I move—

1. (1) Reference of Estimates to Committee of Supply.—All Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1942—’43 which may be laid upon the Table and recommended by the Governor-General, shall stand referred to the Committee.
2. (2) Conclusion of proceedings.—At the conclusion of the period of hours allotted, any amendments (other than amendments proposed by a Minister) which have been moved but not disposed of, shall drop. The Chairman shall thereupon proceed to put forthwith, without debate, any amendments which have been moved or may be moved by a Minister and such questions, including votes, items or heads, as amended or as printed, as may be necessary to dispose of the Estimates under consideration.
   The Committee shall then proceed to consider any Estimates of Expenditure which have been referred to it but have not been considered, and the Chairman shall forthwith put the votes, items or heads in such Estimates without amendment, unless amendments are moved by a Minister, and without debate.
3. (3) Expedition of Report Stage.—The Committee shall have leave to bring up its report on reports forthwith, instead of on a future day, and such report or reports shall be considered forthwith without amendment or debate.
4. (4) Eleven o’clock rule.—When business is interrupted at the conclusion of the period of hours allotted, the application of Standing Order No. 26 (Eleven o’clock rule) shall be postponed until the proceedings on the business interrupted have been completed.
5. (5) Dilatory motions.—At no time while the House is in Committee shall the Chairman receive a motion that the Chairman report progress or do leave the Chair, or a motion to postpone a vote, item or head unless moved by a Minister and the Question on such motion shall be put forthwith without debate.

The object of this motion on the question of the guillotine is only and exclusively to give effect to the prospect which I put before the House of our being able in the normal course of events to conclude the session towards the middle of April. If effect is to be given to that, I won’t call it undertaking, but to that prospect, then it is necessary for us to arrange our business, and the motion which I am moving here today is introduced with that object in view. I have not the slightest intention of making any reflections on the debate which has been conducted so far in regard to the Estimates. The debate to my mind has been very reasonable, but hon. members will agree with me that there is a tendency sometimes for the debate to become protracted on some point of minor importance, and as a result we lose the opportunity of devoting more time to more important items. It will be better for the House as a whole and for members individually to know that there is a time limit placed on our debates. The time given is the same as that which was given last year, namely, a hundred hours for the whole debate, including all the motions regarding the loan estimates and the revenue account. That will cover the whole of the Estimates. I believe that if there are no protracted debates on minor points we shall be able, just as last year, to have the opportunity of having a fairly full discussion on all matters of importance on the remaining votes of the Estimate. I feel that the motion I have introduced is in the interest of the House, and I think it gives effect to the wish of hon. members on all sides to know how much time will be available for the debate, so that they can arrange their opportunities for the discussion of special points. I repeat that I am not making any reflection on the debate which we have had so far. I have not noticed any signs of obstruction, and I make no charges against any side of the House. My only object is to see that the estimates in Committee are disposed of within a certain time, so that if possible we may be able to finish our business towards the middle of next month, namely, towards the middle of April.

I second.

On behalf of this side of the House I must raise the strongest objection to the motion proposed by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. I want to remaind the Prime Minister that when last week he introduced his motion in regard to morning sittings I asked him not to hurry the House too much but to allow us to discuss and consider matters properly. The Prime Minister said today that he had no complaints to make of the way the debate on the Estimates had been carried on so far. He told us that he was not making any reflections against any side of this House, and notwithstanding the fact that there has been some kind of an arrangement between the Whips that we would dispose of the Estimates in Committee within a hundred hours, the Prime Minister now moves a resolution of this kind as if we were children and as if we can simply be dictated to, if such measures can be applied to us. I think the Prime Minister would have done much better if he had left the matter to the Whips. We would have been reasonable, just as we have been reasonable so far. In spite of the fact that there are many important matters which we had to express our views on, we have only exceeded the time so far by four hours. We want to assure the Prime Minister that we shall be fair and reasonable so far as the discussions are concerned, just as we have been during other sessions in dealing with the Estimates. Now the Prime Minister comes here in the middle of the discussion on the Estimates and says, “Look here, we are now going to apply the guillotine.” He says that he wants to give us a reasonable opportunity to discuss matters, but our experience of the past has shown us that we find only too often that if the guillotine is there it is drastically applied. As I have said, so far we have only exceeded the time by four hours, and there are less important votes before us on which those four hours can be made up. Why should the guillotine now be applied? I don’t know why there is all this hurry, why we should finish the session by the middle of next month. In previous years we have always gone on until May. This year we only started the session towards the middle of January, so I don’t understand why we should now finish by the middle of April.

