest that he should take a part of that amount of £32,000,000 on the additional estimates and offer a prize to the followers of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) and the Minister of Mines, to compose hymns which will testify to the loyalty to South Africa, and that the soldiers should sing those hymns instead of those provocative melodies which they are singing at the moment, as was done at Potchefstroom. Let those people compose hymns of that kind, and he can offer a prize for them, so that they can give expression to their loyalty to South Africa, and not always be singing “There will always be an England” and “We will hang our washing on the Siegfried Line.” Those are the hymns that these so-called good Afrikaners sing. They sing those hymns with the Union Jack in front of their motor car, and then they say that they are fighting for the interests of South Africa. That is the kind of thing which makes this chasm between us deeper. If we repeat these things which pain it will be easier for us to bridge that gulf if we are willing to look those things in the face. Why have they no other melodies to sing? It is because the creative power of the people comes out of the soul of the people, and if the soul is imperialistic, how then can they compose Afrikaans tunes to sing? That is the kind of thing which hurts us: The veneration of the Union Jack instead of our own flag, and the singing of “God Save our King” instead of “Die Stem.” When the soldiers have to walk through the churchyard and whistle to keep up their own courage, they whistle “There will always be an England.” On the opposite side there are members who are now commencing to make a noise because I say that. They will probably not be able to sing such hymns, because they are khaki knights and that is synonymous for a “funk.”

The hon. member must moderate his language.

I only want, as a matter of fact, to ask the Minister of Finance seriously to conisder the advice which I have given him, and if hon. members opposite go to work in such a way, then we will not make the gulf which separates us deeper.

It seems improbable that there will be time for me to reply to the debate as a whole. For that reason I want now to intervene briefly to say something about the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga). I will do so as briefly as possible, because I know that the time is limited, and I do not want unnecessarily to encroach upon the time that is at the disposal of other hon. members. I want in the first place to put a direct question to the Opposition. I want to know whether they are satisfied with the amendment that has been moved. Are they satisfied? There is no answer. The longer I have listened to the debate, the clearer it has become to me that they are not satisfied with the amendment because the speeches which hon. members of the Opposition have made were entirely different to the amendment which the hon. member read out. Let me quote the amendment here—

There is not a word of criticism in the amendment on our expenditure. There is nothing which indicates that they are dissatisfied with the £46,000,000 which they are spending on defence. On the contrary, the implication of the amendment is this, that they are satisfied with it, that taxes are imposed; that they are satisfied with the amount of the taxes. The only thing they are dissatisfied with is with the distribution of the burden. I ask again: Is the Opposition satisfied with the amendment?

No.

The amendment says this on behalf of the Opposition: We are satisfied that taxation must be imposed; we say nothing about the increased expenditure.

Did you not listen to the speech which the hon. member for Fauresmith made?

Yes, but I also have this amendment before me, and am now dealing with it. It is the official amendment of the Opposition.

Is that the best you can do?

I am now asking whether the hon. members opposite are satisfied. This amendment amounts to this: We do not complain that taxation is being raised. All we want is that that taxation should be raised on a different basis. I ask hon. members opposite again: Are they satisfied with this amendment, or is is it another case where the hon. member for Fauresmith does not interpret the feeling of his party? That happens fairly often these days, and this amendment is once more a clear proof of it. I can only speak about the amendment. I cannot therefore give any fuller reply to the debate as a whole, and hon. members must therefore accept this as an excuse if I do not go into all the points which have been raised by them. There are many points on which I would like to make a reply. I should, for instance, like to refer to the attack which the hon. member for Fauresmith made on me. He brought a serious charge against me, a charge of deliberate misleading and of unequalled incapacity, and I cannot go into them, at any rate not at this period. Here I can only say that that charge is unfounded, without any reason and quite unworthy of my hon. friend. I come then to the question of our taxation proposals. The amendment states that the taxes which we are imposing are unreasonable and unfairly distributed. I can therefore only talk about those points which were raised and which can possibly be regarded as falling within the ambit of this amendment. I want to refer to the different taxation proposals. I come, in the first place, to tyres and tubes. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Venter) referred to them, and objected more particularly on the ground that the manufacturers had already increased the prices of tyres and tubes by more than the amount of the excise tax. I want here to say that I have already asked the Minister of Commerce and Industries to give instructions to the Board of Trade and Industries to investigate the whole question, and to see whether the manufacturers have acted unfairly. If it should appear that the manufacturers have acted unfairly—well, I can only say that the Government has sufficient powers to take action to protect the public, and we will use those powers. Then I come to cigarettes. There are various hon. members who have also complained that while an increased tax is being put on local tobacco for the manufacture of cigarettes, there is no increased duty put on imported cigarettes. That is correct, but allow me to point this out. The import duty on imported cigarette tobacco is 8s. a lb. We are proposing an increase of the excise duty on local cigarette tobacco of 1s. 6d. per lb., which will bring the tax up to 2s. a lb. There still remains a difference of 6s. a lb. in the taxation in favour of the local article. I think that this protection ought to be more than adequate. If, however, it appears not to be sufficient, and that the local interests suffer a loss, the necessary steps will be taken next session to give the necessary protection. Then the question is raised about the increase of excise duty and customs duty on brandy and whisky. We have increased the customs duty on whisky by 7s. 6d. a gallon; we have increased the excise on brandy by 2s. 6d. a gallon. Now the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) complains that in the one case it is one-sixth and in the other case it is one-fifth. That is the whole difference, and on that account he makes the statement that the wine farmers are now being ruined and are being driven to beggary. I ask this House to judge whether such a difference can have that effect. We have not reduced the protection in favour of the local article, we have increased it. The protection has been increased by 5s. a gallon. The local article has therefore more protection than previously. The effect of those two taxes is this, that in the case of whisky the increase works out to ⅝d. per tot, and in the case of brandy, at less than ¼d. per tot. Now I ask hon. members, can we really take it now that this will have the effect of the wine farmer being ruined and condemned to the beggar’s staff? I now come to yeast. There are two aspects of the matter which were mentioned by the hon. member for Fauresmith. The first is the effect that this excise duty will have on yeast, and on the housewife who bakes her own bread but does not make her own yeast, who buys the yeast. The hon. member for Fauresmith said that that aspect of the case would have the effect in the case of every housewife that the household account would go up. In other words, every housewife buys yeast. That is quite correct. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) said in this House that this tax would not affect the countryside too much, and he had now better settle the matter with the hon. member for Fauresmith. But what does this tax mean to the housewife? The hon. member for Fauresmith threatened me with the fate which overtook a former Minister of Finance, the late Mr. Burton, in connection with another tax, namely the tax on patent medicines. But what does this tax on yeast actually mean? To the housewife who bakes her own bread, but buys her yeast for it, it will mean an increase of 2d. a week on the average. If that is too much, then there is always the opportunity left to her to make her own yeast, and I want to tell my hon. friend that I am not afraid of the fate that befell that former Minister. Now we come to the other aspect of the matter, namely the effect of my motion on the bakers, and through the bakers on the consumers of bread. Various hon. members have raised this matter in the House. Other members raised it with me personally in consequence of representations that were made to them. Here also there is considerable exaggeration. What actually does the yeast tax amount to now? It means an increase in the price of bakers’ bread of one-eleventh of a penny per lb.

How much do they add?

They cannot add anything now. The price of bread is fixed. But I grant that there will be further discussions about the price of bread, and then this one-eleventh of a penny will possibly be a factor for the increase in the price, and I want to reduce it. Accordingly, I am prepared to make a concession so far as this matter is concerned. I am prepared to grant a rebate for yeast which is used by bakers in the making of bread.

And what about the housewife?

There are two ways in which that can be done. The first is to give a repayment to the baker of the actual amount of money which he has paid on the yeast which is used by him for the making of bread, and the second is to limit the quantity of yeast per bag of flour, and then to make the repayment on the basis of flour which has been baked. I have resolved to adopt the first alternative. The repayment of the tax will take place on the actual quantity of yeast which is used by the baker, but with this proviso, that if it appears that the bakers get yeast in quantities which are out of proportion with the production of bread, on the basis of a fixed formula in the manufacture of bread, and that such yeast is included amongst the applications for repayment, then we will take the matter into reconsideration and withdraw the repayment of the tax. As a further precautionary measure against possible abuse of the concession, I will consider the advisability of taking authority not only to refuse all particular applications for repayment, but also to claim back the amounts which were previously paid back by way of rebates.

How does that benefit the housewife?

The housewife who buys yeast is not benefited by this. It, however, assists the bakers and all the housewives who buy bread from the bakers. Now we come to the income tax. Several hon. members, including members on this side of the House as well, referred to anomalies in the existing Income Tax Act. They said that we could have raised the additional tax in a more scientific way. I agree that we could have levied it on a more scientific basis, and I said so. The method of a bonus of 20 per cent. is not the most scientific way which was possible. But in the present circumstances, because we are in the middle of the financial year, it was not possible to follow any other method, and the possibility of adopting another one will be considered for next year. The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Wilkens) once more complained about the unmarried man not being specially taxed. I want to break a lance for the unmarried woman, as well as the unmarried man. This matter affects the unmarried woman just as much as the unmarried man. What my hon. friend has entirely lost from view is that there is at the moment a heavier burden resting on the unmarried person, both man and woman, because they are unmarried. The unmarried person pays more income tax than the married. I mentioned the case of a husband with an income of £600. I take in the first place a married man, and I will put it as high as possible in his case, namely suppose that he is a person who has no children and pays no assurance money. He will then pay £12 2s. on an income of £600. But the unmarried person with an income of £600, whether he is a man or a woman, will pay £36 18s.

What does it not cost to maintain a wife?

That is another matter. In this case we find that the tax on the unmarried person is £24 more. Then we have heard a good deal of the effect of this increase of taxation on the middle classes. It has been said that there was an increase of 70 per cent. in the course of the year, that the income tax payer this year is paying 70 per cent. more than last year. That is correct, but what does that amount to to the middle-class man, and who is the middleclass man? The married man with an income of £600 with two children, and who pays £35 in insurance—I should think that that was the middle-class man—pays no income tax. If his income is £700, then he pays this year £1 17s. 7d. more than last year. If his income is £800, then he has to pay £4 13s. 2d. more than last year. Is it unfair to demand those amounts from persons with an income which runs into those amounts in the present circumstances? I now come to what is apparently my chief sin, in the eyes of the hon. member for Fauresmith as well. He attacked me for not having taxed the gold mines heavily enough.

It is interesting, as a matter of fact, that the Opposition at that time, attacked the hon. member for Fauresmith as Minister of Finance year after year, because he did not tax the mines severely enough. Now he is singing the same tune that they are.

I gave my reasons for doing so.

I will come to my hon. friend’s reasons in a moment. In the first place, I want to repeat the general remark which the hon. member for Fauresmith made. He said that the budget was received with satisfaction and relief by the persons who were interested in gold-mining shares. But the budget was received with satisfaction and relief by the public as a whole, and what is the reason for it? The reason is that the public, as a whole, expected that we would have to impose taxes up to an amount of £10,000,000. If it were the case that we had to impose taxation to an amount of £10,000,000, then the tax on the mines would have been at least double of what I am proposing here now. The taxation is however less than half of what the public expected, and therefore there was relief and satisfaction amongst everybody in the country and also amongst those interested in the mining industry, There was relief also among the ordinary income taxpayers and among the usual consumers. This matter must be regarded in its proper perspective. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) said, “But the mines are escaping.” What do the mines pay in reality? The mines will this year contribute to the state, everything included, an amount of £26,000,000. They are not escaping. They pay taxation amounting to £25,000,000. May I just say here in passing that of the £26,000,000, £14,000,000 is the amount which comes to us directly in consequence of circumstances which are the result of the war. That we must not entirely forget. To a great extent the war expenses are covered by income which is created by the war itself, and that is also an answer in part to the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr Bremer). He complained about the fact that in war time large sums are found for war purposes, while in peace times there was no money for social and community purposes. Partly the answer is that means are created even by a war in order to carry on the war, especially when the country has a goldmining industry. But that is only a partial reply. The other important factor is that in time of war we find a spirit of sacrifice and service which unfortunately is not to be found in peace times to the same extent. I hope that after this war that spirit of sacrifice will continue to exist. Then we shall come much closer to the solution of many of our problems, to the solution of the problems which the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet has at heart, and I have also. The hon. member for George detailed his statement a little more. He said that the mines had not contributed a penny to the expenses of the war since the 4th September, with the exception of £855,000 taxation which we are now imposing on them. The hon. member for George knows, of course, that last year we got approximately £3,000,000 out of the gold selling scheme, and that this year we shall receive £8,000,000 in consequence of the taxation scheme which has replaced the gold purchasing scheme, and in addition to that, we will get a further £500,000 this year from the gold purchasing scheme itself. But with typical Georgian acuity he says that the gold purchasing scheme was instituted before the 4th September, namely on the 30th August, and that the taxation scheme is something which has come into the place of it. But what he forgets, as a matter of fact, is that even on that basis he is wrong. He has forgotten the gold selling tax which was only put into force this year, and out of which we obtained £2,500,000. Thus, even on the basis of his argument, the additional amount that we are getting from the mines is not £855,000, but £3,500,000. Other hon. members made the statement that if we imposed more taxation on the mines, then it would not be necessary to save gigantic amounts. May I, in passing, ask what the gigantic amounts are which we have saved? On revenue account only a few thousand pounds more than £1,000,000 will be saved, but last year on the revenue budget of the hon. member for Fauresmith, without there having been a deliberate economy campaign, we saved £1,650,000. The saving of £1,000,000 is normal and not abnormal. On the loan estimates, we expect to save £6,000,000, but last year on my friend’s loan estimates, without there having been a deliberate economy campaign going on we saved £4,500,000. Therefore, if the hon. members speak about gigantic amounts, they do not know what they are talking about. Now I want to come to the comparisons which the hon. member for Fauresmith made. In the first place, he drew a comparison between the taxation on the mines and the taxation on the individual income tax payer. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) has already pointed out that what the hon. member for Fauresmith said might create the impression that in one case there was an increase of 70 per cent. and in the other case of 2 per cent. The hon. member of course did not mean it in that way.

I did not say it in that way either.

I will read out to him what he said, then he can see, however he may argue, that he might have created the impression. He said—

“The special contribution.”

Yes, that is what the hon. member means, but it is so stated that it is easily liable to be misunderstood, and there have already been some of the newspapers who support my hon. friend who understood it in that sense. Accordingly, the hon. member for Kensington rightly made that remark. But now I come to his further comparison between mining companies and other companies. The tax upon “other companies” we have increased by 6d. In the case of mining companies, I said, the fixed tax of 3s. was the counterpart of the income tax on ordinary persons and of 2s. 6d. on companies. I therefore moved, so far as the tax on mining companies was concerned, to increase it by 6d. on the fixed taxation basis of 3s. I do indeed get the money in a different way, but that is the basis. Now the hon. member for Fauresmith replied to that that the mines did not only pay 3s. in the £ but in addition to that a further amount in accordance with a formula, and his argument — if I understood it rightly — amounted to this, that I ought also to have added the 20 per cent. to the amount which is paid in consequence of the application of the formula, and also so far as the special contributions were concerned.

I did not refer to the special contributions.

We had the fixed tax of 3s. for years, and it was always regarded as the counterpart of 2s. 6d. on ordinary companies. Then we quitted the gold standard, and in consequence of a stroke of the pen of the Minister of Finance, the price of gold was increased, which involved increased revenue for the mines. Then the hon. member for Fauresmith decided what would be fair to take out of the increased income for the state. He thought that it would be right and fair to leave the balance to the mines. After enquiry, he decided what would be fair and reasonable, and what part would be taken by the state. Then we came again to the increase of the price of gold from 148s. to 168s. Again by a stroke of the pen of the Minister of Finance the price of gold was increased, and then he reconsidered what it would be fair to take, and what the mines could keep. It was then decided, and my hon. friend agreed to it, that the whole amount in consequence of the increase in the price of gold, would go to the state, with the exception of what could be regarded as the increased working costs of the mines in consequence of war conditions. That was all that they had left. It was not a subsidy. There again we decided what was fair. If we already took what was fair, how could I then impose another 20 per cent. on that?

But I also took what was air from the individual.

If we already take what is fair, how can I then put another 20 per cent. on it? He said that the mines could retain a certain part, and he had good reasons to allow it. The 3s. was the permanent part of the tax, it was the counterpart of the 2s. 6d. on ordinary companies, and therefore it was quite farr to put the two over against each other. But what does the argument of the hon. member amount to? That we are not sufficiently heavily taxing the mines?

I did not say that.

But how then can I say that we should take away the tax from other sections and put it on the mines?

I said that you were disturbing the proportions between the taxpayers.

He said that it was wrong to increase the postal rates and he said that other taxes were wrong. The taxes ought to be put on other shoulders, that is the mines. He said that the petrol tax was too high. It should be put on other shoulders, the mines. That is what he meant. The taxation on the mines should be made higher. That is what his argument amounted to.

Yes, higher, but I did not say that the mines were not sufficiently taxed. That is where you are distorting it.

He thinks then that we should have taken more in this budget from the mines.

Certainly.

He was Minister of Finance for fifteen years. We all learnt a great deal from him in that time, and I also. He set us a good example so far as taxation was concerned, and I learned a good deal from that. I now want to go back to the examples which he gave of how to impose taxation. I go back to the period of 1930 to 1932.

Was there a war at that time?

Taxes had also to be imposed at that time, and let us see how he tackled the matter, how he distributed taxation at that time among the various groups of taxpayers. In 1930 he made the taxation proposals, and the income tax payers had to pay up. The rebate of 20 per cent. on income tax on persons and companies was repealed, which meant an amount of £713,000. Not a penny from the mines. There the arrangement was distributed. Individuals had to pay, but not a penny from the mines. In 1931 the income tax payer again had to pay up. There was a reduction in the general rebate from £400 to £300, which brought in £250,000. Not a penny from the mines. Once more a disturbance of the ratio between one income taxpayer and another. But he was not satisfied with that. He now says we must not increase the postal rates from 1d. tot 1½d. We must put the burden on other shoulders. What did he do that year? He increased the rate from 1d. to 2d. He did not put it on other shoulders.

Was that for a British war?

What has that got to do with it? He increased the petrol tax, increased it by 3d. Not a penny from the mines. He increased the customs duty on wireless sets, tea, clothing, household requisites and cotton goods. In addition he increased stamp duties, but not a penny from the mines. Altogether the last named had to bring in £2,220,000 more. But not a penny from the mines. The same year, in November, he had to impose taxation again. Then he placed an import premium on the consumers of 5 per cent. which was to bring in £2,250,000. Not a penny from the mines. Where were the “other shoulders” then? Therefore, in the two main budgets and the one interim budget, he raised taxation to an amount of £5,183,000, but not a penny from the mines. The next year he had to raise taxation again, that is in 1932. Then he levied taxation to an amount of £3,585,000. Then, however, he did think of the mines. Of the £3,585,000 he asked the mines for an increased contribution of £380,000. The income tax payers once more had to pay £350,000 more. The customs duty on whisky, tea, foodstuffs, etc., were increased. Then there was a general extra customs duty, which was to bring in £2,600,000 more. On the whole, the taxpayers had to pay £3,585,000 more of which only £380,000 came from the mines. He waited a long time before he thought of the other shoulders which could carry the burden of taxation. During the three years he raised in all taxes amounting to £8,750,000, and of that £380,000 came from the mines. Now because I, out of £4,825,000 get an amount of £850,000 from the mines, only £850,000, now he is the champion of an increased mine tax.

How much do you take from the income tax payers?

The hon. member made charges against me. I am not going to make any charges against him. The facts speak for themselves. I want to leave it to the House and to the hon. member himself to judge whether this criticism of the budget was fair and reasonable, and worthy of himself and of his past.