No, we started early in January.

It seems that the Government wants to avoid criticism; that is why it is in such a hurry and why it is getting so nervous. No, give us a proper opportunity to consider matters, just as other Parliaments in other countries are given plenty of time. In a country like Australia Parliament meets at least once a month to discuss matters in connection with the war. In some other countries Parliament is practically in continuous session, but the Prime Minister of South Africa and his Government are all too anxious to avoid criticism, and that is why they carry on in the way they are now doing, and that is why we are to be hurried to dispose of all our business as rapidly as we can. We are still getting new notices of Bills to be introduced. There is contentious legislation before us, such as the Bill on Base Minerals, and other legislation, which we still have to deal with; why should we now be told that everything must be done in a hurry in order that we may be able to finish by the middle of April? Of course, we all want to get home, but we have been instructed by the people to look after the interests of the country, and if we have to sit longer than the 15th April we on this side of the House don’t want to be rushed to pass everything in a hurry, simply in order to get away by that date. For the sake of co-operation, and for the sake of the good understanding there has been between the Whips, I hope the Prime Minister will not press this motion—I think the Prime Minister has definitely done the wrong thing by introducing this motion. It was not necessary for him to have done so, and I therefore want to appeal to the Prime Minister not to try and force this motion through the House, but rather to withdraw it.

After the admission made by the Prime Minister, it is not necessary for me to say that there is no justification whatever for a motion such as the one now before us to be introduced at this stage in this House, because there has been no question of obstruction. The Prime Minister openly admitted that there has been no obstruction. I have attended many sessions of this House, and I do not think there has been a single one where an accusation could have been made with less reason against the Opposition that it has unnecessarily taken up the time of the House. It should be clear to everybody who has followed the discussions in this House that the Opposition has never given any indication of a wish to delay or hold up the business of the House, and for that very reason it is a pity that the Prime Minister has introduced this motion. What is so strange to me is that the Government, while the House is in the middle of the Committee of Supply, should step in and move this resolution. The question arises why the Government did not do so at the beginning. If it is necessary now it should also have been necessary at the beginning of the Committee of Supply, because the Prime Minister admits that this motion has not been made necessary because of obstruction. The only justification the Government would have had to come forward with such a motion at this stage would have been if the Opposition had taken up an attitude during this debate which looked like obstruction, or if it had taken up too much time, but on the admission of the Prime Minister himself that has not been the case. As the Prime Minister now admits that we have not obstructed the business in any way, and that he has no complaints in regard to the time which has been taken up, I want to know why he should come with a motion like this at this stage? The debate on the Estimates is running its usual course. We are a few hours over our time, but the Prime Minister knows that it would easily have been made up again on the minor votes, so I fail to see why the Prime Minister must now come forward with a measure such as this, which is only going to cause trouble. Then there is another matter which I should like the Prime Minister to consider, and that is to leave out part of this motion. I am referring to paragraph 5 which relates to delaying motions. It means that when the House is in Committee no motion, unless it is proposed by a Minister, can be taken by the Chairman—no motion to report progress or to postpone the discussion on a vote of the Estimates. Occasions arise when the Opposition is justified in moving such a motion. I assume that the time devoted to the discussion of such a motion will be included in the time set down for the Committee on the Estimates. Consequently it will not affect the Government’s time; it does not mean additional time, because I assume it is included in the time which is allowed for the discussion of the Estimates. Sometimes it has happened that a Minister is not able to give the necessary information, and he simply carries on with his vote, and in such circumstances it becomes necessary for members to move that the vote stand over. That does not cause any delay—it is no more than fair to members who want to have that information. In regard to reporting progress, things do happen sometimes justifying the Opposition to move such a motion, and I want to know why the Government now wants to deprive us of that right? It seems strange to me, and it seems to me that there is no justification for it. It is a pity, as the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has rightly said, that these matters are not left to mutual arrangement. Such arrangements this session, at any rate, have worked very well. We have been successful in our mutual arrangements, and we are still prepared to make reasonable arrangements. That is why we would prefer to have such mutual arrangements made rather than have a motion such as that which the Government has now proposed, which we shall be compelled to vote against. In regard to the 11 o’clock rule, I have no objection to that. When a vote is nearly finished and a few minutes, or perhaps a quarter of an hour are still required, I see no reason why we should not continue, but to prevent us here from carrying on with the ordinary consideration of the Estimates by placing restrictions on us, and to say, in addition, that we are not allowed to move in Committee that a vote shall stand over, or that progress be reported, but that only a Minister can do so, seems unreasonable to me, and also unnecessary. And I want to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the good relations which exist, to delete that paragraph. It takes us no further, and it will not take up any of the Government’s time, because, if it is proposed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again, the discussion on such a motion is included in the hundred hours. So that may well be left to the Opposition, because it will only shorten its own time if it starts a long debate on a motion of that kind. Therefore the Opposition would not make any unnecessary proposals, but it would only do so if it were necessary. I therefore ask the Prime Minister to amend his motion on this particular point. We are going to vote against this motion, because we consider it quite unnecessary.

I am sorry that we cannot support the motion proposed by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. We want the business of this House to be dealt with in as businesslike and effective a manner as possible. The Prime Minister himself, however, told us that so far the House had not wasted any time, and that the speeches had been very much to the point, and I therefore feel that this motion is proved to be unnecessary by what the Prime Minister himself has said. I feel that the House should have ample time at its disposal for every measure that is introduced, and should be able properly to discuss it, particularly the Committee stage of such a measure. It is very undesirable for us to pass the second reading of a Bill, and to expect us immediately to go into Committee on that Bill. It makes it impossible for us to give proper attention to the consideration of a measure in Committee. Some hon. members serve on Select Committees from 10 o’clock in the morning until nearly 1 o’clock, and after that they have to sit in this House all afternoon, and at night as well. It is humanly impossible for us to keep ourselves informed of all the Bills that are introduced. Many important matters of far-reaching importance are placed before the House requiring careful study by all sides of the House, and I do not think it is reasonable or fair to the House to expect us to swallow everything holus bolus, without having had the opportunity of studying the meaning and the effect of the Bills or resolutions placed before us. I therefore ask the Prime Minister not to press his motion at this stage, and to give the House ample time to deal with every measure on its merits, and to discuss and dispose of it.

I should like to suggest to the Prime Minister that it might be advisable to give us an assurance that it is not his intention to proceed with the Durban Savings Bank Bill.

The hon. member cannot discuss that. He is confined to the motion before the House.

I should like to assure the Prime Minister that we are anxious to get through the business of the House. The discussions on the Estimates are among the few occasions when it is possible for the hon. member to take into review the Departments of the various Ministers and I do not think it is advisable that the discussion of the Estimates should be curtailed unless it is absolutely essential. I therefore suggest that there are certain orders on the Order Paper which it is not necessary for the House to deal with this session—these orders can easily stand over. We would therefore like to have an assurance from the Prime Minister that certain of these orders will be dispensed with—particularly orders standing in the name of private members. We would like the Prime Minister to tell us …

I am afraid that has nothing to do with the subject under discussion.