I would like to tell the Minister of Finance that we on this side are quite satisfied with the amendment which was moved by the former Minister of Finance, and that we are not satisfied with our new Minister of Finance. We think that it was a bad choice to appoint him as Minister of Finance, because he is an unmarried man, and as such very unsympathetic towards the female sex. If we go back to the last session we find that he taxed the women in connection with their requirements such as gloves, handkerchiefs, powder, lipsol, perfumes and anything which lay close to the heart of a woman. Now again he comes and taxes the requirements of the housewife, as for instance, yeast. On the countryside the women do not use imported yeast, but many women in the towns do, in fact, need it. But the Minister is a person who does not even smoke cigarettes, who takes no drink, and he will not buy petrol because he has his Government motor-car. He does not need to pay any tax on that. The only tax which affects him is the income tax. I am opposed to the budget because it is a war budget, and as a woman I have conscientious objections to war. I feel that we have been plunged into the war unnecessarily and wilfully merely to justify the feelings of honour and duty of the Prime Minister, and in order to assist the British Empire. Germany and Italy….

I am sorry, but the hon. member cannot again debate the outbreak of the war.

I just want to explain why we are opposed to the war policy.

I am sorry, but the hon. member cannot do so, it is disposed of.

I could not take part before in the debates, but very well, in that case I will only say that I am very dissatisfied that money is being wasted on troops who are doing nothing in our country to-day. In my simplicity I think that if soldiers are recruited then they ought to go and fight. They are now merely a nuisance to us as long as they are hanging about doing nothing. I received from my constituency a motion from the Church Council, and I would like to read it out—

We are very dissatisfied, especially in the Transvaal, about the un-Christian things that are being done by the troops. At Potchefstroom they attacked the boarding establishment and beat the students, and drove them apart. The Werda Club, the only club of the Afrikaans-speaking people at the Rand, was attacked and damaged to such an extent simply because it was an Afrikaans institution, that it could no longer continue. Everything is being done by these “pet” soldiers, not by overseas troops. The overseas troops come into the town and possibly drink rather much, they call the half-caste girls “Dutch girls”, which is another insult to us, but it is our own troops who do the harm. I was travelling the other day in the train from Johannesburg to Pretoria and reading an Afrikaans newspaper. Five soldiers, one after the other, came past, and the one said: “A Dutchwoman with a Dutch paper.” I merely said, “Yes, and what about it?” Then one of the soldiers pulled the newspaper out of my hand, but another soldier stopped him. That, however, is what we have to put up with in the streets and trains and cafes, constant insults. I also noticed how some one in a café was reading an Afrikaans newspaper, and soldiers who came past said: “Why are you reading that dirty newspaper?” The Prime Minister should see to it that order is maintained amongst the troops. He spoke about their fighting for Christendom, and called them heroes of the Cross. Let them conduct themselves as crusaders, and let there be an end to the scandalous things which are taking place to-day all over the country. I also object to the payments to the “home front squadron”. There are members of that squadron sitting on the opposite side, members who draw the extra salary but have “cold feet” and remain at home, all for the defence of the “home front”. Not one of them is brave enough to go to the North and do his duty there. They remain at home and look after the women. If I had a husband like that, I would long since have kicked him out of the house. I do not like a coward. I like a man who can stand to his guns, and who does the duty for which he is paid. A great deal has been said here about intimidation and victimisation. In my constituency I can mention one case of a conspicuous kind. A certain Eybers was working in a bottle store. He had been working there for fourteen years, and rose up from the bottom rung of the ladder, but on his discharge, he was only getting £16 a month. In his case the owner gave him instructions to teach a certain Jewish young man of between 20 and 30 years how to do the work. He did so, but did not know that he would subsequently be dismissed. As soon as the Jew knew the work, the Jewish owner came and said: You must go and join up, you must go and fight. Why could not the other person, the Jew, go and fight? If anyone comes to make his living here, then he should also go and fight for the country especially because that class of people provoked the war. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is not present, but I just want to ask him why eight prominent Afrikaners who were working in the post office in Johannesburg were transferred at 24 hours notice? They had their own home, their children were at school and they had to leave at 24 hours notice. They were transferred to different places. And then it is even said that there is no victimisation, that no pressure is exercised on people. We can mention hundreds of cases. These things can no longer be tolerated. I notice that the Minister of Finance in the budget again asks for a large amount to build an internment camp. In the big towns the town councils are busy by virtue of an act of this Parliament, pulling down houses. Although they are nulling down the houses, there is no money for housing. In my constituency there are many of these cases, of which I am now going to mention one. There are some of the houses which could still provide good accommodation to people. I mentioned on a previous occasion the case of a blind person who lived in Ninth Street, and he had paid for his little home. The money had been paid off by his wife, who took in washing. The husband and the child were blind. But the week after the house was paid for the town council gave them notice that the house was to be demolished. What do they get now? They get £50 for the little piece of land on which the house stood, and then they actually have to pay people to demolish the house. The minister in Vrededorp told me that 500 of his congregation had to leave Vrededorp, and to move to worse localities, such as Federation Chambers, where coloured people are living alongside of whites, and where coloured people and Europeans live together in the same building. There is no money to get rid of those bad conditions, but we have money to put up camps for innocent people and for such unholy things. I therefore protest against this budget. The cost of living is rising, and now the Minister of Finance comes and imposes additional burdens on the people. It is said that it is only a halfpenny here and a penny there, but that is a lot of money for the poor people. I represent a poor constituency, and there are many people there who can practically get no work. For them it is a great deal to pay a halfpenny or a penny more here and there. The Minister of Finance is going to spend £46,000,000 in killing people. Cannot he use a part of that to increase the wages of the badly-paid railway men and other officials, so that they can live? Economically our country is going back like a crab. We know in what state our Afrikaners were after the English war of 1902. We know how we struggled to get on our feet again, and just when we were going along nicely England dragged us into the war of 1914 again. There again we suffered, and after that war we once more tried to reinstate ourselves. We then again succeeded in rectifying matters a little, but now we find that we once more have to take a terribly big debt on our shoulders for another big war, and we wonder what the end is going to be. When this war is over, then we will have to pay heavily, and we may just expect again that within a short time, in ten years or so, there will be another war, if we remain linked up with the British Empire. Then we will have once more to take part in that war, and along with Britain pay the cost of that war. No, we cannot go on in that way. We cannot always be driven in this way, and I can only hope that that kind of thing will no longer fall to our lot.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) again confirmed to-day what the Minister of Finance said in introducing his budget, namely that we were only commencing today to find out in South Africa what tremendous potentialities we had for the development of our industries. He emphasised this fact and he particularly referred to this side of the House and remarked: “You are the people who represent the primary producers.” By that he wanted us to understand that it was really our duty to support the war because of the factories which will be established to manufacture lemon juice for the soldiers and to make meat and things of that kind. We know only too well that the position is the other way round. If we had spent £126,000 per day on the building up of industries in our country our position to-day would be totally different and we would have had a great deal more than the few industries which are now going to be established for war purposes, and which, together with the war, will pass away and die. Because this wonderful spirit of sacrifice which was so highly commended by the Minister of Finance will also die the very day the war ends. I want to express the hope, however, that this spirit of sacrifice to bear these burdens and to pay, existing among hon. members opposite, will not disappear as well and that they will say then that although we on this side have been against the war, and although they themselves had carried on the war, they were not going to be so mean as to load the burdens which would have to be borne and the sacrifices which would have to be made on the shoulders of us who did not want to take part in the war. The Minister of Finance, when he introduced his main budget about four months ago, told us that he was placing an additional burden of £9,744,000 on the people, and then there was an amount of about £2,500,000 which would be taken from the account of the previous war, and in addition to that he would take about £2,000,000 from loan account, so that altogether he would take £14,000,000 on his main estimates in order to see the war through. The Minister’s words were as follows: that he was going to finance the war in such a manner that it would not be a burden on posterity. I hope the hon. the Minister will remember that, because on this occasion again, after having developed his budget speech rather extensively, he again said that they did not wish to place a burden on generations to come. Now I want to apply a slight test to his words. In the first place he imposes a burden of £9,000,000 on the people for the purpose of waging war. He says that that is not a burden on the people. He goes further and he says that he now takes this money from the people because there are large numbers of people making more money in times like the present. People are earning a few shillings more. Men are joining up and money is being paid out to their wives. They make a precarious existence with the money they earn, but in order not to lead them into temptation to spend more, with the result that an inflation of prices may come about, he is going to impose taxes in order, to stop that sort of thing. He said if he did not do so prices would rise too high. He told us here also that some products had already reached a high level in regard to prices, and he told us particularly that gold and wool had gone up to a very high price. The Minister of Agriculture was sitting behind him and scratched his head. I wondered why he did not approach his colleague and ask him: “What about mealies?” Have mealies also gone up in price? Has wheat gone up? Has fruit and things like that gone up in price? So far as mealies are concerned we are in any case not getting a higher price; we are getting the same price for mealies as we did before. But I want to go further and put this to the Minister. The Minister’s war expenditure now amounts to about £46,000,000. Out of that total he is borrowing £20,777,000, say about £20,750,000. Is that a burden on posterity or is the Minister after the war, like a juggler, going to get that money together in order to pay off that debt? Is he going to avail himself of the spirit of sacrifice which his friends made on the 4th September when they voted in favour of plunging this country into war? If the Minister does not believe in Darwin’s theory he should not go and make speeches of that kind to the farmers. The farmer believes that if he takes a bond on his land it is a burden on posterity and not an asset. Now the Minister tells us that we must borrow money on our land to the full extent of our credit, and when we have mortgaged everything our children will be in the sound position of not having any heritage so that they will not have any trouble about liquidating the estate. He tells us that by the use of that money he has created a permanent value in the country. The permanent value which he has mentioned is coastal defence. That permanent value we now have to put against a divided and embittered people. He tells us that there are technical colleges for our sons. I want to take all the assets which the Minister has mentioned. It is true that those young fellows are now getting something in the direction of a technical training, but if those young fellows return from the war at some future time, will they be able to find work?

Yes.

I saw in the last war how people encouraged others to go and fight, while they themselves stayed at home, and how they took shelter behind the blood of those people; I saw how those people returned after the war, and dropped down in the streets as a result of starvation. I saw people falling about the street as a result of having been gassed in the war, and it was the farmers who had to feed them and not the English-speaking people. And that is the permanent value which we are also going to get from this war. The further asset which the Minister has mentioned is the development that will take place in the manufacture of war requirements. That is the kind of permanent value — as if the people of South Africa intend waging war for ever! Are war requirements the only thing we have to think of for the future? The Minister went a little further and he made this point. He said that South Africa’s financial position was particularly sound; he was very proud of it. We know that the country’s financial position is sound, because the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) has been struggling for years to make it sound after the difficulties and the aftermath of the last war — a war in which we were plunged by those same people. He struggled for years to get the country back on to a normal basis. That war ended twenty years ago and now that the sugar basin is full again, the Minister of Finance comes along, supported by his friends opposite, and again wants to help for the sake of British sentiment. The hon. member for Fauresmith saw to it that the basin was full. The present Minister of Finance is proud of the financial position, and that is why he is now helping his friends out of that basin for the sake of British sentiment. When I listened to the speech of the Minister of Finance, I could not help thinking of a little poem which I used to teach small children—.

But that poem also had another side to it—

When the hon. member for Fauresmith resigned, the financial position was sound, but hardly had the hon. member gone before his friends opposite went in and played about with the country’s money. I am going to make charges against the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance four months ago said that he needed £14,000,000 for the war, and that he was not going to lay a burden on posterity. He is now asking for £46,000,000 altogether, and he is laying a burden of £20,000,000 on future generations. In spite of that he says it is not a burden.

No.

That would be the same position as this. Say I borrow £500; to-morrow I borrow another £500 and I go on like that, and if my children inherit one day everything has been mortgaged, but in spite of that I say I leave them credits. I come back to the point which I want to put to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance had said four months ago that he required £14,000,000 for the first year of the war, and he now comes along to ask for another £46,000,000; how then can the Minister expect us to believe him when he tells us that £46,000,000 will meet his requirements until the 31st March next year? What was the reason which the Minister of Finance gave us for this increase in expenditure? He told us that the expenditure had gone up so greatly on account of Italy having entered the war. When they declared war against Germany, they should have prepared themselves for what was to come. Had they made any greater war effort since Italy has come into the war?

What do you think?

All this money is now being asked for and the Minister says that Italy is the cause. I ask again whether the Government did not prepare itself to wage war against Germany? I want to read out to hon. members opposite, however, what one of their own people said in this connection. I read in the Cape Argus of the 27th August that SAPA’s war correspondent with our forces “somewhere in Africa” tells us about an interview which he had with one of the soldiers there on the question of how they are getting on. The soldier describes everything and then he tells the correspondent to inform the people in South Africa that “we are still looking for the war”. £126.000 per day is being spent, and we are still busy looking for the war! That statement does not come from us who are on the Opposition benches—it does not come from the fifth column, it is a SAPA war correspondent who sends this to the Cape Argus. Then the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) wants to tell us that we must vote for this expenditure because he is going to get a factory which will produce lemon juice, which we will be able to send to our troops, and that by so doing they are helping us to sell our products. I want to tell hon. members over there that the time has passed for Afrikaners to forget that the cause of this war is precisely similar to the cause of the war in 1914. We are fighting for British sentiment, and the Afrikaans-speaking people have to be sacrificed on the altar for the sake of British sentiment. We have been exploited in the past, and we are being exploited to-day and we are being insulted in our own fatherland, and that for the sake of British sentiment. The hon. member for Fauresmith tried to rebuild the ruins of the last war on a sound, economic basis, and we know to what degree he succeeded in doing so. Our economic resources have been built up, and to-day the Minister of Finance comes along and prides himself on the fact that our economic position is so sound that he finds it easy to borrow money. He borrows that money because of South Africa’s economic position to pay for this war which is again being fought exactly like the last war for the sake of British sentiment. There we have my hon. friends sitting opposite. I do not want to say here what I think of them. I only want to say that I am feeling very sorry for them; they remind me of a personal experience I had after the Second War of Independence. I and my late brother were watching the troops which were going away, and we saw coloured people running behind them and singing “God Save the King.” A crowd of people who had joined up with them also went past. One of the officers then came to us and said, “I just want to say good-bye to you and I want to say that I hope that in the next war we shall not fight against each other as we have done on this occasion, but I hope we shall then stand shoulder to shoulder.” My brother thereupon replied, “Yes, but what are you doing with those people who have joined up with you?” and he retorted, “If you walk across a muddy spot and you throw down a brick to step on it you do not pick up that brick again when you have passed the muddy spot, and you do not carry it along with you under your arm,” and that is exactly what is going to happen to those Afrikaners who are now sitting on the other side of the House, To-day they are being praised and kept sweet with any kind of Empire syrup. There is plenty of Empire syrup for that purpose, but when the war is over they will be the brick which will remain in the mud. The pity of it is that there are people of our own flesh and blood whom we have to say these things about. It hurts me to the core that there are Afrikaans-speaking people who do not stand for South Africa first, but who stand first of all for British sentiment. They are the bricks in the mud of the pro-British people of this country, the brick which they must use to get across the mud. Once they are on the other side they are going to leave you in the mud. We were told in the last war what people were fighting for and that there would be an Utopian state after the war. The soldiers who went to the war came back and we had to give them pick and shovel to go and work in the streets, and now they want to ruin even more of our young fellows. At the best time of their lives they enter the army and become soldiers, and when they come back from the war, in spite of he millions of money which we are now spending for the impoverishment of the country, we shall be left with sons who have been impoverished, who have been made the poorer in their knowledge, whose morale has been depressed, and who will have no more energy in life. If we analyse the position we can do nothing but say with the greatest feeling of sorrow, but also with the greatest feeling of certainty—I am prepared to go as far as that—that our friends opposite despise the simmering fury of the Afrikaner people, because the Afrikaner people like a Christian nation tries to forgive and forget. But we have learned enough about British sentiment in this country.

I have allowed the hon. member to go fairly far afield but he must now get back to the Estimates.

I want to give this one reason in connection with the position in which we find ourselves, and I want to say that it is for the sake of British sentiment that we are spending this money. I want to say again that we shall protest to the very last against voting a single shilling which will have the effect of encouraging British sentiment in this country and keeping it alive. We shall do our utmost even if we have to go and grill meat again but we shall do so until Afrikaner sentiment triumphs over and drives out British sentiment for ever.