I shall be very brief. I merely want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that we have been fortunate enough this session to have reached the position of having a certain amount of good co-operation between the various Parties. The Whips negotiate, make arrangements, and we have reached the position of achieving a certain degree of co-operation and understanding. In regard to the motion now before the House I do not know whether the Prime Minister is aware of the fact that before the estimates were under consideration there was a question of a motion of this kind. We were approached by the Whips of the Government Party who asked us whether there would be any objection to the introduction of a motion to limit the debate in Committee of Supply to a hundred hours. I at once informed them that I did not think it was necessary to do so. I pointed out to them that we on our side did not propose obstructing; that we would not avail ourselves of the opportunity unnecessary to prolong the debates, and I told them that as soon as the Government found that there was obstruction, and that there was an unnecessary amount of discussion, it could move such a resolution. The Prime Minister has admitted that we on our side have adhered to that contract. There has been no obstruction and no unnecessary discussion, and that being the case—well, I don’t want to say that this motion is a breach of faith—but as we on our side have stuck to our arrangement it is not fair on the part of the Government to come along with this motion when we are half way through the Estimates in Committee. The important votes, such as Defence, the vote of the Prime Minister’s, and Agriculture, have practically been disposed of. I don’t know therefore what can be the need for this motion. I am only speaking from the point of view that we should not disturb the spirit of co-operation which exists at the present moment. We have carried out our side of the agreement and now we find the Government without any reason coming along with a motion of this kind. I hope that the Prime Minister after this discussion will still see his way to agree to withdraw this motion when I assure him that nobody wants to obstruct.

I agree with the hon. member for Pietersburg. (Mr. Tom Naudé) that the co-operation is good, and nobody is more keen on maintaing that spirit of co-operation in our discussions than I myself, but the hon. member will also agree with me that when we approached him in regard to this question of a hundred hours for the debate he would not give us an assurance that the debate would be limited to a hundred hours, and although there has been no obstruction—I fully admit that—we are already six hours over our time in comparison with the stage which we had reached last session on these same votes.

We can make it up again on the minor votes.

I have no certainty about that, and if we want to finish within the time which I have held out in prospect it is necessary to conclude this debate within a hundred hours. I have given the House the assurance that the Government is anxious to finish towards the middle of April, and in giving that assurance I have in view this time arrangement of one hundred hours for the Estimates in Committee. We are six hours behind already.

But why do you want to finish by the middle of April?

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) takes up the attitude that we are acting unreasonably, that we want to act in a highhanded manner and that we do not want to give sufficient time for the discussion of the Estimates, but I want to say again that the practice which we introduced last session went in the right direction.

But why move it at this stage?

We negotiated about giving a hundred hours and we could not get any assurance.

That was at the beginning.

We wanted to see how it would go. In practice it has turned out that we have already lost more than six hours. That is what experience has shown us and it is only because of that that I feel we should lay down a certain time limit. As it was impossible for the Whips on both sides to come to an agreement on all the votes, a definite arrangement has to be laid down so that we may be able to finish our business within a reasonable time. I repeat again that I am not casting any reflections on either side of the House. In regard to paragraph 5, which was referred to by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart), I want to say that that has always been part of the guillotine motion as introduced from the very start. I am afraid that if we do not include that paragraph, time which was intended for the Estimates may be used for the discussion of such motions.

But surely that would be to our own detriment?

I am speaking of the interests of the House as a whole and not only of the Opposition. If we give a hundred hours for the Estimates, then we want those hundred hours to be spent on the discussion of the Estimates, and the time must not be wasted on other debates.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—64:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

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.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, D.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp. W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—31:

Bekker, S.

Bosman, P. J.

Brits, G. P.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Fagan, H. A.

Fullard, G. J.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Loubser, S. M.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

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.