The hon. member who has just sat down, devoted the best part of his speech to telling the House that South Africa went into the war on account of British sentiment. He fails to realise and appreciate all that Britain has done for South Africa in the last 40 years. That, to the hon. member, means nothing; he overlooks the fact that there are large numbers of people in South Africa, not only English-speaking but Afrikaans-speaking also, to whom British sentiment means a tremendous lot. If the hon. member had had any thought for South Africa, and the future of South Africa, he would not have used that argument against South Africa’s participation in the war; he would realise only too well that if anything happens to Britain and the British Commonwealth, South Africa will not last very long. He probably knows that only too well, but he is afraid, with other members on that side of the House, to express that feeling because of the repercussions it may have in his own little constituency. This morning we listened to a very interesting speech by the hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman), giving us an account of the activities and the methods adopted since war broke out, to deal with the sickness and the epidemics which rage through these military camps. We all appreciate the tremendous amount of work the medical profession has been doing, and what the Director-General of Medical Services has been doing. But we are not all satisfied that they could not have done more. There is a large volume of opinion in South Africa that there has been a tremendous amount of laxity, and an enormous amount of overlapping, and there were resources available in South Africa to assist the Medical Department of the Defence Force, which were not called upon for their assistance. We have to bear in mind, in dealing with this question, the tremendous difficulties and the handicaps under which the Defence Department took over at the commencement of the war, and if we are to look for culprits, and apportion the blame for all the deaths that have taken place in the military camps, surely we have to look at the former Minister of Defence. It was up to that Minister and the department to see that at the outbreak of war South Africa was fully equipped with everything needed to prosecute the war. For some years now the situation in Europe has been a troubled one, and most people in the world probably thought war was inevitable. Germany cloud not beallowed to take these territories without someone eventually making a stand, and the former government and the Minister of Defence were well aware of what would be expected of South Africa. It is not so long ago that the ex-Minister made his trip to Germany and probably he had a long talk with Herr Hitler on these matters, and he, above everyone, knew that South Africa would be called upon to take some part in this war. It was up to him to see that the medical services were in such a state of perfection that they would be above criticism. But what did the new Government find? They found that nothing had been done, and that the same applied to the medical services as applied to the whole Defence Department, there was nothing there, nothing ready. As the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) stated, not many weeks before war broke out, that if our troops were called to take part in the war, it would be nothing short of murder to put them in the field. So that I hope, much as we feel justified in criticising the medical service, we should go back a little further and put the blame where it really rests, and that is with the previous government, and particularly with the ex-Minister of Defence. I suggest that when the medical services found they were so short of equipment, no hospitals, no beds, etc., it was up to the Director-General to take advantage of all the facilities that were offering in South Africa. I have yet to learn that the medical service of the Defence Department could not have applied to the Red Cross Society, which I am convinced, at the commencement of the war, was capable of taking over the whole of the medical services required. The Red Cross Society has its branches in every part of South Africa, it has been studying this question for a number of years, it carries a considerable amount of equipment, and one might term the members of it specialists in the art of looking after the sick and wounded. Now we have in these camps no bedding, no general equipment, not sufficient nurses, etc. I want to ask why the Red Cross Society was not called upon to give them the assistance that was lacking. Why was the Red Cross Society not asked to take over the whole of the service until a proper organisation could be brought in? I have no authority to say that they were not approached, but I am perfectly sure that the organisation which exists in South Africa connected with the Red Cross could have taken over the job right from the commencement, in which case we would not have been faced with all the complaints we have been faced with in regard to the treatment of our soldiers in the various camps. It is all very well to say that these outbreaks of flu are an annual occurrence. We admit that, but you have a body in existence capable of dealing with these outbreaks, and they should be called in to take over a part of the work. There is no dorp or town in South Africa where they have not got highly skilled nurses ready to go anywhere inside or outside of South Africa, and I hope there will be more consultation with bodies of this kind by the department as these bodies are bursting to do something and to help. Having made these remarks, I certainly hope that more co-operation will result in the future. I understand that the Minister has decided in regard to this tax on yeast to rebate a certain amount to the bakers. I hope he will rebate the whole amount. Judging from what I have been told, the Minister expected that this increase of the tax from 3d. to 1s. 3d. per lb. would fall chiefly on the illicit brewing business. If the Minister will rebate that tax as far as the bakers are concerned, it will be much appreciated. The Minister must take into consideration that the increased tax will raise the cost of production of bread by something like 5 per cent. The bakers are under an agreement not to charge more than a certain amount for their bread; yet their costs of production are being put up by this tax. Like other concerns they should be allowed to reimburse themselves and pass the higher tax on to the public. Now we would not like to have the price of bread raised. All the other commodities, cigarettes, petrol, everything else — everywhere the increased tax is passed on to the public, to the consumer, and I suggest that it would not be unfair if the baker could do the same thing, but this difficulty could be avoided if the Minister could exempt the bakers from this tax. In regard to the other increases the hon. member for Swellendam was very much concerned about the extra duty on brandy, but he had nothing to say against the extra duty on whisky, which amounts to 7s. 6d., whereas we are only taxing brandy an extra 2s. 6d. The Minister puts an extra tax of 7s. 6d. on an article which is probably taxed as much as any foodstuff in South Africa. The Minister must not think that when he is taxing whisky he is not taxing food. It is the chief food of every man who has been exported from Scotland, and it is recognised as food by that particular community. Although this is a war measure I believe these Scotsmen will be quite prepared to pay a little extra for their food because there is a war on. But what we take exception to is that we have members in this House who claim that that increase is not sufficient. The hon. member for Swellendam would have liked the increase to have been 10s. He objects to the increase in the Excise on brandy. Well, one could have understood that if there had not been a war on, and if the markets in France had been open to the rest of the world and if he had wanted extra protection against French brandies competing in the markets of this country, but France has closed down from that point of view, and will not be able to export any brandies without the permission of that foreign country which hon. members over there call Great Britain. I would have thought that if for no other reason the hon. member for Swellendam would have been prepared to support the British Government because of their closing down the chief competitor to their brandy industry. I am convinced from the remarks by hon. members opposite that they are only concerned with this war so far as it affects their pockets. If you could run this war and let them all make plenty of money out of it — which they are all doing — in spite of what they say they would not mind the war going on. First of all we heard about wool, until we all became woolly, wondering whether they could make an extra farthing, no matter what happened to the rest of the people. They told us that we must pull out of the war unless they could get an extra farthing for their wool. I wonder where they would get buyers, or how they would get their wool away if the British Government did not buy it. Reverting to this brandy question I would say to the hon. member for Swellendam: “You have a commodity which you are putting on the market at about one-third of the price of whisky, why not be satisfied with that?” An extra duty of 7s. 6d. has been put on whisky, that should be enough. Now, a few words about the increase in the tax on petrol. In Natal we produce a spirit, Natal Spirit — this is an industry which finds it very hard to keep going, but it has never approached the Government for any assistance, and if it has ever asked the Government to help it, it has never had any assistance. Apart from the representations I have made in this House nobody else has ever done anything for them. I do say that the Minister of Finance might have taken into consideration the position of these local industries which produce petrol. There is another concern producing petrol, of which the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) may have some knowledge. I do submit that the industry in Natal is unique in this way that the whole of the petrol produced by that industry is produced from the products of South Africa. These other industries which produce petrol use imported crude oil in the production. That is not the position in Natal. Everything comes from the sugar industry to produce this petrol, and nothing is imported. I would have thought that the Minister would have given them some consideration, and instead of raising their tax by 3d. he might have raised it by 2d. only, thus giving them a 1d. preference. The time will come when the people of South Africa will prefer the Union spirit even to imported petrol. A similar spirit is used all over England, and it is found that even when blended with other petrol it improves the other petrol, it stops pinking and even increases the horsepower. My suggestion is that the petrol companies in South Africa should be compelled to take certain quantities of our local spirit and mix it with their petrol. They would be able to absorb the whole of the production of the Natal spirit, and it would not effect them one little bit. It would improve the present petrol, particularly so far as small cars are concerned. It would stop pinking and give them a bigger pulling power, so there is no reason whatever for inflicting this extra 3d. per gallon on the petrol made in Natal. Natal so far has been the Cinderella of South Africa, and has received very little consideration from previous governments and it is looking forward to a little consideration from the present Government. Now in regard to the excise duty on cigarettes I cannot understand why only cigarettes or cigarette tobacco is made subject to the increased tax. Why not all tobacco? Pipe smokers get away with a cheaper smoke; it is not everyone who is fond of carrying a clay pipe and the other commodities to enable him to get a smoke. It would have been wiser if the Minister had put this tax on tobacco of all kinds. Perhaps it is not too late for him to do so. He should not discriminate between one type of smoker and another. Why cigars have been left out I do not know; there would be something to be said for the individuals who smoke expensive cigars having to pay a little more taxation. In spite of all these criticisms I think the people of South Africa as a whole have very few complaints to make in regard to the new budget proposals. The Minister must not take any notice of what Opposition members say. No matter what this Government did they would still find fault. When you consider that it is almost impossible in this extra taxation to find any instance of it pressing unduly on the poorer community, then I feel that there is cause for congratulation. When these hon. members over there were in power—a matter of a few years ago—there was a tremendous outcry when a tax was put on the so-called poor people whom they are supposed to represent. One does feel that at a time of war the Minister of Finance should be able to come along and introduce a budget which, might affect every section of the community, but in this particular instance the poor have not been affected, except to a very small extent. A few years ago when we had just left the gold standard, when those hon. members over there who are now decrying the Minister, cost the country, together with their Minister of Finance, such a tremendous amount of money, they had very little to say. But they cost the country a great deal more money through our remainng on the gold standard than our participation in the war will cost us now, even if the war goes on for a considerable time. At a time like the present we should be prepared to put up with a little extra expenditure in our efforts towards prosecuting the war.

What about the Dominion Party, would you not like to put them into power?

I can say that the time is not far off when that may happen. The public of South Africa will not always remain stupid, and there is certainly a good deal of hope that they will not always allow the position to remain as it is—they will not allow the Opposition to bluff them for ever, and they will not always return those hon. members who are on the Opposition benches to-day. They will wake up, and when that day comes they will realise that the Dominion Party is the party which should be placed in control of affairs in South Africa.

Wishful thinking.

Now I want to say a few words on this vote of £5,000 for the reception and care of evacuee children including all expenditure in connection therewith. This item has been criticised a good deal, and it will no doubt be considered further when we get to the item in Committee of Supply. I am sure the Opposition will be proud of the contribution which South Africa is going to make in regard to these evacuee children who have been taken away from the bombing and the slaughter which is taking place.

I thought everything was so rosy in England.

This wonderful country South Africa can make a contribution of £5,000—I am sure they must be very pleased. Why such a small amount on the Estimates for this particular matter? It is simply because the British people of South Africa are prepared to take these children into their homes and we do not want any expenditure from the Exchequer of South Africa to be used for the care of these little mites that will come to this country. We do not want them to be able to say that they are keeping these children. But there is no other country in the Commonwealth of Nations which will be making such a small and miserable contribution towards these children. I can tell the House and my friends here that there is nothing to worry about in regard to these children. The children will be looked after. There are thousands of homes anxiously waiting to take care of them, and although this amount may be criticised, there is nothing to worry about. The only contribution by the Union Government is the railway fare to their destination and nothing else, but probably even that is too much for the Opposition. It is not very often that I have got up here to congratulate the Minister of Finance on his budget, but I certainly do so in regard to this one and I have yet to learn that there is much criticism of his budget. And if the war goes on we can only hope that his next budget will be the same.

I do not think any apology is necessary for my casting a Labour eye over the budget and for my venturing on one or two criticisms in that line. The budget has been generally accepted as a good one. Superficially I suppose one could agree that it is a good budget. But it appears to me that it is a good budget for the specific reason that it does not appear to do harm to anyone. No one is likely to feel the effects of this budget in their pockets, no one has been called upon to make any great sacrifices, and what has apparently met with the most generous appreciation in certain circles is that in the £18,000,000 loan which the Minister proposes to float an avenue of investment will be found for considerable capital which is lying loose and going spare in the Union. One realises, of course, that this is an interim budget, an additional budget, and that it would perhaps be unwise to draw any lesson from it as to the Government’s financial policy of the future. However, I am a little bit suspicious of it, and I would have liked it better if the Minister had gone a little more carefully into details as to how he proposes to finance future war expenditure. If he had given us some kind of real scientific idea as to what proportion of our future war expenditure he proposes to raise by means of taxation, and what proportion he proposes to raise by way of loan, I would have felt happier, because in the present budget far too much has been raised by means of loan and too little by means of taxation. It does seem to me that we are prepared to burden posterity with the cost of a war which we ourselves are conducting. The budget itself is a standing proof that the Union can, and is indeed capable of carrying a burden of taxation far beyond the few extra imposts that have been introduced and it does seem to me that there was in fact little necessity to raise any of this additional expenditure by means of loans. Most of it could quite easily have been borne by direct taxation. Now I want to say a word or two to the hon. Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister himself. In this House we have an Opposition which is eternally harping on what has happened in the past. We hear from day to day stories of what happened in the Anglo-Boer War and before it, in fact one member this morning in a fit of eloquence went back to the days of Lord Charles Somerset. We are consistently asked to cast our minds back into the past, while on the other hand the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister consistently ask us to cast our minds forward to the future, they are always marching steadily towards South Africa’s great and growing future. I find myself as perhaps an odd man out in this House, sort of stranded between a memory of the past and a vista of the future. I am old enough to have remembered the last war and the promises that were given to us. I remember we were told we were fighting to make the country, fit for heroes to live in, to make democracy safe for the democrats, and to put the rights of small nations on an unassailable foundation. And I can remember after the war we got none of these things and I am even to-day sufficiently cynical to think that much as I am conscious of the actual issues in this war and much as I am determined to see that South Africa shall strain every nerve to win this war, much as I am conscious of these things, I am at the same time not going to be deluded as I was in the last war. Rather than look back into the past or strain my already failing eyesight to get a glimpse of our future destinies, I would like to have a little bit of the new world on account, right now. And it does not seem to me, I am quite serious about it, it does not seem to me that it is impossible to fight a war and at the same time have a bit of the new world. It is possible, and should be done, and it is a test of the Government’s sincerity as to how they are prepared to give us some of it. They are not giving it to us to-day. The Minister of Finance has told us how he is going to raise this money by a little bit of taxation here and a little bit there and a very deliberate lack of taxation in many instances, particularly the gold mines; he has told us how he is going to raise the money but he has not told us what he is going to do with it, and what he is doing with it. I want again to suggest to the hon. Minister and the Prime Minister that if we are to raise all this money, there is no particular reason why we should not raise a great deal more and see to-day that the men who are prepared to offer their lives in the services of their country have their wives and children adequately looked after. They are not being adequately looked after to-day. The allowance for a soldier’s wife and two children from the state, including the 1s. 9d. per day from the man’s own pay of 3s. 6d. amounts to the magnificent sum of £12 7s. 6d. per month and in many instances the soldier has left a position worth £25 to £30 a month. The business man who has been prepared to shut up his whole business and the possibility of a career to do what he considers to be his duty, namely, to place his services and his life, if necessary, at the service of the state, gets in return an allowance for his wife which amounts to £12 7s. 6d. a month. But, says the Government, in addition to that we have the Governor-General’s Fund, and it is just this Governor-General’s Fund that particularly arouses my ire, because it places on the wives of soldiers what I can only call the indignity of having to pauperise themselves before a crowd of ancient females in most instances, who pry into their private business and investigate their financial position. If the Government had avoided putting this indignity upon the women perhaps there would have been a little less criticism levelled at the Government. However, they have done that. Since when has it become necessary in a country which can produce a budget such as this to say that the state will not take on its full obligation towards the soldiers’ wives and that a certain portion of that obligation should be taken over by the Governor-General’s Fund which is furnished by public subscription. If people can subscribe money to that fund, to allow that fund to adequately take over this burden, then surely the Government by additional taxation could raise sufficient to make an additional allowance to these wives in the only proper fashion in which it should be done. Mr. Speaker, we have got past the stage when soldiers were merely paid mercenaries on a shilling a day. To-day we are living in a world where we are calling on volunteers to go and defend the Union in the sacred name of liberty, and they are doing it, and there should be no necessity for a 300-yard queue at an office where the wives of our men have to line up for an hour or two hours in order to ask, as I say, some ancient female sitting at a desk whether they can get an allowance in addition to what is paid by the Government. If we were short of money the criticism would not be so apt, but we are not short of money. The hon. Minister has gloried in the fact that he has only found it necessary to increase the income tax by 20 per cent. I say deliberately that the hon. Minister has failed in his duty in that he has not increased the income tax by 100 per cent. The income tax is small enough in all conscience in the Union. While there is one single wife of a soldier not adequately provided for it is nothing short of scandal that our income tax has only been increased by a paltry 20 per cent. The time has arrived when the Government will have to take into serious consideration this question of the pay of the soldier, and more particularly the allowance to his wife and dependents. We have raised an army on what I consider to be a dangerous basis, an army with a differential pay rate. We have public servants and Railway servants who go on active service and have their full civilian pay made up by the state and the Department of Railways, and we have in many instances a number of municipalities who are prepared to do the very same thing for their men, but side by side with these men, who are earning their full civilian rate of pay and can therefore adequately provide for their wives and children, we have thousands of men who have given up their all, without receiving one penny of civilian pay and are prepared to go out and defend their country anywhere for 3s. 6d. a day, plus the allowance which the state is prepared to give to their wives. The Government says to the one man, “When you join the army we are prepared to give you the same salary you got when you were a civilian,” whereas to the other man the Government says, “We are only prepared to pay you this specific allowance.” To the wife of the latter the Government says, “You can go to the Governor-General’s Fund.” Now, sir, we are not fighting this war on charity; we don’t want any of these high-falutin’ subscriptions of £5,000 from this fellow and that fellow who get their names and pictures on the front pages of the newspapers. That is not the kind of war we are fighting to-day. That was the kind of war we fought in 1914-T8. That is the kind of war which landed us in such a terrible mess, of which we are now reaping the fruits. This is a war in which everybody realises we are in process of making a new world, and the Government cannot say they have not had this criticism before. I went to the extent of preparing a memo in which I discussed this question very carefully and I submitted a copy of it to every member of the Cabinet. I suppose they were all very busy; they all sent me a very nice letter to say they had received my memo, but since then I have heard nothing about it. This to me is a matter of prime importance; it is a matter of how our money is going to be spent, and there can be no possible ignorance on the part of members of the Cabinet that the money does exist. The gold mines are there and they should be taxed more, because when all is said and done, if by any stretch of imagination Hitler should win this war — we know he cannot — the gold mines would not be any use to the people who have them to-day; Hitler would very soon take them away, so that the gold mines are in the position that they can be forced to pay until it hurts. It is their type of world that has landed us in this kind of mess, their type of capitalistic world. We must see to it that the people who are going to be called upon to make the sacrifice — unfortunately in some instances it is going to be the supreme sacrifice— can rest assured that in return for that sacrifice their women and children are not placed in a worse position financially than their husbands were when they went out. Surely that is not asking very much of the new world; it is not crying for the moon, and surely it is not asking for something which cannot be accomplished. No, Mr. Speaker, it is asking for a very elementary piece of justice, an economic and financial arrangement which is well within the compass of the Union to make, and I trust, having been forced through my inability to get any reply in any other way and having brought it before the House now, the Government will see to it that such a state of affairs is speedily remedied.

Hardly three months ago we granted the Minister of Finance all the money he asked for in order to see the war through to the end of March. He told us that that money would see him through to the end. After that we went home and it was our duty to give an account to our constituents of the work done at Parliament. When I gave an account to my constituents I told them that we had voted £14,000,000 for the war, but that I was convinced that before the end of the year the expenditure would be nearer £50,000,000 than £15,000,000. That was three months ago, and we have now been called back to Parliament to vote another £32,000,000. I predicted that if the war goes on until the end of the year we shall have to vote even more money. We have just heard, according to a report in the paper, that the people who have gone to the war are still looking for it. I also told my constituents that the reason why I thought a great deal more money was needed was because I had experience of war. Just open up a war account and one is at once inundated by people who do not want to put an end to a war but who are on the look out to see what they can make out of it. That strengthened my view when we had the precedent in this House of a double salary being voted to people who would have the right to dispose of state moneys. I also felt and I said that I was convinced that the supporters of the Government would be compelled towards themselves to try to keep the war going as long as possible, so that they would be able to benefit themselves out of the war. The reply to a Question put to the Minister of Defence has convinced me that I was correct. A large number of members of Parliament have suddenly joined up, and in addition to their parliamentary salary they are drawing military pay from 9s. 6d. per day to 60s. 6d. per day. I suspect that they are being paid in accordance with their value and qualifications, and unfortunately the value of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) is so small that he is only getting 9s. 6d. per day. Can we expect those people who want to see the war through for the sake of honour and duty, and who impose heavy financial burdens on the people, while they are flourishing by means of an additional emolument which they are receiving — can we expect them to act any differently. They are people who stand on the corners of the streets to encourage or intimidate other people to go to the war. If they are given such splendid pay for that purpose then I am convinced that this war will be dragged on as long as possible. I also told my constituents that fresh taxes would be imposed. Those people who were so pleased because we were at war and who were pleased at the fact that the Minister of Finance had stated that he was not going to tax them, were told by me that the time would come for fresh taxation. Now we are three months further and we can see the additional burdens which are being imposed upon us. They will now start singing a different tune. But who are the people who are being taxed heavily? Most of those taxes directly affect the poorer man. Take stamps for instance. Those people who can only get into touch with their relations and their friends, and who have no other means of going to other towns where they want to carry on business, they are the people who are going to be affected by this additional tax. Take the petrol tax and the tax on motor tyres. There was a time when we all said that a motor car was an article of luxury. But that time has long since gone. There are tens of thousands of people who earn their living by means of a motor car and a motor lorry. The Provincial Council has already caused additional taxes to be imposed in consequence of this war. People have joined up and where they had to pay the salaries of those people and had to appoint others in their places the result was that they imposed an additional motor tax. And in addition to that we have the Minister’s tax which falls unduly heavily on the people and more particularly on the poorer section of the community. Ever since the war started we have had an additional tax, and this is not the first 3d. which has been added to the price of petrol. Together with the increase which has taken place before the total increase now amounts to 6d. per gallon. We can appreciate how heavily those people are affected who have to make then-living with the aid of motor cars and motor lorries. The cost of living of those people has also gone up. Incomes have not gone up but they have actually gone done. In addition to that we have the poorer people who are physically unfit, or who get old-age pensions, and their allowances have been reduced for the purposes of economy. Those people come and complain to us every day, and the Commissioner for Pensions can testify to the fact that I have called on him almost every week in connection with people whose allowances have been cut down. On the day I had to leave for Cape Town an old man called on me; he used to get £2 15s. per month. That has now been reduced to £1 10s. He is physically unfit. For that class of person there is no money, but for the people who for the sake of honour and duty are in the war and who stay at home an amount of 60s. 6d. has been allocated, so that they may sit in Parliament. One of the members opposite stated the other day that they could not go to fight because they had to sit here to look after the interests of their constituents. If we do not ask for additional allowances, why then should they get an additional allowance to remain here and look after the interests of their constituents. Surely we are already being paid. Is it not perfectly clear that this carrying on of the war is nothing else except what the hon. member who spoke just now told us, “I am going to see that I am going to get my little bit.” Is it not clear what the object of this war is, and why those people are keeping this war going, and why they are voting large amounts of money to extend the war even further? We should be lacking in our duty if we did not register the strongest protest against these Estimates which aim at continuing the war. That is our duty and we would be failing in our duty if we did not protest. If this war is carried on as the Prime Minister has told us, exclusively with volunteers, then we may show a certain amount of tolerance, but is the war being conducted with volunteers? Have we not been told about minor children being taken away? Have we not seen the way in which young men are being intimidated every day? We have even had intimidation of people who are criminals. Have we not found that people who have been sentenced on account of crimes they have committed are told that they can either go to gaol or join up to go and fight? Which criminals would not chose the latter alternative? In my constituency there is a reformatory for young criminals. Do hon. members know that those young criminals who are minors are being induced to join up in order to go to the war, and that is the kind of soldier we have. Is it to be wondered at that we are witnessing scenes of hooliganism such as we have heard of in the streets of Cape Town? It is the soldiers for whom we have to vote money to carry on the war against the public and against the freedom of the individual. All this goes to prove that the Government no longer cares what it is doing and how it sets about things, so long as it can just carry on the war, a war which so far has only been waged against the citizens of this country. We shall continue to protest. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) said: “In heaven’s name leave us alone and let us carry on with the war, then we shall leave you in peace.” I take it that they want peace with us in this House, but will they leave our constituents and the people outside in peace? It is being denied that there is any intimidation, but the hon. member for Carolina (Mr. Fourie) stated that we on this side do not even know how much intimidation is taking place. It is unnecessary for me to go any further into this question, if a member on the Government side says tha t that is the case. For those reasons, and because we are opposed to any war which does not concern our country, we are going to vote against this Budget.

I am only intervening in this debate in order to refute certain statements that were made by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) when he spoke on the last occasion this motion was before the House. Now, the hon. member said that with regard to the control of prices “we know that he (the Minister of Commerce) has not had much success in that direction, and whatever the statistics may say in connection therewith we know that the costs of living have risen and that people have to pay much more for everything they require.” I absolutely contravert that statement and I do so more readily because I want to pay a tribute to the men and women who have seen to it that prices have not been increased. If you take July — which are the last figures we can get — July, 1940, compared with July, 1938, which was a year which was entirely normal — the costs of living have increased only by 3.6 per cent. and yet the hon. member for Fauresmith says that I have not had much success. Now I want to point out that not only has the cost of living been held, but there is every indication that the cost of living will not go up abnormally, at any rate for a long time, and it is very important that statements such as those which the hon. member for Fauresmith made, should not go out into the country uncontraverted.

What about the farmers?

I shall come to that. In this connection I would nay a tribute not only to the Price Control Board. They have done their work extraordinarily well, but also to the three hundred and more local committees throughout the country who have controlled prices in their own areas and controlled them with commonsense and very sensibly, and I want particularly to emphasise and inform the House that none of these committees are paid in any way.

Members of Parliament get double salaries.

All the work is done in a voluntary way, and they are doing their work marvellously well. I would also perhaps in this connection say that in the last few months I have appointed as assesors under the Moratorium Act a number of people, all of whom are professional men of specialised knowledge, and that we are not paying one cent to any of them; they are all doing their work voluntarily, as a job of work which they feel they have to do for our war effort, and a great deal of credit is due both to these local committees, the price control committees and to those people who have been appointed under the Moratorium Act. I know that many members opposite and quite as many members on this side of the House who are connected with the farming industry do find that many of their commodities have risen very seriously. That is so. On the other side I would say this, that I am hoping in the course of a month or two that new works at Vereeniging will be able to produce many of the essential farming implements at pre-war prices, and I hope that that will help the farmers to a certain extent. Then also you must recognise that the farmers since the outbreak of war have been receiving better prices for their products.

You do not know what you are talking about.

Maize and fruit.

And in that respect they have got something back.

Yes, more expense.

I do not minimise the point that I make. I agree that the farming industry has had very heavy burdens put on it through the increased cost of many of Its commodities. Then the hon. member for Fauresmith became very sympathetic with the poor lorry owner and the poor classes who use motor-cars for earning their living. The hon. member who spoke last (Mr. De Bruyn) also shed a lot of bitter tears on that account. I have been listening to this debate without opening my mouth for days and every time a man in the Opposition gets up I become more confused. For instance, the hon. member for Fauresmith points out how dreadful it is that the man who has to earn his living by lorry driving has to pay 3d. a gallon more for his petrol. But only last week the hon. member for Fauresmith and that hon. member who spoke over there voted that there should be no petrol imported into the country at all.

What are you talking about?

Have not hon. members opposite got enough brains to know that if you make peace to-day you will not have one gallon of petrol in this country unless you go in a rowing boat to Persia to get it?

What about the Argentine?

What about America?

Do you think that France is getting any petrol? The British Fleet would see to that — and you would not get any petrol.

Why will not America send petrol?

Because you would send it to Hitler.

And then I listened to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) last night about wool. If we had passed the peace resolution the farmers would not get a penny for their wool.

Do you know anything about wool?

Who would fetch the wool? Those hon. members do not see the final results of all the extraordinary propositions they make.

Do you think we are all fools?

Yes.

The hon. member for Fauresmith must know that if his peace motion had gone through last week there would not be a single tanker coming to South Africa to-day.

No, no, that does not go down.

I really want hon. members opposite to be a little realistic and to understand what the effect of their motion means. I quite agree, purely from a cheap political stunt in the country, there is something in it.

I regret having to interrupt the hon. the Minister but we cannot have the peace debate all over again.

No, I shall go back to the petrol business because it has to do with this debate. I want to point out, to give one an idea of the irresponsible statements which hon. members opposite make, what the real position would be. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Venter) the other night got up in this House and said that the garage proprietors of Pretoria instead of putting up the price of petrol by 3d. had put it up by 4d. Surely he does not think that he can get away with a statement like that? I immediately wired to Pretoria and I sent one of my inspectors to see his informant. The informant could not give him the name of the man who had charged 4d. and the only thing he knew was that he had not been charged a 4d. rise, but he had met two fellows who said that they had been. And the same informant said: “I bought petrol in Pretoria since the duty was put on and I have only been charged 3d.” What an irresponsible statement. I still ask that hon. member the name of that man who charged two other men 4d. more. It may be true, but if I can only get hold of the garage proprietor I shall see to it that he does not go on charging 4d. more. I have appointed over 300 committees to look after this matter, to see that you are not swindled. Now, cannot you use these committees? Take the case of the hon. member for Wonderboom. Why did he not immediately go to the head of the Pretoria committee and report it? Then it could have been investigated at once, and if the man had done it intentionally he would have been prosecuted and fined, and it would have made him very careful not to do it again. Now I ask every man who has any interest in these matters to give their aid during these difficult help my department in keeping the prices down by reporting every case which he thinks is wrong to the committees, but do not go and report a lot of rubbish which you cannot substantiate because the committees are very busy, and I do not want them to be unduly loaded with rubbish.

When the Minister of Finance got up just now he took the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) to task for having recommended that a higher tax should be imposed on the gold mines. The Minister pointed out what the taxes were which during certain years had been imposed by the former Minister of Finance, and he drew attention to the fact that the previous Minister of Finance had taxed other things but not the gold mines. The Minister apparently forgets, however, that in the years to which he referred the value of gold was 84s. That is the price at which gold stood, but to-day it is not 84s.; exactly double that amount. To-day it is a hundred times easier for the gold mines to bear an extra tax than it was six or eight years ago. But now the Minister of Finance says that he cannot tax the gold mines. It is peculiar that he is going to get an additional £925,000 out of petrol while the additional burden placed on the gold mines will only produce £850,000. We are being told, especially by hon. members opposite, that so far as this war is concerned we are not fighting in the interests of England but exclusively in the interests of the Union. Let us take it for a moment that that is so. Then it naturally means that we are primarily fighting in the interests of the gold mines. If the gold mines were not there I am convinced that we would not have had all this misery which we have in South Africa to-day. So the gold mines are the indirect cause of our fighting to-day, even of our being in the war. But the Minister only taxes the gold mines to the extent of £850,000 for war purposes. The Minister requires £32,000,000, which means that he is taking from the gold mines only one-fortieth part as their contribution. For every pound which the Minister requires to see the war through the gold mines only contribute 6d. and that while we are fighting on behalf of the mines. And now the Minister tells us that the limit has been reached and that the mines cannot be taxed any further. Is that correct? The share market is the best barometer we have. As soon as any taxes are imposed one expects the share market to drop. On the day when the Minister made his budget speech, or the day after, the expected drop in prices of shares did not take place. On the contrary there was a rise on the share market. It is perfectly true that the rise was not a big one but from that time onwards shares have been steadily going up day by day. We fail to follow the Minister. Here we have a source of taxation and we are waging war for the sake of that source. Yet we are taxing the citizens of the country, rich or poor; we are taxing them by means of the petrol tax in order to protect the mines, while the gold mines themselves contribute less to the war than the poor people. It is not too late. I hope the Minister will yet take the whole matter into review. It is quite inadequate to impose a tax of only 6d. in the £ on the mines. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) tried to create the impression that these taxes would in the main be borne by the other side of the House. Well, I have made a study of the additional taxation proposals which are now before the House. It may be that hon. members opposite will be caught by the tax on whisky because they like to drink whisky, whereas we on this side of the House do not by preference drink the imported liquor. An amount of 7s. 6d. per gallon is now being imposed on whisky, and I hope that when the war is over that tax will remain. A man who once has developed a taste for whisky wants whisky. Unfortunately there are Afrikaners too who have developed that taste, but in any case once a man has got the taste for whisky he will continue to drink it, whatever the tax may be. You can put kaffir blits in the bottle and he will drink it, so long as it is stated on the label that it is whisky. That is a peculiarity of the whole business, and that does not apply to Scotsmen only, but to other people as well. In regard to the excise imposed on Colonial liquor I do not mind that either, provided the farmers are not going to suffer in consequence. There are hundreds of farmers in the Cape Province whose only means of existence are the growing of grapes for the production of liquor. If this additional excise on intoxicating liquor does not injure the farmers then I say that it should remain. I have no objection to any taxes of that kind, so long as they do not render the livelihood of the farmer impossible. But I am told from a good source that this excise on brandy will definitely affect the farmer. One of the members of the K.W.V. told me that he was afraid that the farmers would get at least 5s. less on a leaguer of wine. Another tax which I also approve of, if it is not going to affect the farmers, is the tax on cigarettes. We should not lose sight of the fact that Turkish tobacco is being grown on a large scale in the Western Province. I know from my own experience that Turkish tobacco is not produced in the main by the well-to-do farmer, but by the small farmer who can only just make a living out of it and nothing more. Now the question again arises whether the extra tax on cigarettes is not going to hit the small farmer. If not, then I am quite satisfied with that tax; but the tax which I am not satisfied with is the tax on beer. I have calculated that on Colonial brandy an extra 5d. per bottle is being imposed by way of excise, while on beer it is only ⅓d. per bottle, or 1-15th. of the excise on brandy. Now the Minister expects to get £40,000 out of the tax on beer. If he had made it 1d. per bottle instead of ⅓d. it would have produced £120,000. That extra 1d. would not have worried anyone. The man who wants his beer will buy it none the less, and I therefore hope the Minister will introduce an amendment because he would be able in that way to obtain an additional £80,000. Hon. members opposite tell us that they are the people who are going to be hit by those taxes. It may be that they are going to pay a considerable proportion of the petrol tax, because hon. members opposite and those whom they represent are the more well-to-do section of the population who indulge in the so-called joy-rides. This 3d. per gallon on petrol is not going to hit them very hard. It does not make much difference to them to pay the extra few pennies on a gallon of petrol, but we are faced with a totally different position when we turn to the less privileged class of people who have to make a living as carriers, lorry drivers and so on. I am now thinking particularly of the diggings. The diggers require water in order to carry on their digging operations. In days gone by they used to carry the water on the donkey wagons, but those days have passed because nowadays they have not got the grazing for those animals. They now have to cart the water along by lorries. It will be said now perhaps that they will not be greatly affected but I have reckoned it out. Let us take it that a digger covers 15,000 miles in a year in the carting of water. That is not putting it very high. Over bad roads his lorry will not give him more than about 10 miles to a gallon of petrol, which means that it will cost the digger about £20 per year extra. And what about his tyres? We do take it amiss that the Minister has put an extra 2d. on retread tyres and on renewed tyres. The Minister is a believer in thrift and he should encourage thrift. He should be pleased if people buy retread tyres. Yet he taxes the tyres with 2d. per lb. The digger who has already got to pay an extra £20 per year for petrol will have to pay at least an extra £4 for his tyres. In addition to that there has been an increase in the Cape recently on motor licences, an increase of 20 per cent. Taking it altogether the digger will have to pay at least from £26 to £30 per year extra. To hon. members opposite that may be a minor detail but to the people on the diggings it is a large amount. They are almost able to live on £30, and that is the additional amount which they will now have to pay as a result of the Minister’s new taxes. So far as the other taxes are co ncerned I do not greatly object to them. We are against the Government’s war policy, but under existing conditions the Minister has to get money, and I think those taxes are reasonable, but I do want to ask the Minister, so far as the petrol tax and the tax on tyres are concerned, to think of the less privileged people and I hope he will be able to meet them.

When the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) spoke he blamed the previous government for the fact that the country was not ready for participation in the war, but he particularly blamed the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) for the fact that we were not ready to declare war.

The hon. member will remember that I interrupted another member on that very subject. We cannot now discuss the reasons of the war.

I merely wanted to point out that while the hon. member for Gezina was being blamed for the fact that we were not ready to take part in the war ….

That is a matter which was discussed on the Main Estimates. The hon. member can refer to it in passing but he must not go fully into the whole question.

May I just explain what I was going to say? I do not propose going into the whole question of the declaration of war. The Minister of Native Affairs even stated that he regarded it almost as a criminal matter that we were not ready for the war. The hon. member for Gezina has in a previous debate already made it clear that England had promised to provide us with all our requirements, all our war equipment within six months after the outbreak of a war, if we should be involved in it, so it is really England who is the great sinner in this particular instance. One of the Ministers stated that we would not have had any petrol if we had not taken part in the war. I am not one of those who hold that Germany is going to win the war, but I do say that if England does not hold the domination over the seas somebody else will be master of the seas, and in that case we should be able to get our petrol all the same, or otherwise it would mean that all those countries which are neutral would be unable to get petrol. The Minister has asked us to vote an amount of £32,000,000 here in order to see the war through. Four months ago he asked for £14,000,000. It means therefore that we shall now have voted an amount of £46,000,000 in order to see the war through. There may have been members on the 4th September who felt that they had to vote in favour of South Africa taking part in the war but I am quite convinced that among them are members who, if they had known on the 4th September that within six months they would have to vote £46,000,000 to start the war, would certainly not on that day have voted in favour of our participation in the war. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) said that there were 200,000 soldiers in the field. I speak subject to correction. It would mean then that the country’s expenditure is about £15,000,000 for 200,000 soldiers, which amounts to £250 per soldier. If those hon. members who on the 4th September voted in favour of our participation in the war had known that France would leave England in the lurch; if they had known that England would have to fight on her own against Germany, would they in that event have voted in favour of our going into the war? No, I do not think so. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) pointed out to us why those large sums of money had to be voted and as the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg) has said money has to be voted because factories are being established to produce lemon juice for our soldiers. I am afraid that the disadvantages connected with our participation in the war will outweigh the benefits which we shall derive from it. The hon. member also said that a factory would be established for the production of canned meat. I believe it was stated in the Press that the Minister of Agriculture had said that such a factory would be put up in Durban. I do not believe that a canning meat factory is going to be a success in this country, but in view of the fact that we shall have to pay for all these things I suggest that we should establish those factories in the right centre. Durban is not the right place for that purpose. Look how far our animals will have to be sent, and it will mean that the tins of meat will have to be taken to the interior. If such a factory must be established it should be established in a central area such as Johannesburg, or in the middle of a cattle area. If that is not done and if a factory like that is put up in an out of the way place, then I would rather suggest that a central place like Kroonstad should be selected where the Municipal Council would grant all the facilities required for an institution of that kind. I understand the Government has given an order for 200,000 cases of canned meat. These are lb. tins of meat which are to be used for the Defence Force. There will be a demand for canned meat of that kind just as long as the Defence Force is in the North, but that will not be for ever. The Government is now busy wasting £50,000,000 per year and they may as well waste it for this purpose. As soon as the soldiers return from the North this canned meat will no longer be consumed. In our country, and in cold countries, very little tinned meat is used. If, however, a factory of that kind can be established, then I do hope that the farmers will be instructed as to the quantity of oxen that will be required, so that they may prepare themselves for it. Then there is another point I wish to touch upon. Under the War Emergency Act the Government fixes the prices of commodities such as meat and other articles of food. When the price of cattle started going up the small butchers and the big butchers in Cape Town came together in order to put up the price of meat. Immediately after that the Meat Control Board—I assume at the request of the Government—told them that that could not be allowed as it was in conflict with the Government’s policy. The butchers replied that the price of skins did not justify the prices which they were paying for the cattle, and that consequently they would have to pay less for the cattle. This meant that the cattle farmers would get about £600,000 less, let alone the sheep farmers. That is the amount which the farmer would have to lose in addition to all the other things which have been mentioned here, in order to see the war through. If the Government is not prepared to buy the skins itself or to make up the difference, it should give those people the right to put up the price of meat. It must do either the one or the other, because as things are to-day the farmer is getting about £1 10s. per head of cattle less and about 2s. 6d. per sheep less. I shall be pleased if the Minister of Agriculture will give his attention to this aspect of the matter, so that the farmers shall not be taxed through contributions of that kind in addition to the contributions which they already have to make to see the war through. The Government should either make up the difference in the price of the skins, or otherwise it should give those people the right to put up the prices of meat.