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

The hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) speaking on Friday last put up a plea for the licensing of margarine factories in this country and instanced a very high class of margarine now being made in England, and she said that the licensing of margarine factories would not be a menace at all to the Dairy Industry. Let me tell the hon. member that margarine is already being made in this country For the information of members I have a lb. of margarine here manufactured in Cape Town, but whether it is as palatable as butter is another thing, and I think if the hon. member would put this lb. of margarine within an inch of her dainty nose she probably would not want to buy margarine. Not only is margarine made in this country, but you can buy pasterine or nutrine for cooking purposes which are definitely margarine, and also peanut butter which is also margarine — that can also be purchased here, so when it comes to a question of protecting this particular type of food, these substitutes are already here in abundance. Margarine can be made in this country but it cannot be made to imitate butter—it must be sold as natural margerine. That is the only restriction. In other countries margarine is coloured first to make it resemble butter and then it has either butter, or fresh milk worked into it to give it a butter flavour, and it is sold—it is dressed up in butter clothes and sold as a substitute for butter. Now, that is what we do not allow in this country. Margarine must be sold as margarine and must not be made up to imitate. The argument is advanced that it is necessary to have margarine in case of a butter shortage. I admit that we have this year passed through a shortage of dairy as well as other products, but that was due to the worst drought which I in fifty years experience of this country have known, and it is very unlikely that we shall again be faced with a drought of such magnitude for many years. The position usually is that this country supplies its own needs of butter during the flush season, and that the Board entrusted with the supervision of dairy products accumulates before winter about 8,000,000 or 9,000,000 lbs. of butter in cold storage to provide for probable or possible deficiency in the late winter and early spring months. This year, since the rains have fallen, the season has been extraordinarily favourable. We have approximately 4,000,000 lbs. of butter already in stock against the winter, and by the time winter starts we shall have at least 6,000,000 lbs. of butter available to provide for any shortage. I do not think the hon. member need be nervous of another butter shortage. Further than that we now seem to be entering on an unusually favourable winter, as the rainfall has provided an amount of fodder — green fodder — which is probably greater than we usually have in a normal winter. So you can look at the future months as well provided for. Now we make about 45,000,000 lbs. annually of butter—35,000,000 lbs. weight is consumed locally and 10,000,000 represents the surplus, and now I want to call the hon. member’s attention to this point. She pleads for the poorer people. Out of the 35,000,000 lbs. consumed in this country in 1939—’40, 4,400,000 lbs. of butter was supplied to those who are too poor to pay the normal price for butter, at prices less than export, at less than overseas prices the 1940—’41 figures I have not had. This butter is sold at 8d. per lb. first grade, 7d. per lb. second grade, and 6d. per lb. third grade. That is cheaper than overseas prices realised for our butter. I can tell the hon. member that as far as the poor are concerned we are doing our best to get these products over to them.

Now that price is infinitely cheaper than margarine. The poorer people can buy first grade butter, if they are too poor to buy through the ordinary channels, at 3d. or 4d. a lb. less than margarine. There is an export surplus of about 10,000,000 lbs. and I can assure the House that if more butter is required by the poorer people, to those who are not able to purchase butter at normal prices, whatever quantity they require, will be made available. There is not a shortage of good butter in this country either for the people of normal income to buy at a reasonable price, or for the very poor people to buy at sub-normal prices. That entirely cuts the argument away from under those who advocate a margarine factory to enter into competition with our creameries. I think that disposes of the question whether there is a need for margarine. But there is another point, and it is this. However many licences you give the margarine factories today, the necessary fats and oils are not available. We have a grave shortage of fats in this country today. The fats are not available, and if you started a margarine factory today you could not supply them with the necessary material for the making of that product. Other dairy countries have not allowed the manufacture of margarine as we are allowing in this country. Australia, New Zealand, and many of the States of America have absolutely prohibited the manufacture of margarine in the interests of the dairy industry.

If you will give them a permit to sell margarine they could do so, but you won’t give them a permit.

Here is a pound of margarine manufactured at Cape Town, and the hon. member can go into the shops and buy as much as he wants.

Are you quite sure that it is not soap?

I do not think that hon. member knows the difference between soap and butter. His abysmal ignorance is displayed in this House from time to time by the interjections he makes. Margarine is definitely not as nutritious as butter. It may be as palatable, but in the vitamin content it is definitely inferior to butter, and so long as we can obtain fresh butter and so long as the poorer people can get fresh butter at subnormal prices as they can today, it would provide the answer to the cry for protective foods to replace butter with margarine. Whether the people are Europeans or coloureds or natives, their needs are amply provided for, and if more butter is required for those who cannot purchase it, it will be made available. There is no one who suffers more from malnutrition today than the natives in the reserves, and you will never get them to start buying margarine. You can save yourself the trouble of trying to do so. The remedy for malnutrition is not to be found in giving them margarine. There is only one other point I want to make, and that is the repercussions this is going to have. If the free and unrestricted manufacture of margarine, made up with the flavour to imitate butter, were to be allowed, it is quite conceivable that you might have the gravest repercussions on the dairy industry. [Time limit.]

I don’t want to follow the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) in his contentions about margarine. We have sufficient cows to supply the butter requirements of the country. I am pleased that as a result of the heavy blows dealt by the Nationalist Party the Government has at last realised that the farmers should get profitable prices for their products, and that members on the Government side of the House are also beginning to realise that now. I only hope that it will not stop at words, but that they will definitely get payable prices. Now I want to bring a few other points to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture, and I hope that he will not again, as he did on Friday, lose his papers containing his notes. The Minister said that it was not done deliberately, and I naturally accept what he says. Our farmers have been asked to produce, and I have already pointed out that the farmers can do nothing if they have no labour. Now I want to ask in this connection, in view of the fact that the various departments have large numbers of tractors, whether the Government cannot rent those tractors to the farmers. We do not want them for nothing. We are prepared to pay the expense of bringing them to a district; we are prepared to pay for the use of the tractors and the oil. It will help us a lot to get our crops into the ground sooner, and it will also assist our people to sow a great deal more than they would otherwise be able to sow. In view of the threatened famine in the country the Government should devise some such scheme. For the moment I want to revert to the Wool Agreement. The hon. member has told us that it is a fine and excellent agreement. The Minister says that the wool which goes to America is sent there to be stored. Well, it is very difficult for us to believe that 600,000 bales of wool are sent to America to lie there until after the war. I believe that circumstances have changed to such an extent, and will continue to change within the next few months, that all that wool will immediately be processed and a great deal more too. What I do not understand, however, is that our price has to be lower than it was during the last war, because we have the selfsame buyers, namely, England, Canada, and America. We should be getting a very much better price than we are getting today. I hope the Minister will still try to get us a higher price. Now, I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to the East Coast fever position in the Border Districts. Near Piet Retief there are three border farms which are not yet fenced. The Minister may perhaps say that there is no wire. Of course, they are living in water-tight compartments. But I believe the Minister will find that on the Pongolo Settlement there are still six or seven hundred bales of wire and a lot of poles, all of which can be used. The stuff has been lying there for years. Why cannot it be used to stop all this trouble with East Coast fever? We have this bottle neck position there, and if the wire is put up it will remove that difficulty. The other point which I have already tried to bring to the Minister’s notice is that when mealies are sold in small quantities, the price should not be higher than when large quantities are bought, because it is to the detriment of the poor man and the small purchaser. The sellers are now refusing to sell larger quantities than 20 bags, because they get a higher price if they sell their mealies in small quantities. The Minister should make the price the same, whether a man buys one bag or a hundred bags. I have already expressed the desirability of the Minister fixing a price for mealies. If he can fix the price for wheat a year in advance, he should also be able to fix the price for mealies. I want it to be more than 12s. 6d., and I have suggested that it should be at least £1 per bag. The Minister will then get more out of the people. If he does not fix a reasonable price, we shall have to use our mealies where the mealies are not so badly wanted, but we should fix the price as I have suggested, because we cannot run our farming as a charitable business. We must get a profitable price. That is why I suggest a £1. In regard to vegetables, I don’t want to ask for prices to be fixed, because I realise the Minister’s difficulty. It is difficult to fix a price for fresh vegetables, and, unless the Minister establishes factories to preserve beans, peas and carrots, it will be very difficult to fix a price for vegetables. There are certain commodities, however, such as potatoes, in respect of which a price can be fixed. The Minister has told us that he is going to fix a price, not a maximum price and not a minimum price, but a price for first, second and third grades. At certain times of the year the production will probably be too large, but I think the Minister in that regard will have to consider laying down a quota in regard to how potatoes should be planted, so that we will not get this state of affairs, that no more mealies and no more wheat will be planted, but only potatoes. In that way quite an impossible position might be created, and I think the Minister should give this matter his serious attention. I want to ask him not to do what the Minister of Commerce and Industries has done. When we got a reasonable price for potatoes, he simply fixed a maximum price of 25s. per bag, with the result that potatoes dropped to as low as 3s. per bag. Let him fix a reasonable price, for instance, 25s., for first grade, 20s. for second grade, and 17s. 6d. for third grade. If he does that he will be really helping us. I also want to ask him to interfere as little as possible in regard to products where there is a satisfactory supply and demand, such as meat, for instance. We hear every day about an agitation to fix the price of meat, and I want to ask the Minister to leave it alone. That is the only product for which the farmer is getting a reasonable price today, and if the Minister interferes there he will only get trouble, and the prices will probably come down again, so that the farmers will not get their legitimate share. Now, I want to say a few words about the position of our oil supply. When we, who have tractors, apply for oil, the reply usually is that they cannot send any oil because there are no cans. I myself sent a dozen empty cans a fortnight ago. They acknowledged receipt, but they stated that they could only send me five cans of oil, because they had no more cans. I sent them the twelve cans, and surely I could have expected to get a reasonable quantity of oil. If we don’t get reasonable quantities we cannot produce. If we have tractors and no oil, we cannot produce. I think the Minister should tell the oil companies that they must meet the farmers as much as they possibly can.