No one who is seriously concerned with a just distribution of the burden of taxation—I use the words of the amendment of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga)—or is concerned with the truly democratic principles of taxation will find cause to quarrel with the methods by which the sum of over £9,000,000 is to be raised out of revenue for the purpose of carrying on the war. According to the democratic principles of taxation the main burden of direct taxation should be laid on those who are best able to pay and that burden should fall primarily upon, and be graduated in accord with, income, and not be imposed on persons. In the case of indirect taxation the burden should fall upon the luxuries which are purchased by the higher income groups and be kept clear of the necessities which are purchased by the lower income groups. In relation to direct taxation we have a personal tax which falls upon the European and we have a particularly pernicious form of personal tax which falls on the native population in the poll tax. I doubt if anywhere else in the world indirect taxation falls more heavily upon the poverty-stricken section of the community than it does in South Africa. Blankets and the cheaper types of clothing are heavily taxed, as are also food necessities such as bread and mealies. The proposals which are contained in the budget for raising the necessary revenue for the immediate purpose of carrying on this war at least have the merit of not making the position any worse. In the realm of indirect taxation the new imposts upon articles such as petrol, cigarettes, tobacco and so on, do not very much affect the lower income earners, and certainly not the non-European section of the population in any material degree. In the realm of direct taxation there is a proposal to raise the income tax and I must agree with the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) that that might very well have been raised above the proposed figure, but I expect, since it is the general belief that the war will last for a long time, that omission will probably be rectified in the future and the burden of direct taxation will probably approximate more in this country to what it is in other countries engaged in this war. There is only one respect in which the new proposals may perhaps aggravate the position so far as the people with lower incomes are concerned. I am a little bit worried about the tax on yeast. I know the hon. Minister has promised that there will be a rebate as far as the yeast used in the production of bread is concerned, mainly because the Government is pledged to maintain the present price which, however, is far too high in peace time as in war. But so far as the people I directly represent in this House are concerned, they are affected by the tax on yeast. For them native beer is not a luxury. It is well established that native beer is a food and an essential part of the diet of hundreds of thousands of natives. Yeast is an ingredient in the manufacture of kaffir beer and I hope that the Minister will see to it that the price of yeast is not raised as the result of the extra shilling. Although, as I have said, these taxation proposals do not appear to make the position any worse for the lower income groups they certainly do not make it any better. Ever since this country has been engaged in the war these groups have suffered in a greater or less degree by the rise in the cost of living and it is likely they will suffer more as time goes on through an inevitable rise in the cost of living, and that in my submission makes it necessary that the poor people in this country should have their position taken into account when taxation proposals are framed. I refer particularly to the non-European. I have already pointed out that in this country the burden of taxation upon the poorer section of the community, both European and non-European, is very heavy indeed and at a time when the cost of living is rising the Government should consider more seriously than in the past an improvement of their position by the remission of a part of the imposts which fall upon them. We on these benches have continually drawn attention to the economic and social folly of allowing the vast mass of the 9,500,000 population of this country to remain in the conditions of poverty in which they are to-day. Quite apart from considerations of humanity and justice these conditions react upon the entire economy of the country by impairing efficiency in the vast body of its workers and also by restricting the natural expansion of our internal market. These considerations we have continually urged in times of peace and they are considerations which should be taken all the more seriously in time of war, because in time of war the ordinary economic activities have to be speeded up and be carried on on a much larger scale than heretofore. Also I believe the Government will be forced to employ ever increasing numbers of the native people and non-Europeans to assist in carrying on the war and the conditions of poverty in which hundreds of thousands of these people are living to-day will have the additional effect of impairing the war effort by restricting the amount of man power available for the prosecution of the war. In time of war, despite the fact that the country incurs specially heavy expenditure, the case is all the stronger for improving the position of the mass of the people in this country, and the way in which that can be done is by taking into consideration, in the words of this amendment by the hon. member for Fauresmith, “a just distribution of the burdens of taxation upon the people of this country.” If the hon. member’s amendment meant what it said I myself would be prepared to support it, but it is quite clear from the speech of the hon. member and the nature of the party with which he is associated it does not mean what it says. A just distribution of taxation is, as I have already submitted, placing the burden of taxation on the shoulders of those best able to bear it, those who are in the best financial position to bear it, spread over the whole population and not sections of it. Yet it is quite clear that all this amendment means is the shifting of the burden of taxation from one high or middle income group to another high income group. It does not call for a lightening of the burden of taxation upon the truly poverty stricken groups of people of this country. It may be that the mines should be taxed more heavily, and I believe they will have to bear an increasing proportion of the burden, but the mere placing of additional burdens on the mines will fall very far short of introducing a just distribution of the burdens of taxation. That can only be brought into effect by remitting or reducing the burden of taxation which falls upon those who can only pay at the expense of the bare necessities of life.

Hon. members opposite have paid a tribute to the Minister of Finance in connection with these taxation proposals, and not only have they done so but I find that papers like the Cape Times and the Cape Argus and other papers which support the Government all have done nothing but praise the Minister’s taxation proposals. I cannot refrain, however, from pointing out to those hon. members that I believe that they have not studied these taxation proposals as they should have done; nor have they studied the way in which they are to be applied, because had they done so they would not have praised the Minister, as it is clear that it is not those who are able to pay who are going to be affected by these taxes, but more particularly those who belong to the less privileged classes. If one comes to analyse the Minister’s proposals one finds that the main part of the taxes fall on the less privileged classes, and not on those who are able to pay; the gold mines, for instance, do not by any means pay that share of the taxation which they should pay and which they are able to pay. To my mind, if the Minister had placed the proper tax on them, the amount which they are able to pay, he would have been able to wipe out the deficit for which he has not provided. We find further that the Minister has not allocated the taxes in a just and fair manner, and the more so if we bear tn mind that the production of the gold mines has been steadily going up of recent years. Last year the production amounted to about 13,000,000 fine ounces of gold, while this year the production will be close on 14,000.000 ounces of fine gold, and if we take the figures for July of this year we find that they amount to over 14,500,000 ounces. If we look at the mining returns we find that almost every mine has had a record production in comparison with the previous month. This applies to the Anglo American Group, the East Dagga, the South African Lands, Springs Mines, Union Corporation, East Geduld, Grootvlei, Marievale and so on. Every month so far they have had a record production and the figures show that there has been an increase one month after another. For the purposes of my argument I want to put the production at 14,000,000 fine ounces. When the Minister of Finance placed his last proposal before us, in his original estimates of the normal tax he expected an amount of £13,100,000. That normal tax has gone up to £14,500,000. I am just mentioning round figures. In addition to this amount of £14,500,000 according to his own estimates he will get an amount of £4,000,000 from mining leases. This amount is somewhat smaller than he has estimated, but there are other amounts to be added. I should like the Minister to correct me if I have miscalculated some of these returns. This brings the total amount up to £18,500,000.

We get a little less than £4,000,000 from mining leases.

That is what I said. The position therefore is that accordting to his own estimates the Minister gets about £18,500,000. Then there is a special contribution of £3,800,000, so according to the Minister’s own estimates he gets about £22,500,000.

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

When business was suspended, I was pointing out to the House that the amount of revenue which the State expects from the gold mining taxation, on the Minister’s own admission, is £22,300,000, or to give the exact figure — the estimate is about £22,338,000. This is on the basis of the price of gold at 168s. per fine ounce. Now I want to compare the tax with the price of gold at 150s., and I think it is a fair comparison. The Minister will agree that it is a fair comparison, and according to the estimates which he and his administration themselves have put before us he will then get from the normal tax an amount of £14,500,000. But from that amount of £14,500,000 the difference between 150s. and 168s. has to be deducted, an amount, according to the Minister’s own original estimate, of about £3,574,000. It will naturally be a little more, but the Minister will permit me to take this round figure. If one deducts that amount from the £14,500,000 then the State gets ā sum of £11,000,000. To that £11,000,000 the amount of £4,000,000 must be added which the State gets in revenue from gold mining leases and I have calculated it on that basis. One therefore gets an amount of about £15,000,000 which would have been the State’s revenue in normal tax plus the mining lease moneys. If one takes this £15,000,000 on that basis, as calculated by the previous Government, one has to take 14,000,000 ounces at 18s. which would produce an amount of £12,600,000. Let us for the sake of simplicity take the figure of £12,500,000. Therefore the £12,500,000 plus the £15,000,000, or £27,500,000, is the amount which the Government would have collected if it had adhered to the policy of the previous Government, and I think I am entitled to say that the whole country at the time was satisfied with that. I believe even the gold mining magnates were satisfied with it. The Chamber of Mines, which naturally speaks on behalf of the gold mining industry, was satisfied, because I never noticed or heard that they had expressed their dissatisfaction with it in any way. It will therefore be seen that the difference between the 168s. basis as laid down by this Government and the original estimate at 150s. plus the confiscated portion, if I may call it That, of any premium over 18s. gives the difference of £5,000,000. This is a huge amount and I wonder whether hon. members opposite have ever given any attention to it. I wonder whether the aspirant Minister, the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Pocock), and the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet) and other members who have spoken about the flourishing position of Africa, have ever paid any attention to the difference between the two bases; let me call them the Havenga basis and the Hofmeyr basis. The difference, as shown, is about £5,000,000 which should go to the State and which the State is not getting at present. It will be seen from what I have said that there was no necessity whatsoever for the Government of the day to have come here and to have imposed this extra amount of £4,800,000 in taxation on the people. But the Minister of Finance will naturally say “You are not deducting the expenses in connection with sales of gold, nor are you deducting the increased working costs.” So far I have never yet found that the previous Minister of Finance ever promised that he would deduct the expenses connected with the sale of gold. He may perhaps have said that be would take the increased working costs into account or that he would pay attention to them. Well, it will be noticed that without the increased costs in connection with the sale of gold, and without the increased working costs which, as we have just heard from the Minister of Commerce and Industries, are very slight, the difference between the two bases is such a radical one that I believe we should give the matter our most serious attention, and that we should study the question as to whether there should not be a change in the system so that the State should not lose this huge amount of money. We cannot allow anything like that under existing circumstances. So far as the expenses in connection with the sale of gold are concerned we have to take into account that the mines are responsible for one part, while the State will be responsible for the other part; but in any case if we deduct the sale expenses the amount, as I worked it out, comes to a total of about £2,500,000. Therefore, if we deduct this £2,500,000 from the £5,500,000 there is still left a credit balance for the State of about. £3,000,000. From this it will be seen how much the State is losing. I must say that I admire the way in which the Minister of Finance is hoodwinking the public and is misleading them by the way he represents the position. The Minister said that the mines were satisfied and that the public were also satisfied. May I be allowed to say just a few words on that point? We know from our experience that the mining magnates have never yet been satisfied in the past. We can make them any concessions we like but they are never satisfied, and it is peculiar that they should be satisfied at present. If they are satisfied there must be something radically wrong, and it means that the industry is benefiting to the detriment of the people of South Africa. But just let me say this too, that an industry which draws an amount of about £117,500,000 out of the country — and that is the wealth to the extent of which they impoverish the country; hon. members can work it out for themselves — is an industry which should contribute more to the costs of the war. I think the Minister will agree that the gold production this year will be a great deal more than 14,000,000 ounces, and if one reckons this out it means that the amount of the gold sales will not be less than £117,500,000. What is this country fighting for? It is fighting largely for the protection of the mining industry, and what is the amount which the Government takes from the mining industry as compared with the production of that mining industry? Is this fair and just? Is it fair towards the other section of the population? I therefore hope that the Minister will still come to the conclusion that the system of taxation so far as the gold mines are concerned should be changed. He has no alternative because he himself has to admit that as the price of gold goes up, so the country will suffer on account of the fact that it will not get in taxation what it should get. One finds something else which is most peculiar. What do we find in the comments that have been made in connection with the gold mines? It is not only the Cape Times and the Cape Argus and the Rand Daily Mail — which are papers which have always set themselves against the interests of South Africa — but what are the comments from overseas? One would expect the comments of overseas papers to be more or less reasonable, and I think that in this House too we should use our common sense and not allow ourselves to be misled, because we know that the papers are controlled by capitalists and mining magnates, and they therefore have to speak in the interest of the mining industry. Those papers are obliged to keep the people in ignorance, and that is the reason why one never gets fair criticism or sound information from them. The people of the country must not be allowed to judge the position. The Minister glibly tells us that the people outside are also satisfied. Who is satisfied? I want to invite the Minister of Finance to come to the platteland, to get on to any platform, and we shall soon find out whether the public are satisfied with the way in which he is imposing taxation.

What does Zeesen say in its comments?

What do the Malays say about it? They do not pay the taxes, and they will probably have no objection. The Minister can very easily come and tell us that the people are satisfied. Nobody is satisfied with taxes and yet he comes here and tells us in his frivolous way that everybody is satisfied. But as I have already said, it is not only the papers here but the papers in London which have expressed their satisfaction in their comments on the treatment of the gold mines. I should like to quote those comments.

The hon. member cannot quote any comments in regard to what has taken place in Parliament in regard to this matter.

It is unfortunate that I am not allowed to make those quotations, but the English papers pay a tribute to the Minister and say that the gold mining industry has greatly benefited and they are highly satisfied. This also tends to show that there is something radically wrong. One finds that an industry which can and should pay is being benefited, is being favoured, and I want to tell the Minister as an ordinary fair and just man that he unfortunately stands under the control of the capitalists, and that he cannot help himself because he is a member of a capitalistic Government which sits there with the aid of mining magnates, and the Government is obliged to look up to the mines and do what they are told. The people outside, however, are not satisfied and I want to tell him again that the people of South Africa will no longer tolerate being deprived in this way of what belongs to them. It is bordering on a scandal if one compares the taxation imposed on the mines with the taxation which is being levied in other respects. Just let us take the petrol tax. Petrol is no longer a luxury article which is only used by the rich man who is able to afford it. There are a great many poor people who have to make their living out of lorries, and they should be reckoned with and assisted. The Minister has made an estimate which shows that out of the petrol tax he will get an additional £925,000, and that he will get about £65,000 out of petrol which is manufactured in this country, altogether about £1,000,000. Naturally, it is being put in a way which does not look too bad, and which does not look so stupid, if I may put it that way. If one studies the position and if one notices the quantity of petrol which is sold in the country one finds that the consumption of petrol has been rising from year to year. According to the most recent report of the Board of Trade and Industries ….

I do not wish to stop the hon. member, but the next motion on the Order Paper deals with the taxation proposals and it might perhaps be better if this matter were discussed on that motion.

I only want to point out that the Minister’s estimate is too low; in other words, he will get more than £990,000 out of the petrol tax; he will no doubt get £250,000 more than he has estimated for, and I want to say that this means that an extra burden is being placed on the poor man, which to my mind is unjust and unfair. In addition to this we have the fact that we should do everything in our power to manufacture our own petrol in this country. If there is one industry which we should encourage it is the industry for the manufacture of petrol, because millions of pounds are leaving the country, and it is not in South Africa’s interest that that money should go out of the country when we are able to produce our own petrol even though it might cost a little more. There are two companies in this country to-day which manufacture petrol. The one in the Transvaal is Satmar and they produce about 7,000,000 gallons of petrol. They are able to produce more and one would have imagined that the Government would assist and encourage an enterprise of that kind. One finds, however, that it is a languishing concern. It was established and shares were sold for £1. Then they wrote down their shares to 5s., but in spite of this it had not been possible in the last three years for that company to pay any dividends. It turns out that they are practically unable to exist. There we have an industry which should be helped, but the Government is not doing so. I think it is unjust that foreign countries are encouraged and that nothing is done to help that concern. One of these days we may perhaps find it impossible to get any petrol into the country. What is going to be the position then? Is it not in the interest of South Africa that we should be independent in every respect? We talk about our independence, let us be independent in this respect, and manufacture our own product so that it will no longer be necessary for an amount of over £7,000,000 to leave the country in one year; let that money stay in this country. I therefore hope the Minister will give his attention to this matter and will grant some relief. The Minister may perhaps say that they are already getting certain concessions, but the concessions they get are not such as to enable them to compete with foreign countries. There is yet another matter on which I wish to say a few words. During the last session of Parliament I remarked that we in South Africa should try to float our own loans. This means that we would not have to pay interest in foreign countries. I am pleased the Minister has taken notice of what I have said, and that he has decided to pay off those loans in England on which we have to pay interest to the extent of no less than 5 per cent. while we pay interest at the rate of 3½ per cent. and 3¾ per cent. on our loans in South Africa. The Minister also informed the House that he was going to float that loan and I want to ask him to do so as soon as possible. There is quite a large amount of money in the country, and it is desirable that we should give our people the opportunity of investing their money in the loans of the state. I urgently want to ask him to take into account the fact that he should rather increase the rate of interest on loans in this country than on loans abroad, because we want the money to remain in South Africa. We want to be independent and we want to give our people the opportunity of taking part in the administration of the country, because if that is done they will realise their responsibility to the country better than they do to-day. We should also give the less privileged people an opportunity of taking part in such a loan by reducing the subscriptions to less than £100. If a person is able to subscribe for less than £100 people who have little money will also be able to invest their savings in those loans and they will realise then that they belong to this country, with the result that they will have a better conception of their responsibility. I hope the Minister will tell me that he will do this, and I hope that before the end of the session he will let us know when he intends floating that loan and what the rate of interest is going to be. I can assure him that money is being taken out of the country in a most mysterious manner. People are taking the money out on their persons, and if such a loan is made available they will invest their money in it. Then there is another matter to which I want to object. I notice from the Press that certain children will very shortly be arriving in this country. I protest against this scheme to import children from overseas.

Why?

I shall give my reasons; we have poor children in our own country who are not enjoying the privileges they should have and our first duty is to look after our own children. Those children who come from overseas will get everything of the best. They are to be put up even in the Governor-General’s house, and we are putting up the money for it. I would rather see, if something has to be done, that the money be sent overseas for them, but to send these children here means that they will hamper the future prospects of our own children, and against that I strongly protest.

Is there a vote on the Estimates for this?

There is an amount of £5,000 on the Estimates. I hope the Government will first of all look after our own children. It will be said that that is the duty of the Provincial Council. To a certain extent that is so, but the Provincial Councils are so severely stifled by the Government that they are not able to do all that is necessary for the education of the children of the platteland. There are instances of children having to attend school in corrugated iron buildings, in parts where the sun is very hot, and when they have finished Standard VI they simply have to be put on the land. I say that we should first of all look after those children before we look after children from overseas. Whenever we approach the Minister of Finance for a contribution to help the children of the platteland he tells us that we must go to the Provincial Council, knowing only too well that the provincial council cannot afford it. It is high time hon. members opposite really put South Africa first. They talk here about South Africa first and they pretend that they are loyal South Africans who stand for the interests of South Africa, but that is not their real feeling. They are mere words, mere lip service, but that is not their real feeling. I say that many of our children in the outside districts are suffering great hardships. They have to leave school before they are in a position to be able to make a living, and for that reason I feel I am entitled to ask that we should first of all look after our own children before thinking of any scheme to get children from overseas, and as a matter of fact it is mostly Jewish children who come from overseas, and it is a way of getting undesirable immigrants into the country without people being aware of it.

Mr. Speaker, if the criticism which we have just heard had come from any other member of the Opposition, one might have felt it necessary to deal with it seriously. I am not going to waste the time of the House in dealing with the remarks of the hon. gentleman. I am perfectly certain that what he has said to-night will not find a sympathetic chord in any hearts throughout the country. South Africa, like other parts of the Commonwealth, is going to give a haven, for the duration of the war, to a number of children, to enable those unfortunate persons to escape the horrors and ravages of modern warfare. One would have thought, when any matter concerning the welfare of children was concerned, that even the hon. and gallant member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) would have forborne to bring such a matter into the arena of party politics. But despite the protestations of the hon. member, South Africa will continue along humanitarian lines, and help these children from not only Great Britain, but from other Allied countries, to escape the ravages of war. His protestations tonight struck no answering chord in the hearts of his colleagues. He was a lone figure, his a lone voice crying in the wilderness to-night. I hope when he opens his paper in the morning, and reads his remarks, he will feel duly ashamed. I rise to-night to say a few words, in the time that remains, in regard to the Government’s internment policy. I do so because an hon. member on the opposite benches has asked whether it is the intention of the Government to intern thousands of Afrikaners. The hon. member who put that question said if that was not the intention of the Government, why are we providing so large an additional sum upon the estimates for internment camps? Mr. Speaker, I am not quite certain whether this question has been prompted by initial curiosity, or whether it is the result of genuine apprehension, as the result of certain irresponsible statements which have been circulated in portions of the press and by certain persons.

It is as a result of your statement on the internment camps.