I want to put up a plea on behalf of our stock inspectors. Many of them are doing their work today under extremely difficult conditions. The cost of petrol and tyres and so on is very high today, and they cannot do their work and make a decent living in those wideflung areas which they have to control today. I consider that it is the Government’s duty to come to their assistance so that they can do their work in a way which will give satisfaction to everybody. Now I want to say a few words about the speech of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker). He talks a lot about the wool agreement, and even the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has now spoken about the wool agreement. I can still forgive the hon. member for Cradock if he attacks the wool agreement, but the hon. member for Wolmaransstad would do better to keep quiet about it. If we had had a similar agreement when he was still Minister of Agriculture, when we were still on the gold standard, none of us would have had any cause for complaint. The hon. member for Cradock criticised the Minister over the wool agreement, and he tells the House and people outside that the wool agreement is of no use to us and that it is a bad agreement. Apparently the hon. member does not know what happened at the Congress of Wool Growers at Bloemfontein.

I know it better than you do.

Forty members voted in favour of the wool agreement and nine voted against it, and if the hon. member for Cradock continues his propaganda and there is another Congress he will find that forty-eight will vote for it and only one against it.

You are making a very bad guess.

The hon. member is always guessing. I take facts as I find them. The hon. member for Cradock should know by now that forty of the members attending the Congress voted in favour of the agreement.

Some of them do not produce a single bale of wool.

The fact remains that they were there as representatives of the wool growers.

No, you are wrong again.

The hon. member’ for Cradcok asked why we did not maintain an open market as long as it was possible to do so, but what would have happened if we could not have maintained an open market? We would then have been obliged to go hat in hand to the British Government and we would have had to accept anything they cared to give us.

But the British love us so much.

That is what the hon. member for Cradock suggests. He complains that we are not getting the price on which we made our calculations, namely, 10.75d. Let me tell him what happened to my own wool. A year before I got an average of 11¾d. for my wool, and for this year’s clip I got 11-1/3d. I don’t know whether the hon. member for Cradock got that; if he did not get it he must be farming with the wrong type of sheep and there must be something wrong with his farming.

They cannot be much worse than yours.

And if he did get that, why does he complain? The prices obtained by people in my neighbourhood were even higher than 11-1/3d. on an average. I admit that a man producing inferior wool will not get that.

What was the average price for the country?

I contend that good clips did not get less than 11d. and 12d., but there may be inferior wool which brings down the average price for the country. A good clip, however, fetches more, and the hon. member for Cradock knows it.

Yes, I know very much better what is going on than you do.

If the hon. member knows so much better, he should get a better price. The hon. member for Cradock further comes and says that the Government should give a better article to our troops—that is to say, better blankets, and he said that blankets were manufactured and sold at tremendous profits. He gave the House to understand that blankets only cost about 3s. 2d. The hon. member for Cradock knows that that is not so. He knows that a price has been fixed, and he knows that that article costs more than twice 3s. 2d. He also knows that a reasonable profit is allowed to the manufacturers, and that a certain quantity of wool has to be used for the manufacture of the blankets. The hon. member also knows, as well as any other member, that the Government Textile Commission found out that fraud had been committed in regard to the manufacture of blankets.