Let me answer those who are genuinely apprehensive. In order to do that it will be as well if I were to give a brief outline of the Government’s policy. Hon. members will remember that at the outbreak of war the policy pursued by the Government was one of selective internment. The Government did not intern all enemy aliens — all Germans — but it interned all those against whom it had evidence of subversive propaganda. The same test was applied to a very limited number of Union nationals against whom there was evidence of subversive propaganda. That policy of selective internment was one which was followed overseas by Great Britain, and it was one which was justified in the circumstances which existed immediately after the outbreak of war. At that time I think that there were very large numbers of South Africans who drew a very clear distinction between those German nationals who were known at Nazi supporters, and those who might be non-Nazi supporters. It was felt there were probably thousands of Germans in this country who had no sympathy with the Nazi regime, and it was not the desire of the Union Government to intern persons who might have no harmful intentions against the state. Thanks to the precautions which were taken by the police, and by the Prime Minister when he was Minister of Justice, the police at the outbreak of war were able to pounce upon a number of Germans who were plotting against this country. By great fortune a list of the members of the Nazi party in South Africa fell into the hands of the Government, and that enabled that policy of selective internment to be carried out with full effect. Sir, that policy was followed for some seven or eight months. Then we had the over-whelming events overseas of April, May and June, and those events necessitated a revision of the Government’s policy. We had the examples of Norway and Holland, examples of undermining from within, examples which showed that, while there might be many innocent persons amongst the enemy aliens in our midst, it would not be safe from the standpoint of national security to take any risks. The Government, therefore, in revising its policy, proceeded along the lines that the safety of the state must be paramount, and that in dealing with enemy aliens the benefit of any doubt must be given to the state. In accordance with this policy, it was decided that all enemy aliens — and when that decision was taken Italy had not yet intervened in the war — who were considered by the police to be a source of danger to the state, should be interned at the instance of the Chief Control Officer. Concurrently with that revision of policy it was decided that the right of appeal in the case of enemy aliens should be withdrawn. On the 10th June Italy intervened in the war, and it was therefore decided, for the maintenance of internal security, that all male Italian nationals between the ages of 18 and 60 should be interned. That policy was followed until recently. In the light, however, of the experience which has been gained, the Government feels that there are quite a large number of Italians who have been interned who have been in the country for many years, some of them elderly, who are in the opinion of the police not a source of danger to the state. It is the intention of the Government to allow such persons to be released, subject to proper control, and a number of them have already been released. The policy, therefore, in regard to Italian nationals, will now be the same as that in regard to German nationals, namely, that only those considered by the police to be a source of danger to the state, should be interned. In regard to Union nationals, the position maintained from the start still prevails, namely, that there must be evidence before a Union national is interned, and Union nationals still retain their right of appeal. It has been found from experience that there are occasions when there is prima facie evidence against a Union national, and the evidence is of such a nature that it would be criminally negligent if the police were to allow such a person to be free on a particular occasion. It has therefore become necessary on certain occasions to detain Union nationals. But it is the intention of the Government to make a distinction between detention for enquiry, and detention for permanent internment. The entry of Italy into the war, and the abandonment of the selective internment system in regard to Germans, have necessitated larger internment camps; we have to make additional provision for those internees. The Government has also received internees from the Tanganyika territory and other territories in the North. We are also responsible for the safeguarding of certain prisoners of war, such as the crew of the Watussi, which was, hon. members will remember, detected by our Air Force off our coast last year. Where the Union Government is detaining internees or prisoners of war from other British territories, the territories concerned will bear the cost of such internment. Temporarily, the Union Government is bearing the cost, but the whole question of a proper basis of cost is now being gone into — the question not only of capital costs, but also of maintenance costs, and a fixed basis will be laid down by the Treasury, and then there will be a proper adjustment between the governments concerned. Arising out of the expansion which I have outlined briefly, and as a result of our revised policy and the fact that we are looking after internees from the North, and in view of the fact that we expect a large number of prisoners of war from the North when our troops go into action, we have had to make a number of administrative changes. First of all, the functions of the director of internment camps have now been completely divorced from any Prisons function, and it is the intention of the Government to withdraw gradually all police and prison guards who may in the past have been engaged in internment camp services. We wish to treat internees entirely separately from any other prisoners, and so soon as we are able to obtain the necesary military guard all police and prison officials will be withdrawn. In order to provide the necesary guards for these internment camps the 6th Battalion of the 5th Reserve Brigade has ben designated an Internment Battalion. That was in conformity with the Government’s policy to militarise internment camp guards. In view of the experience which has been gained during the past twelve months — at that time during the past eight or nine months — it was felt very necessary that the guarding of all internment camps should be placed upon a military basis. That has now been done. The Internment Battalion now functions under Col. Whelehan, and the costs will be before the House when the House goes into Committee. That is an additional reason for the swelling of the vote. That, sir, in brief, is the position. May I just add that at the present time the number of internees is approximately 3,700. There have been a number of exaggerated reports regarding internees, but the total number at present detained at Leeuwkop, Baviaanspoort, Andalusia and Koffiefontein is approximately 3,700, of whom about 800 to 900 are German nationals from the Union, approximately 750 Italian nationals from the Union, approximately 180 Union nationals, of whom 50 are Union born nationals, and the others naturalised Germans and Italians and enemy aliens from the North. The bulk are Germans and Italians from the North, prisoners of war from various ships, German and Italian, which have been captured. May I just cast one interesting sidelight on the mentality of some of the Union nationals who are interned, Union nationals who became Union nationals by virtue of naturalisation. Recently it was decided to segregate Union nationals in a separate camp, and an opportunity was given to naturalised Germans to make an election whether to be interned with the German nationals, or with the Union nationals. A very large number of those naturalised Germans who are now by virtue of naturalisation Union nationals, elected to be detain ed with the Germans on the ground that they have always been German in outlook and German in spirit—a very interesting sidelight on the mentality of those persons. I come finally to deal with the criticism which was raised by the hon. member for Marico (the Rev. C. W. M. du Toit). Speaking earlier this week, he characterised certain disciplinary action necessary at Baviaanspoort as a scandal. He described the action of the South African police as being barbarous, but the facts which he alleged are erroneous. He stated that 950 police had made a raid on the Baviaanspoort internment camp. That statement is entirely incorrect, as I indicated in answer to a question put by an hon. member earlier this week. Owing to the attitude of internees at Baviaanspoort who refused to allow a person to be transferred from their camp, despite parleys which took place during almost the whole of one day, it was necessary to send the police force there to take disciplinary action and remove the person concerned. The police force which went there did not consist of 950 persons, but of 250. In order to show the amazing way in which incidents of this sort can be distorted through a reckless disregard for the facts, and a reckless disregard for attempting to find the facts, may I just quote a report of Die Transvaler relating to this matter. In the edition of Die Transvaler of the 11th July last, there appeared a report which it was said came from a German internee, and had been handed in anonymously. Die Transvaler published this report in full, without making any attempt to find out whether the facts contained in it were true or not.

And Zeesen took it over.

Hon. members know quite well that, in law, when statements are made with reckless disregard of the truth, they are considered malicious, and I consider this report to be malicious. This report details how there had been parleys on the 30th June. Then it goes on to describe how during the night the internees had broken down fences—

Then it states in graphic fashion that about 6.20 the troops arrived—

A complete fabrication. Five hundred police with fixed bayonets and loaded rifles stormed them! Not one word of truth in it. Not the slightest justification. It goes on—

It is a delightful story. First of all 500 police according to this report, came. Then another 350 to 400 at a later stage came from Durban under an English major! A fantastic story, just given the right racial twist to stir up racial feelings.

At 8.57 p.m., on the conclusion of the period of seventeen hours allotted for the motion that the House go into Committee on the Estimates of Additional Expenditure, the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the resolution adopted by the House on the 2nd September and the amendment proposed by Mr. Havenga dropped.

Original motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—79:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Cadman, C. F. M.

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.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp. W. P.

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 der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

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

Noes—58:

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.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus. F. C.

Fagan, H. A.

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.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to; House to go into Committee to-morrow.

I move—

I. Income Tax (Normal Tax and Super Tax) and Gold Mines Special Contribution.

1. (1) Normal Tax:
   1. (a) In the case of companies the sole or principal business of which is mining for diamonds, for each pound of taxable amount, three shillings and sixpence;
   2. (b) in the case of companies, other than companies the sole or principal business is mining for gold or diamonds, for each pound of taxable amount, three shillings;
   3. (c) in the case of persons other than companies, the rate of tax imposed by the Income Tax Act, 1940, subject to a surcharge of twenty per cent. of the amount calculated at the rate so imposed.
2. (2) Super Tax:
   The rate of tax imposed by the Income Tax Act, 1940, subject to a surcharge of twenty per cent. of the amount calculated at the rate so imposed.
3. (3) That in the cases specified in resolutions (1) and (2) above the rates fixed by those resolutions shall be the rates fixed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section five and sub-section (2) of section twenty-five of Act No. 40 of 1925, respectively.
4. (4) Gold Mines Special Contribution:
   The levy shall be charged and calculated at the rate of eleven per cent. on the dutiable amount.

II. Customs and Excise Duties.

That, subject to the provisions of an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament and to such rebates or remissions of duties as may be provided for therein—

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

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

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

1. (b) the corresponding customs duties on tobacco—
   1. (i) ready for use in the making of cigarettes;
   2. (ii) in the form of cigarettes,
      manufactured in a country in South Africa, the Government whereof has entered into a Customs agreement with the Government of the Union in terms of section 10 of Act No. 36 of 1925, as set forth hereunder, be increased to the extent shown.

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

1. (b) corresponding customs duties shall be charged, levied, collected and paid for the benefit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund on—
   1. (i) yeast;
   2. (ii) motor fuel for internal combustion engines; and
   3. (iii) rubber pneumatic tyres and tubes;
      manufactured in a country in South Africa, the Government whereof has entered into a Customs agreement with the Government of the Union in terms of section ten of Act No. 36 of 1925, at the rates set forth hereunder.

I do not know, sir, if the House will want to have a lengthy debate on this motion. In previous debates the general aspects of the taxation proposals have been fully dealt with. Indeed, sir, the debate on the additional estimates, the motion to go into Committee of Supply, has been very largely a debate on the taxation proposals. Moreover, the amendment moved in that debate was an amendment dealing with the taxation proposals, and one would, therefore, think that it would not be necessary in this debate to cover the same ground as has already been covered in the previous debate. No doubt there will be certain specific points which hon. members will wish to raise in regard to some or all of these proposals. But it will probably be more convenient if these points are raised in Committee. As far as I am concerned I have dealt with the general aspects of the taxation proposals both in my statement when I introduced the Additional Estimates, and in my speech during the debate on the amendment. I do not propose to repeat what I have said, although I might like to do so. You will not allow me to refer to other speeches which have been made in the previous debate, on that account I must leave the matter there for the moment. I think it would be convenient, as there appears to have been some misunderstanding, if I repeat what I said on a previous occasion in regard to the proposed excise duty on yeast. I want to make it clear that I am proposing a rebate on yeast used by bakers in the manufacture of bread.

I am also, in addition to that, proposing to give a rebate on yeast exported from South Africa. At the present moment we are in the course of building up an export trade in yeast to various parts of Africa and indeed even outside the Continent. Present circumstances are favourable to such an export trade. I do not want to discourage that and therefore I propose to give a rebate as far as export yeast is concerned. With regard to the rebate to bakers I have considered two possible ways of doing it, the one was in the form of a refund to bakers on the actual quantity of yeast used in their premises in the making of bread and the other based on the fixing of a limit of an amount of yeast per bag of flour or meal, and the grant of refunds on that basis. There would have been then a maximum amount of yeast qualified for refund of duty determined by the number of bags of flour or meal used in baking. The second method has much to commend it but it also opened the door to various other difficulties, and I have, therefore, decided as an experiment to adopt the first method, namely, giving a refund to bakers on the actual quantity of yeast used on their premises in making bread. I am going to do so, however, as an experiment. The refund will be on the actual quantity of yeast used by bakers in the making of bread with the reservation that if it appears that yeast is being obtained by bakers in quantities disproportionate to their output of bread and having regard to their regular formula for the admixture of yeast, and that such yeast is included in the claim for refund, then there will be withdrawn from bakers the privilege of obtaining excise-free yeast and as a further protection against possible abuse of this rebate concession I am considering the advisability of taking power not only to disallow a particular refund from a particular baker but also to recover the total amount previously refunded if there is any sign of abuse. I do not think it necessary to go into details at this stage, I shall therefore content myself with moving the motion.

I second.

I want to move the following amendment to the motion proposed by the Minister—

This amendment is to the same effect as the amendment which I moved to the previous motion for the House to go into Committee on the Estimates. The discussion on that motion has just been finished by the application of the guillotine. I offer no apologies for again proposing such an amendment. Unfortunately, as the Minister has said, under the Standing Rules and Orders of this House we are not given the opportunity of replying to what he said here this afternoon in his defence with regard to my objections to his taxation proposals. Unfortunately that speech cannot be answered, but I want to give my reasons here again this evening why I contend that the Minister in making these taxation proposals is not taking account of the essential conditions which should be borne in mind when taxation is imposed upon the public. I do not want to discuss the various taxation proposals; I shall leave it to other members to deal with all the aspects of the different proposals. I want to confine myself to this one important point, namely, that this goldmining taxation and the Minister’s neglect in connection with the gold-mining taxation to take account of the relationship which has existed in the past between the various sections of income tax payers. I shall not allow the Minister, as he did this afternoon, to try by all sorts of minor insignificant arguments, which have nothing to do with the subject, to obscure the issue. I want to confine myself here to one specific point. What were my complaints? I said that we were concerned here with income tax. The Minister in his wisdom considered it meet to secure part of his revenue from income tax. Now what is the position in regard to income tax? Income tax is a tax which is primarily imposed on individuals and companies and diamond and gold-mining companies. For many years already we have had a standard rate, a standard tariff in connection with that tax. In 1925 the principal Act was passed; since those days from time to time, whenever the state could afford to do so, rebates were granted on the normal tax on individuals and companies. Whenever the position became difficult again, that rebate was taken back. But the principle was always maintained, the principle of a fixed relationship between the different sections of the taxpayers. That general principle was not touched until our departure from the gold standard when the increase in the price of gold came about, and when we introduced the additional income tax on the gold mines so as to ensure for the state itself a proportion of the gold premium. That tax was first of all levied on a certain basis and later on, after an investigation by a committee the present basis was accepted which consists of a tax, a flat rate of 3s. in the £ on profits plus an additional income tax based on a certain formula. That is to-day the income tax on the gold mines and not 3s in the £, and it is no use the Minister, when he wants to justify his case, tellling us that the burden on the mines is quite heavy enough already and that they are already paying about £23,000,000. Is that an answer? No, it is an income tax based on the profits made by individuals and by companies. If a certain individual or company pays £5 tax on its income and another pays £100, the Minister cannot come and tell us that the individual who pays £100 is taxed more heavily than the other one who pays £5. It is an income tax and it is no use the Minister saying that the mines are taxed heavily enough and that they contribute £23,000,000 to the Exchequer. That has nothing to do with the position. Nor is it any use his coming here and saying that he has followed my example because I had imposed taxes on certain occasions and had not at the same time imposed those taxes on the mines. What has that to do with the matter? We are not discussing the taxation proposals I made in the past, but we are to-night discussing the Minister’s taxation proposals. None the less I want to challenge him. The Minister’s argument had nothing to do do with the point at issue. I want to challenge him to mention one single instance where I increased the tariff laid down without applying it at the same time to the gold mines.

You reduced the rebates.

What has that to do with it? The Minister now says that on previous occasions I took off a rebate which was not applicable to the gold mines, and that I did not on that occasion tax the gold mines more heavily. The gold mines did not have that rebate nor did they enjoy the benefits of that rebate, and when we could no longer afford to allow the rebate, we did away with it, so far as individuals were concerned. Now the Minister says that on that occasion I did not tax the gold mines, but that has nothing whatever to do with the issue.

I say that you did reduce the rebate.

The rebate, not the general standard tariff. We are dealing here with the general standard tariff. The Minister must answer this question: he himself in his proposals laid down the basis when he spoke about the counterpart of the 20 per cent. increase. That is to say the general increase in connection with the income tax, and he dealt with the income tax in regard to individuals and companies, and he said that the counterpart of that income tax was the 3s. in the £ which the gold mines are paying; and then he said that instead of applying the 20 per cent. increase so far as the mines are concerned he was now going to take a similar amount by adding 2 per cent. to the special contribution. I repeat what I said before; I say that the special contribution is not a tax and the Minister, as a matter of fact, did not very seriously contest that view. The circumstances under which that amount of money was appropriated by the state were of such a nature that that step could not be regarded as a tax. But for the purpose of my argument, if it is regarded as a tax, the matter is even more serious, because then the counterpart of which the Minister speaks would not merely be 3s. in the £ but also the additional formula, and in addition to that the special contribution as well. And then we come to a totally different amount. What the Minister has done is this: he says, “I accept the principle of a 20 per cent. increase on the income tax.” We are not concerned here with the rebate which disappeared last session. The mines were not taken into account on that occasion. They were outside the rebate. He therefore says that he increases every section by 20 per cent. and in the case of the gold mines he only applies the increase to the 3s. in the £ and he does not add a single penny to the formula. What is the justification for that? Why should the formula get off scot free? Why should the revenue derived from the gold premium not be taxed?

The gold mining magnates had been here.

I do not want to allege any motives, but I say that the Minister did not take into account the principle that the relationship between the different sections of taxpayers must be maintained. What is going to be the effect of these proposals? They are going to press heavily on other sections of the community which could have got off much more lightly if the Minister had done his duty and had applied the increase evenly over all the sections of the community. That is my complaint. The Minister owes the House an answer on this point. The other arguments as to what was done by me in years gone by do not tend to prove his case. The argument that the mines are already paying a large amount have nothing to do with the case. If the Minister wants to do his duty to the country he will have to accept my amendment, and he will have to go back and revise his proposal in connection with mining taxation, so that there shall be a general increase also so far as the tax on the mines is concerned, and not only an increase so far as part of their income is concerned. These proposals are primarily unjust towards other income tax payers into whose pockets the Minister is now putting his hand. The amount he is taking from them could have been less if he had done his duty in regard to the gold mines.

I second the amendment.

When this Government came into power there were rumours about a serious difference of opinion between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Mines, and it turned out during the first session of Parliament that the Minister of Finance had forsaken the attitude of the old Government in connection with excess profits tax on the mines. He gave us the assurance however that he had not done so because of pressure having been brought to bear on him but because those were his views. I cannot refrain from reminding the House in connection with these taxation proposals of the Minister of Finance that he has diverted from the attitude which he adopted in 1933. In 1933 he adopted a very different attitude towards the mines. In those days pressure was brought to bear on behalf of the mines for better treatment to be meted out to them, and the attitude adopted by the Minister in those days was that the mines were making extra profits which they had not earned but which they had obtained by a stroke of the pen by the Minister of Finance, and the Minister adopted the attitude that the state was entitled to take a large proportion of that money for the country and only to leave a small proportion to the mines. And that proportion had to be used by them for other purposes as well, and could not be paid out solely in dividends. He then agreed that they should retain about £9,500,000, but out of that they would have to pay the higher working costs, out of that money the funds for new development work would have to be found, and there would have to be a reduction in the grade of the ore worked. Only about £4,000,000 of the £9,500,000 would be paid out in the form of dividends. The attitude adopted by the Minister was that the country was entitled to a large proportion of the money and that only a small proportion could be left to the mines. How far has he diverted from that attitude? Last year the mines by way of dividends paid out £18,000,000, while the maximum amount which they had ever paid out in dividends before the gold premium came into being was £8,300,000. In round figures, and the Minister will not deny it, the mines as a result of the gold premium—which does not belong to the mines, but which is due to the action of the state—paid out in extra dividends last year an amount of £10,000,000. Now the Minister comes along with an extra war tax, and what does he do? Instead of taxing the mines he comes here and he taxes the public more heavily to the extent of a couple of million pounds, and out of the £4,000,000 which he is going to levy in the form of taxation he takes only a little more than £800,000 from the mines. The public have to pay the rest, and all that in spite of the fact that the Minister some years ago stated that if the mines obtained an amount of £4,000,000 or something like that out of the gold premium, and if that money could be used for extra dividends they were well off. The then member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) stated in regard to the Minister’s proposals that the mines would have very little left except tears, and the Minister’s reply to that was this—

To-day the mines get £10,000,000 out of the gold premium and not just £4,000,000, but the Minister is now scared to put his hand into the pockets of the gold mines. He takes only £800,000 and taxes the public to the extent of £3,200,000. All this shows how powerless the Government is under the pressure of the capitalists. I want to ask whether this is due to the fact that the mining magnates are the strongest pillars supporting the Government? Is it due to the fact that, as we have heard, they are contributing large amounts to the khaki knights? Is that the reason why they are let off so lightly? The cost of living is going up and the people in the country have to pay more for all their requirements, and yet the ordinary individual in the country is now having an additional 20 per cent. put on to his income tax. As against that the mines are only taxed to the extent of an extra 2 per cent. They can go on to pay an extra £10,000,000 in dividends as a result of the gold premium, but our people have to bear the burden of the war. I hope the Minister may yet come to see the error of his ways, and that he will revert to the old attitude which he adopted in the past. In the past he tried to resist the pressure which was being brought to bear by the then member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé). In those days he held the opinion that the mines could not claim the whole of the gold premium, and he only allowed them a small proportion of the gold premium. Now he is being called upon as Minister of Finance to impose extra taxes, and now he allows the mines to get off scot free. I say that it is a disgrace.

I hope the hon. the Minister is going to reply to the points that have been raised.

Certainly, but I want to wait until the end of the debate.

I should also like to say a few words. And in spite of the fact that I may again be accused of—I believe that was the word—“Georgian subtleness”—I should like to tell the Minister briefly and clearly what I think of his taxation proposals. On a previous occasion I stated that these taxes, the incidence of this taxation which is now being imposed, is absolutely unfairly divided over the different sections of taxpayers. I gave instances to prove this, and with the leave of the Minister I want to give another instance to show how the people who can least afford to pay will have to bear the heaviest burden, while those who are best able to pay are getting off practically scot free. Take the case of yeast. The housewife who buys yeast and who uses it for the purposes of baking bread has to pay.

8d. per month!

Not everybody is as fortunate as the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel). In these days every penny counts in the home. Take all the pennies together and see what they amount to. Then take the other side, the breweries. They do not buy yeast. They are in the fortunate position of being able to make it themselves. The firmentation materials which they use for the brewing of beer are manufactured by themselves. And the breweries will get off scot free in this respect, so far as the Minister’s taxation proposals are concerned. I have some figures here to show what the profits were which the breweries made last year. Take the South African Brewery, that is the Castle Brewery. That company made a profit of £448,000, nearly half a million pounds. Take Ohlssons, they made a profit of £150,000.

On what amount of capital?

I can also show that. On a capital of two million pounds the South African Breweries made a profit of nearly half a million pounds. On a capital of £800,000 Ohlssons made a profit of £150,000. We have these large companies which get off scot free when taxes are imposed. We are not to tax them. But the poor housewife with whom every penny counts, has a tax put on her. I repeat again: these taxation proposals of the Minister’s have been conceived and born in sin, and consequently no single right-minded person should vote for these taxation proposals. There is only one person on the other side of the House, namely, the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) who had the courage to speak his mind. I am not going to refer at any length to what he said. But he felt, as we on this side of the House feel in regard to these taxes, and as everybody will feel who will have to pay an increase of 70 per cent. on his income tax, because it is for the sake of the war, although he may perhaps not give expression to his feelings because he wants to be loyal. This taxation is a scandalous exploitation of the loyalty of a certain section in the country. Now I want to say a few words in relation to the gold-mining taxation proposals. I have already said this and I am going to repeat it—and the Minister cannot deny that—that the mining magnates with the exception of the £855,000, are not paying one penny of war tax, and have not been doing so since the 4th September last year. The taxes to which the Minister has referred are taxes which were imposed by his predecessor before the war. Those taxes were imposed before the war, and they would have remained even if there had been no war, and the amounts derived from those taxes can by no manner of means be regarded as the mines’ contribution towards the expense in connection with the war. What the Minister has done is this. He has come here and he has reduced the burden which his predecessor had placed on the mines. His predecessor expected to get an amount of more than £10,000,000 from that particular tax. The present Minister reduced it to £7,000,000. The Minister has placed the mines in the position of being able to deduct any loss they may suffer as a result of the war. He has made concessions to them. If the mines should suffer any damage as the result of the war the Minister stated that he would allow them to deduct the amount of that loss from the tax imposed upon them. I just want to say this, we read in the Press every day of the flourishing condition of the mining industry. Every month there are new records—more ore, more gold, higher dividends. And notwithstanding the fact that during the last seven years the industry has been living on the fat of the land, in spite of the fact that it has been making money at a rate which no other industry has done, and in spite of the fact that the industry is paying out dividends such as it has never before been able to pay out, we find that the Minister is imposing a bagatelle of £850,000 on the mining industry as its contribution to the war expenditure, and that at a time when other sections of the community are being taxed almost beyond their powers. I repeat, I am opposed to these taxes because they are for war purposes. I say that the Minister is not entitled to take one penny of money for a cause which has already been lost. I am opposed to these taxes in any case, but the very least the Minister could have done, if Parliament is in favour of the war being continued and he has to have money for that purpose, was to have placed the burden of the taxation on that section of the community which is able to bear it, and not on that section which is suffering most.

I do not want to delay the House, but I must confess to some degree of astonishment. The hon. Minister stated that he has now decided to give a rebate on the yeast taxation to the baking industry. I do assume, without knowing very much about it, that the original taxation of yeast was inflicted upon the baking industry with the Minister’s very strict knowledge that it did not entail any rise in the cost of bread. I take it in a very safe budget which was not intended to touch individuals’ pockets, and obviously the last thing the Minister would do would be anything which would increase the price of bread. From my knowledge of the subject I would assume that the amount of yeast in a loaf of bread is so infinitesimal that it could not be passed on to the general public by an increase in the price of bread.

That is why he is taking it away.

I am coming to that. I am very conscious myself of the fact that the bakers and the millers and the wheat farmers, and indeed everybody who is connected with the output of bread, is to-day, in my opinion, making exorbitant profits.

The wheat farmers and the millers and the bakers are all leagued in a conspiracy to put up the price of the poor man’s bread to a very high figure, and that being so, I am perfectly satisfied that the bakers are making the profit which they are reasonably entitled to, and more, and I was quite pleased when I heard that the Minister, in his wisdom, had determined to take some of those profits by the imposition of 1s. in the lb. duty on yeast, a duty which because of the very small portion of yeast per loaf of bread, could not possibly be passed on to the public. Now I find after a few days the hon. Minister coming here, and without giving us the slightest explanation ….

I gave it this afternoon, but unfortunately you did not follow it.

As I said in another speech, I am inclined to think the explanation is Mr. Johnny Fotheringham’s, of Johannesburg, who is very’ much concerned with the baking industry, and who is the only baker I know who is likely to have any influence with the Minister of Finance, and I am certainly not going to sit here quietly when I am constrained to think that certain individuals have very great powers with the Government. It has struck me that this Mr. Fotheringham is a self-styled dictator, who has stated he has the object of eliminating the Labour Party. He makes the boast in Johannesburg that he is the individual who is going to eliminate the Labour Party.

With the assistance of the Labour Council.

You know nothing about that. The hon. member was once left to put the finances of the Johannesburg City Council into ship-shape, and after some months they had to send him down here because he was less harmful here. The most extraordinary thing about Mr. Fotheringham is that the Minister of the Interior, who is now laughing, has appointed the mayors of all the towns in South Africa as chief air raid commandants, except the mayor of Johannesburg, the mayor of our most important town. He does not get this very big honour, because it is thrust upon Mr. Johnny Fotheringham.

That is not quite correct. I did not appoint them. The local authorities bear the cost.

This debate is quite irrelevant.

As a matter of fact, it is not really, sir, because I am trying to show the influence which this particular gentleman has with the Government, and by showing his influence in this matter, and in the civilian precaution services, I am further trying to show that as far as I can reason, this rather sudden decision to give a rebate is because the influence of this same gentleman has been imposed upon the Minister of Finance. This same gentleman, although you may not know it, happens to be one of the largest bakers in Johannesburg. He spends his time between being the chief air raid commandant and amassing huge profits through selling bread to the poor at exorbitant prices, and I cannot understand why at this late stage the Minister decided to give a rebate to the baking industry. In the first place the taxation was either justified or not. One does not need to be an expert in yeast, and the very first thing that springs to one’s mind is the small amount of yeast used in a loaf when a tax on yeast is proposed. I assume the Minister is an intelligent Minister of Finance, and that as soon as the suggestion was made that a tax should be imposed upon yeast, the first thing that would have sprung to his mind would have been: “Is this going to affect the price of bread?” I assume, further, that having so thought he would investigate it, and he apparently did investigate it. If he did not then he was very lax in his duty — something of which I would not accuse him. I assume he did investigate the effect of a tax of 1s. per pound on yeast and its effect on the price of bread, and having investigated that he was perfectly satisfied that this particular tax would not in any way tend to increase the price of bread, because of the fact that such a small quantity of yeast is used per loaf. But, sir, between the time of him introducing his budget speech and to date Mr. Johnny Fotheringham arrives in Cape Town to discuss civilian protection services, of which he is the glorified commandant of Johannesburg ….

That is not correct.

I am only assuming so. He was here, anyway. I will put it that since the Minister introduced his budget Johnny Fotheringham, one of the largest bakers in South Africa, has been here, and he has now left, and the Minister has decided to grant a rebate. I have a suspicious mind. As a matter of fact I would not have been in Parliament if I did not have a suspicious mind. A suspicious mind keeps me always returned for my own particular constituency. Now I want to know the reason that prompted the Minister who first decided to tax yeast, and now turns round and gives a rebate to the people who produce bread. I do not think the rebate is justified. I think that excess profits are being made by the people who bake bread to-day. I feel, as a matter of fact, that an excess profit is being made in bread from the very beginning, from the wheat farmers through the millers, through the bakers to the public. I was trying to find how much 1s. in the lb. tax on yeast actually produced. The hon. Minister set out, in the first instance, to raise, I think, about £70,000 per year ….

Three hundred thousand pounds.

You are raising a good bit of that on illicit beer making.

I said so.

I do not think it is altogether justified, the Minister of Finance trying to do by taxation measures something which apparently the police cannot do in the ordinary course of their duty. Even in war that kind of taxation is not justified, but at the moment I am concerned because I feel that once again an owner of big business, in this instance the baking business, has got at the Government and persuaded them to give a rebate of taxation to an industry which I do not think needs a rebate. Why shouldn’t the baking industry pay as well as anybody else? They are making a profit out of the poor man’s bread. They are making a good profit by charging extortionate prices for that bread, and it will take a good deal of explanation to prove conclusively to me why in a few days the Minister of Finance, who, I assume, has gone carefully into the matter, had changed his views. Why should this rebate go to the people who bake bread? Have we had the requisite figures? Has the hon. Minister, in the few days that have passed since he introduced his budget, gone carefully into the matter and found this is a case where a tax should not have been imposed, and why is it that his officials did not go into it previously?

His officials had not seen Mr. Fotheringham.

I do not want any advice from you. I am pleading for a lower price for the poor people’s bread. Many of the Opposition members are wheat farmers, and they are the last people I would expect to support me. The hon. member over there I would not expect to support me, because he is only interested in brandy. I am here in the interests of the people generally. I feel that the price of bread is too high, and when the Minister has introduced a method of taxation whereby some of the excess profit of the people who produce that bread is going to be taken away from them for war purposes, I want a very careful explanation before I am prepared to accept some sort of death-bed repentance whereby he is prepared to give them a rebate on that taxation.

I wish to associate myself with other hon. members in their protest against this unnecessarily large expenditure in connection with the war. I am principally concerned with the money which is being raised by means of taxation. If this money could be used in a different way instead of for an unnecessary war ….

We cannot at this stage discuss the way in which the money is to be spent.

I have in mind the large amount of money which is being obtained by means of taxation, and I am only mentioning this in passing. If this money were intended for different purposes a great many of my objections would disappear. The Minister either deliberately or otherwise gave the impression that the gold mines were contributing their rightful share to the total sum which he, the Minister, requires. The Minister created that impression by the way in which he put it when he made a comparison between the percentages of the increases in the different taxes. He simply said that there was an increase of 20 per cent. in the case of income tax on ordinary individuals, an increase of 20 per cent. in the income tax on companies, and then there was an increase in the extra tax which last session was imposed on the gold mines, from 9 per cent. to 11 per cent., and if we worked it out it would amount to about 20 per cent. By mentioning 20 per cent. in all three cases the Minister created the impression that this was a tax which was evenly distributed over the different sections of the community, which, as a matter of fact, is by no means the case. So far as individuals and ordinary companies are concerned there is an increase of 20 per cent., and it is an increase on the total income tax which ordinary individuals and ordinary companies paid last year, while in the case of the gold mines the increase of 22 per cent. is only on a small proportion of the taxable income of the gold mines, that is to say on a small part of the gold premium. The impression which the Minister created is a totally wrong one, and the very opposite is the case. The increase of taxation on ordinary individuals and on companies is infinitely larger than the increase so far as the gold mines are concerned. So far as the gold mines are concerned the financial burden of the increased tax has very, very little effect. We can see that from the amount which is obtained from that increase, namely about £885,000. If we take the total revenue of the mines we can come to no other conclusion but that to the mines this is a bagatelle, and against that we wish to register our emphatic protest. The gold mines are undoubtedly of all concerns in South Africa the ones which could most easily have borne a large increase in taxation. And that is particularly the case if one takes into account the fact that this small bagatelle which is now being taken from the gold mines is part of the enormous income which the gold mines obtain not as a result of what they have done themselves, but as a result of something which the State has done for them. We have often from this side of the House put the position in this manner — the State takes a small proportion of what in actual fact belongs to the State. Everything they get above 150s. should go to the State, and the State only takes a small proportion of that. If we look at the matter from that point of view we can only lodge our emphatic protest against this action on the part of the Minister, especially in view of the fact that the gold mines themselves had expected that they would be called upon to find the greatest proportion of the expenditure in connection with the war. They had expected that the burden to be imposed on them would have been a heavier one. We had reports from London after the Minister’s budget speech stating that a sigh of relief went up when people realised that the Minister apparently had given in in the meanwhile to very strong influences that were brought to bear on him. Originally the idea was that the gold mines would have to bear an enormous additional burden. Before the Minister made his budget speech there was a drop in the price of gold-mining shares, but after the Minister of Finance had made his budget speech there was a sigh of relief, and the result was that there was a sudden rise in the price of gold-mining shares. The financial correspondent of one paper put the position in this way, that “the tone changed very quickly when it was realised how moderate the contribution by the mines would be to the increase in the war expenditure.” The gold mines owe the Minister many thanks, but I do not think the country will be grateful to the Minister in that respect, and particularly those people who, as a result of the additional burdens, are suffering great hardships will not be grateful to the Minister. Take the ordinary average individual — he has to pay 70 per cent. more income tax than last year. In some cases it is nearly 100 per cent. That type of person will certainly not be grateful to the Minister. On the contrary, they have ample cause for raising their voices against this action on the part of the Minister. In past years it has been repeatedly held up against us on this side of the House when we talk about these things that Hoggenheimer has been dead for a long time. If one looks at these taxation proposals of the Minister’s, it becomes quite clear that he has come to life again. It is a case of Hoggenheimer redivivus. I do not know what influence the big mining magnates have been able to bring to bear on the Government. I can only say that in the past the gold mining industry in South Africa has often made its influence felt on political affairs, and affairs of state, which certainly was not to the benefit of the country. In view of the way in which the Minister of Finance has time and again given way to the influence which apparently is exercised by Corner House, I want to express the hope that we shall have no further experience of this sort of thing. It will undoubtedly be patent to South Africa, if the gold mining industry in future is to exercise an even greater influence on the political affairs of the country. For that reaosn I can do nothing but express my strong disapproval of the Minister’s taxation proposals, and this side of the House will undoubtedly do all in its power to direct the attention of the country to the fact that these taxation proposals are to the benefit of the gold mines, and that they will press very heavily on the middleclass man, and also on the poor man. Apart from the income tax which falls heavily on the ordinary income taxpayer, the Minister’s taxation proposals will fall heavily on the poor man. As a result of the extra petrol tax, for instance, which has to produce an extra £1,000,000 he is going to place a burden — I make bold to say so—on the shoulders first of all of the ordinary middleman, and in the second place also on the shoulders of the poor man. There are thousands of poor people in South Africa to-day who have to make their living out of transport riding, transport work generally. Let us go to the Witwatersrand and see what the position is there. Let us look at the position here in Capetown and we shall find that there are a large number of motor lorries, carriers, owned by poor people who have to make their livelihood out of the transport business. It is that class of person who will now have to pay the greatest proportion of that £1,000,000 of extra taxation. This tax hits the man who has to do transport work most severely. In addition to that it also affects large numbers of small farmers, vegetable farmers and others, who have a carrier motor, and who need motor transport to-day. Motor cars are no longer articles of luxury and those people are also hit very heavily. They already have to struggle very hard in order to make a decent living. There is another tax among the Minister’s proposals which is going to hit the poorer class of the population, and that is the proposed tax on cigarettes. There is not the slightest doubt that that tax will have to be paid by the consumers, and it is the poor man principally who will be affected because he perhaps smokes just as much as the rich man, or he may even smoke more because the rich man smokes cigars. I am afraid that a proportion, a large proportion of that tax, will have to be paid by farmers growing various products and by other poor people. If one studies these taxation proposals one finds that they will principally fall on the poorer sections of the community, and for that reason I want to protest, and I hope that the public will take notice of the fact that this Government in the first place protects the interests of the mines, and of the big capitalists, and that it lays its hand heavily on the rest of the community.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) was worried about the bread of the people, and so indeed am I, and endorse every word that he said. But I am not merely worried about the bread of the people: I am further concerned in some degree about their beer and their “baccy.” I see here that the excise duty on tobacco manufactured in the Union ready for use in the making of cigarettes, or in the form of cigarettes, is to be increased from 6d. to 2s. per pound, an increase of 300 per cent., a tremendously big jump as it seems to me. I am speaking with perfect altruism, because I don’t myself smoke cigarettes whether made by hand or by machine, although I do occasionally, very occasionally, smoke a pipe, which is not affected. I am raising this point, and it is a fairly important one, because this is an enormous levy when compared with the increase in the duty on other commodities. For example, beer. In this matter I am an ignorant and unlearned man, so far as the liquid itself is concerned. My impression is, from what I am told, there is no bad beer, although some is really better than the other. For 36 Imperial gallons the duty was 15s. and it is now to be increased to 18s., an increase of 20 per cent. only, and not 300. Brandy also seems to be in the most favoured nation class. I am told South African brandy is extremely good and more or less sells itself. If so, I would suggest that the duty on brandy might have been increased by 300 per cent. rather than the duty on cigarettes. Income tax, in the same way, has been increased by 20 per cent., which seems to be a popular figure. Why cigarettes should be singled out and discriminated against to the extent of 300 per cent., as compared with 20 per cent. for all other articles, does seem to me to be a little bit unfair. I would like to tell you what was the effect of putting on merely 6d. a pound. In the Seamen’s Institute at Durban I used to sell good cigarette tobacco at 2s. per pound. Then that duty of sixpence was put on, and we found that we had to pay up to 3s. per pound to the makers to get it to sell. That same tobacco to-day costs 4s. a pound, all ready to be made into cigarettes, and that is what the really poor man does, he buys the tobacco and makes it into cigarettes because that is the cheapest way. My point is that putting on that sixpence put the price up from 2s. to 4s. per pound, and if the sixpenny increase still maintains its old potency the new price is going to be 4s. plus 6s., that is 10s. a pound. It will not only prevent the poor man from buying it at all, but it will prevent any income being derived by the state from this particular source. It is a small point in a way, and I hope the Minister will be able to explain it although I think he will find it rather difficult. Many men have approached me and reproached me on this question of doubling the price of cigarette tobacco, and if we are going to increase the duty now to this extent I feel that the very least increase the working man will have to pay on his cigarettes will be 50 to 100 per cent. His cigarettes will be almost doubled in price. The suggestion I make, if this large additional tax is really to be enforced, is that some means should be found of fixing the retail price of cigarettes, because in the past profit has been made on taxation. It has very often been denied, but never been disproved. In the case of whisky, on which subject I am still less an authority, but I am instructed by my colleague, the hon. member for Umbilo, who is conversant with the subject, that the increased duty on this beverage will mean an increase of five-eighths of a penny per tot. I am not sure what a tot is, but the hon. member for Umbilo knows. The extra price of a tot of whisky, however, will be 1d., worse still, it has already become 1d. That is to say a profit of 40 per cent. is being made by sellers on the tax. I hope the Minister will make sure that if these particular people who smoke cigarettes have to pay an extra 2s. per pound that they don’t have to pay more than that, and will guarantee that at least no profit will be made by the manufacturer or the middle man on the tax, which is already too high.

I feel that I must also protest most emphatically against these forms of taxation which are now being imposed upon the country. I also feel that those who are best able to pay are not being taxed in proportion to their ability. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) spoke about the wheat farmers. I just want to tell the hon. member that the wheat farmers are suffering, and have suffered in the past as a result of the fact that the price of their wheat has been fixed at too low a figure. We had evidence of that fact last year when we had a shortage of wheat in the country and when wheat had to be imported, and when the state was obliged to contribute £10,000 so as to enable the millers to secure the wheat at the price laid down by them. It was impossible to import wheat at the price at which the farmers in this country had to supply it, and the Government had to pay in £10,000 on the imported wheat in order to supply the millers with wheat at the fixed price. I am very sorry for members of the Labour Party because they are sitting to-day among the capitalists and they are obliged to vote against the interests of those whom they represent here. They have been speaking about the bakers and they have been telling us that relief must be given to the bakers. The Minister has now withdrawn the tax on yeast which the bakers would have had to pay, and it was a striking fact that one of the largest bakers from Johannesburg was here; and after having come here the tax which the bakers would have had to pay on yeast was withdrawn. What about the poor man on the platteland, however, who is not in a position to buy bakers’ bread, and who has to bake his own bread? Why does the Minister go out of his way to tax the poor people who are unable to buy baker’s bread and who have to bake their own bread while he lets the bakers get off scot free. This again is clear evidence of the fact that the Minister has not carefully considered this question or otherwise he must have proposed a tax which he knows is going to press more heavily on the poor man than on the rich man. While these taxes are being withdrawn in respect of yeast used for the bread of bakers, I want to know why the tax is not withdrawn also so far as the house wives are concerned? The Minister said that they could make their own yeast, but a lot of yeast is sold in shops to people who bake their own bread. Consequently, the poorest people in the country, who bake their own bread, are being taxed while the rich bakers get out of paying the tax. The Minister knows only too well that the price of bread has been fixed, and that the bakers have to pay the tax on yeast, and not the consumers, in view of the fact that the bakers are unable to pass it on to the consumers. That is the reason why the rich bakers are exempt from that tax. If the Minister is so keen on putting an end to the illicit traffic in kaffir beer, why does he not tax those people? Why does he tax the housewives, while the natives who brew beer get off scot free. It seems quite wrong, and in view of the fact that the Minister has withdrawn the tax so far as the bakers are concerned, I hope he will also withdraw it for the housewife. Why should the people who eat baker’s bread get out of paying the tax, while the poor housewife who bakes her own bread is forced to pay it. The previous speaker also discussed the stupid manner in which these taxes are being levied. He said, for instance, that four-fifths of a penny was imposed on a packet of cigarettes. If the Minister has had any experience of these things—his department in any case has had the experience—he must know that the man selling the cigarettes will put on a penny if the tax is four-fifths of a penny. So far as wine and brandy are concerned, the Minister has done the same thing. I realise that the Government having declared war, the Minister of Finance has to find money to carry on the war, but if he wants to do so why then has he not imposed the tax in such a way that the state actually gets the amount of the taxes which will be imposed on a particular commodity by way of an increase in the price of that commodity? I would be able to mention a great many instances such as those of cigarettes and beer, but I prefer to confine myself to brandy because that is a product which I know most about. Does not the Minister realise that if he puts 3d. on a bottle of brandy the wholesale dealers will not take only the 3d. but that the price of a bottle will be increased by 6d. of which the state will only get 3d. That is the position, and the same thing applies in regard to tobacco and other commodities. So far as liquor alone is concerned, the dealers in consequence of these additional taxes are going to make an extra profit of £120,000 in a year. But that is not all. I should also like to refer to what is the consequence of the imposition of this tax. The Minister has told us that his own Railway buffets charge 1d. more for a tot of brandy, that is to say 22d. on a bottle. The Minister only gets 3d. out of his tax, but the retail trade makes a large additional profit, that is to say after deducting the 3d. extra taxation and the 3d. which the wholesale dealer will put into his pocket, they will make an extra 1s. 4d. on a bottle of brandy. If one does not put the consumption at 80,000 leaguers but at only 60,000 leaguers, one finds that the retail trade will be putting £380,000 in its pockets. Now the Minister will tell us that the farmer’s price has been fixed. That, however, is not the case; the farmers will not get anything out of this additional profit which is being derived by the trade. The Minister is not fair. Now we must come to another item, I refer to cigarettes. The tobacco of which cigarettes are manufactured, which is produced in the country, has to be taxed by 1s. 6d., but the tax is not imposed on imported cigarettes. That is to say, the manufacturers in other countries get off scot free and our factories, which have our own people in their service, are taxed. This system of the Minister’s to get money into the Exchequer is an unjust one. He comes here and he imposes an increase of one-fifth in the tax on cigarettes, one-fifth on brandy, one-fifth on beer, but on whisky the increase is only one-sixth. And then the Minister says, “But I am putting 7s. 6d. on whiksy.” Now I just want to point out that although the duty on whisky is raised by 7s. 6d. it is only 1d. per tot, while the increased excise on brandy of 2s. 6d. also increases a tot of brandy by 1d. In that way whisky has preferential treatment over brandy and the excise on brandy hits our own industry, while the imported product is not affected to the same extent. Beer and brandy are increased equally in comparison with whisky. This seems to be quite wrong, and I again want to ask the Minister to devise some different system so that these taxes will affect those people who are best able to bear them. The position in regard to the income tax is not fair either. * It would be quite easy to get from the mines the extra tax which is now being imposed on income taxpayers, or on the general public. The mining industry is an extremely prosperous industry, and is paying enormous dividends, and in comparison the excise on liquor is a much heavier burden than the burden which is being imposed on the gold mines. Why are not those imposts placed on the people best able to bear them? I therefore feel that the burden of these taxations is injudicious and unfair and detrimentally affects industries which we should encourage in our own country. For that reason I wish to lodge a strong protest against the system of taxation which is going to affect the poor people worst of all. If the Minister wants to protect the rich people only, let him say so openly. The country would then know what the position is, but now he comes along here with all kinds of excuses, and this sort of thing certainly does not seem to be fair.

Unlike the previous speaker, I want to suggest to the hon. Minister that possibly he has made a mistake with regard to the tax on brandy and whisky by undertaxing these spirits. The extra tax on whisky is said to amount to five-eighths of a penny per tot, and on brandy it works out a farthing per tot. I suggest to the Minister that as the customer now has to pay a penny extra per tot for whisky and brandy he should make the extra tax equivalent to a penny per tot. I am sure the country will be quite prepared to accept the extra taxation provided an extra profit is not made by the middleman on the taxation. I am sorry the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) has left his seat, because I believe he brought into the debate the name of Mr. Fotheringham. I think that that was a little unfortunate, because Mr. Fotheringham came down here with a deputation from the Master Bakers’ Association of South Africa, and I do not think a personal name should be thrown across the floor of this House. I am very pleased to hear that the Minister has accepted the suggestion of the Master Bakers’ Association because I for one could not support any increase in the price of bread. I am confident that the Minister increased the tax on yeast simply as a deterrent against the illicit trade which goes on. He did not think for one moment that it was going to hit the staff of life bread, and, since the case was put to him, he has rectified the matter. The Minister’s sincerity can never be doubted by anybody in this House and the Master Bakers’ Association must have made a very good case to him for him to relax this extra taxation. I am very happy to think that the Minister has met them, and therefore the price of bread will remain the same as it is at the present time.

I should like to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga). We are opposed to any war tax. We emphatically protest against any further tax being imposed for the purpose of seeing the war through; but if taxes have to be levied, and knowing that in any case we are going to be outvoted here, and that these taxation proposals are going to be passed, we want to ask the Minister to apply these taxes more evenly. It appears to me that the Minister, when drafting his taxation proposals, rather took up the attitude of an educationalist than of a financier. The Minister acted more like a professor, or like a parson, because if one studies these taxes one finds that everything has been done more from an educational point of view than anything else. If, for instance, we take the tax on yeast, we find that one of the principal reasons adduced by him for the taxation of yeast is that he wants to combat the illicit liquor trade. That is one of his main reasons. Several hon. members even on the other side of the House have clearly shewn that the tax does not operate evenly, and that the poor man will have to pay the piper, and that the Minister will not achieve his object of combating the, illicit liquor trade. The Minister himself told us that he did not believe that he would be able to combat it, but that he was of the opinion that something could be done in the direction of remedying the position. Now let us take cigarettes. The Minister said in his opening remarks that money which might otherwise perhaps be expended in the wrong way, would now come into the Exchequer, and it could then be used for war purposes. Here again the poor man is being interfered with. Here again we find — and the Minister has said so himself — that as the result of attacks of this kind the poor man who cannot afford to spend any money on luxury articles generally, is hit in regard to the few pennies which he is able to spend on himself, on cigarettes. We are told by the hon. member for Durban (North) (the Rev. Miles Cadman) how this will affect the soldiers. He put up a plea here on behalf of the thousands of soldiers, and he asked that their cigarettes should not be put up in price. Even the soldier is being deprived of the right to smoke as much as he would like to, and so we can take the one tax after the other and we find everywhere that the Minister has looked at the position from the educational point of view, instead of confining himself to the financial side. So far as the gold mining tax is concerned, it has been made perfectly clear from what previous speakers have told us that the Minister has meted out favourable treatment to the gold mines, while the middle-class man and the poor man have to bear the burden of the day. The income tax has been increased twice in one year, so that the middle-class man whose income is between £800 to £1,000 per year will have to pay about 70 per cent. more. As against that we find that the taxes on the mines have been increased from 9 per cent. to only 11 per cent., while the formula which provides most of the mining taxation has not been touched. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) is, therefore, thoroughly justified, because the tax which the Minister has imposed does not fall evenly on the public and we, therefore, want to ask the Minister to reconsider the whole matter. Even his own side of the House has asked him to reconsider the taxation proposals and has asked him to see to it that these taxes shall be distributed more evenly over the whole of the population. If he were to heed those requests, there would be less dissatisfaction.

There has been a good deal said about the taxation of the gold mines, and I should like to deal with the gold mines in relation to their economic position in this country. In doing so it is necessary to go back to 1931, the year before there was any increase in the price of gold. In that year there were 32 large producers on the Witwatersrand and a number of producers in other parts of the country. There was a matter of 33,000,000 tons of ore milled, and the grade of ore for that year was 6.56 dwts. The mines at that time were employing 23,000 Europeans and 219,000 coloureds, and were distributing in wages more than £15,000,000, and in stores their expenditure amounted to over £15,000,000. In 1931 the Government revenue from gold mines amounted to £3,378,000. It is interesting to note that in 1913, the year before the Great War was declared, the Government revenue amounted in all to £1,163,000. At the end of 1932 the Union went off the gold standard, and the price of gold began to alter in an upward direction. The price of gold increased from the normal price of 85s. per ounce to the present price of 168s., and I should like to survey what the effect of that increase in price has been to South Africa. It has led to very considerable expansion among the gold mines. The old mines have had their plants extended to put up their tonnage, and there have been eleven new mines of large calibre come into production, so that the total of large mines now producing is 43. There has been, as I have said, considerable expansion in every direction. The tonnage milled has increased from 33,000,000 to, I estimate, 65,000,000 for the current year 1940. In the process the grade of ore milled has decreased from 6.56 dwts. to 4.18, a very considerable decrease. Despite the very great increase in tonnage, the actual increase in the production of gold bears no relation on account of the decrease in the grade of the ore milled, so we find that for the current year the mines are producing something over 14,000,000 ounces of fine gold as against 11,000,000 in 1931. To give effect to this expansion in the mining industry it is necessary to bear in mind that a considerable sum of money has had to be expended on account of capital. That sum is estimated at no less than £80,000,000, which has had to be found from overseas largely and from people in this country. The old mines have been given a completely new lease of life, and many new mines have been encouraged to come in production. This increase in the price of gold I would liken very much to fertiliser on a farm. The more you fertilise your land the better your crop is going to be. The higher the price of gold the better the crop, the better the yield of gold in this country is going to be, and the higher the price of gold the greater is the scope of the engineer in carrying out the very difficult task of winning gold from great depths and under difficult conditions. The Minister the other day paid a tribute to the engineers of South Africa in their efforts to develop the war industries, and that tribute is due in no less measure to the engineers, who are sponsoring and developing the gold mines of South Africa. The expansion has been direct as far as the industry is concerned, but it has been felt indirectly throughout the length and breadth of South Africa in every sphere of activity, in the building that has gone on, in the development of commerce and the development of industry. It has been a great fillip to the iron and steel industry in Pretoria. It has led to developing considerably the enormous power resources of the Witwatersrand. It has been a great fillip to the Railways. In the process of assisting the development of the various classes of business and industry it has expanded considerably the market available in this country for farm produce. This is a matter of no small importance. This expansion has given us an absolutely and entirely new outlook in South Africa, and it has given us a future which we can look to with confidence. There is another interesting aspect. In 1931 the working profit per ton of ore milled was 8s. 6d. The taxation and lease payments came to 2s. 3d. a ton, and the gold mines retained a disposable profit of 6s. 3d. per ton. Now, six years later, in 1938, the working profit had risen from 8s. 6d. to 11s. 10d. per ton. The taxation and lease payments to the Government had increased from 2s. 3d. to 5s. 3d. per ton, and the amount of disposable profit in the hands of the mines amounted to 6s. 7d. a ton. So the net position was that after six years the shareholders were benefiting to the extent of 4d. per ton as against the state receiving an extra 3s. per ton. A little while ago we had a further increase in the price of gold, which has been the subject of a great deal of controversy. I refer to the increase from 150s. to 168s. a fine ounce. The late Minister of Finance decided to appropriate the whole of that increase in the price for the benefit of the state. The present Minister of Finance, however, had the vision and the foresight to abolish that levy and to institute a new principle of taxation. In doing so what has happened? It has had this effect, that a further lowering of the grade of ore has brought into payability an estimated extra tonnage of 500,000,000 tons. Now this has a very important bearing on the future economic position of this country, because it was reliably computed at that time that for every ton of ore milled the benefit to the state would be 6s. 8d. By bringing into the zone of payability a matter of 500,000,000 tons the state is going to benefit from that extra tonnage to the extent of about £170,000.000. Off the Rand there has also been considerable expansion in some of the country districts, Klerksdorp, Barberton, Pilgrims Rest, Pietersburg and in lesser degree in other areas. When I made my maiden speech in this House in February last I cited then that some mines were working a grade as low as 1.7 dwts. per ton. The effect of the last increase in the price of gold has been a reduction in the grade in one particular mine which is now working 1.3 dwts. and is keeping going and even making a profit, however small. It is necessary to bear in mind that whilst there is life there is always hope and a prospect of developing new ore reserves, whereas once closed down all hopes fade. So the lowest grade being worked, to my knowledge, is 1.3 dwts. On the Witwatersrand the grade has come down now to as low as 2¼ dwts. It has been suggested and it was the attitude of a large section of this House, that when the price of gold rose above 85s. an ounce the state should take the whole of that increase in price. I would like to survey the position as it would have developed had that happened. Had the mines been confined to the standard price of 85s. it is unquestionable and undeniable that this expansion, which I have reviewed, could never have taken place. Furthermore, it would have been inevitable that a decline and depression in the gold mining industry would have set in. The tonnage would have decreased and one producer after the other would have shut down. The net result would have been a steady decline in the production of gold. If one reviews the large mines which were operating in 1931, out of 32 mines twelve, milling 9,000,000 tons, were more or less working on the bread line. Between them they were only able to make a profit of £600,000 and to distribute £300,000 in dividends. Then there were a further four mines whose position in 1931 looked fairly healthy, but by maintaining the price of gold at 85s. they would have suffered very badly, and it would not have been long before they too would have shown a serious decline. They were milling over 6,000,000 tons a year. So between these twelve mines, which were in jeopardy, and the further four mentioned there were 16 out of 32 mines facing a very unhealthy future. The effect of this would have been that instead of this country deriving the extra revenue, which has actually accrued, the amount would have been co nsiderably less. It was said in this House a few days ago that the total gold premium has amounted to £200,000.000. By the end of this year I estimate the figure will be about £284,000.000, but had the Government in 1933 appropriated the whole of the gold premium the decline would have set in, and the gold premium would not have amounted to one penny more than £200,000.000. This country would in consequence have been the poorer for money in circulation by no less a sum than £84,000,000. But this is not all. The position to-day would have been a most serious one. Whereas the premium for the current year should amount to roughly £59,000,000 under the declining position we could not expect more than £29,000,000, and the position would continue steadily to grow worse, whereas to-day we can face it with confidence. It has been suggested that the present budget does not take sufficient money from the gold mines, and I should like to review that position. If we take the last three years we find that in 1938, when the industry made a profit of 31½ million pounds the Government revenue amounted to 12½ millions. The following year the profit rose by £3,800,000 and the Government revenue rose by £3,880,000 — slightly more — so that the whole of the additional profit for the year was taken by way of further taxation. Coming to the present year’s estimates we find that the profit is expected to increase by £9,000,000 and the Government’s revenue by £9,500,000, so that the whole — and more — of the additional profit for the current year is going to the state by way of revenue in one form or another. During these two years more than the whole of the increased profit made by the mines is going to Government revenue. Now, whom do the profits really belong to? There is some idea that they belong to Hoggenheimer or some such mysterious person. But we have to realise that these profits belong to the many people of this country and to the people overseas, who have invested the large sums of money necessary for the purpose of developing the industry. It is to them that the profits of the gold mines go. And when the gold mines have finished paying taxation, that is not the end of the story. Because those people, who pay super tax, are liable to this further tax on their dividends, which adds considerably to the taxation of profits from gold mining. This country possesses untold wealth in the form of low grade gold deposits, and the higher the price of gold goes, the lower the grade of payable ore becomes. If we can see the price of gold raised still further, we shall increase our payable ore reserves enormously, and that will add to the continued prosperity of this country. In fact an increase in the price of gold to £10 an ounce, which I would not be surprised to see materialise — not immediately but in the not far distant future — would probably mean that we would be able to continue to mine gold almost interminably. It is a factor, which should be borne in mind, that this increased price of gold is enabling the mining industry to mine to considerable depths. There is one mine which sends underground every day refrigerated air equal to one ton of ice for every ton of ore hoisted in order to reduce the rock temperature to a temperature at which human beings can work. To achieve this there has been a considerable expenditure on plant, and our engineers have now found, that as a result of the experience gained they can go deeper and they will probably be able to mine to over 12,000 feet in the near future. It is very necessary therefore to bear such facts in mind, in regard to the increase in the price of gold. The present method of taxation is assisting the prosperity of and the position achieved by this country, as a result of the advancement and the expansion of the gold mining industry. I should like to make a couple of suggestions to the Minister. One is that the additional revenue, which has accrued from the realisation of gold, should be given to the gold mines and be taxed as profit. I say this seriously. In his budget speech the Minister said that he had decided to give to the gold mines the full price of gold and to take from their profits the revenue necessary. At that time the price of gold was 168s. from which there were realisation charges due. To-day the price of gold is 168s., against which there are no realisation charges payable. I suggest that the full price should go to the mines, which will then pay a tax on the increased profits.

At 10.55 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 7th September.