Then why complain of what I have said?

I shall tell hon. members what happened. They found that in the manufacture of the blankets the blankets were not delivered in terms of the contract entered into, and as a result steps were taken, with the result that the Government did not lose a penny. Further, as a result of what they found out, the Textile Commission today has blankets made which contain 50 per cent. of merino wool and 50 per cent. Karakul wool, but the hon. member for Cradock says: “Why does not the Government accept the recommendations of the Wool Council?” Well, it is the Textile Commission which has told the Wool Council what it has found out, and now the hon. member for Cradock comes here and he wants the House to understand that it is the Wool Council which has brought the matter to the notice of the Textile Commission. I also want to ask what right a member of the Wool Council has to come here, and outside the House, blazon forth information of a confidential nature?

What was there confidential about it?

I should like to know whether the hon. member has the right to make public that information which was given by the Textile Commission? The hon. member knows that it should not be done.

Why not?

Of course, not. The Army Textile Commission will now probably refuse to supply any information to the Wool Council, and then the Wool Council will get what it deserves. The hon. member for Cradock should not blazon forth this information. I cannot associate myself with it, and I am sorry that the hon. member for Cradock, who should know better, should do a thing like that. I am afraid that when he gets up here he does not want to know better, and he does not look beyond the borderlines of Elandskuil.

With reference to this vote, I should like to tell the Minister that the agricultural community gradually is gaining the impression that the Government is forgetting that the agricultural industry still is the largest consumer and employer in the country. The agricultural industry has reason to complain that it has been very much neglected during the past year by the Minister of Agriculture. I should just like to refer to the Ministers’ agreement with regard to the hides of the farmers. I think the Minister of Agriculture really has neglected the interests of the farmers in that respect by fixing the prices of hides at such a low level. The farming community has been labouring for years under uneconomical prices for hides. Now a time has come when they could obtain a better price, and the Government, mind you, goes along and fixes the prices at a ridiculous level, especially when we consider that there is a widespread demand for hides. I think the Minister of Agriculture has treated the farming community in a manner they have not deserved, and the farming community has the right to protest most strongly. I should like to say a few words now on the small subsidy the Government is granting with regard to fertiliser. The £1 per ton announced by the Minister in his Budget speech, is not sufficient. The price of fertiliser has risen so tremendously, that even with the subsidy of £1 per ton, it will still be impossible for the small farmers to buy the fertiliser they require to produce a greater extent in accordance with the expectations of the Government. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister at the Rosebank Show recently appealed to the farmers to produce more, and fertiliser presently is absolutely indispensable to a large section of the farmers, particularly the maize producers. For this reason I think the Minister should consider giving not only a subsidy, but also an advance in each case to enable farmers to buy fertiliser. You should bear in mind that the season just passed has been a very bad one, and this year we have to expect a shortage of mealies, and also that there will be mealies of a poor quality on the market. Several hon. members have already urged that the Minister and his department should fix the price of meales for this year in good time, and I should like to support those appeals. It is definitely necessary if a large section of our farmers are not to go to the dogs. The agricultural industry is in a critical state, and the taxation proposals of the Government impose such a burden on the farmers that they will not be able to keep their heads above water. During the past seven or eight years, we were rehabilitating the farming community, and we were making good progress, but the taxes imposed now during the past few months, neutralises the good policy of rehabilitation we had been pursuing, and we shall still have to suffer the bad consequences of that. I believe the Minister and the Cabinet, of which he is a member, do not sufficiently realise the economical position of our farmers. I refer to the taxes that have been imposed, and still to be imposed. Do the Minister and the Cabinet not realise that when a farmer sells his stock, it is not profit he is making, but simply capital he has invested and which is now being returned to him? Does the Minister not realise the unfairness of the position, that when a farmer sends 300 or 400 or 500 sheep to the market, it is not profit he is driving to the market, but capital? Does the Government therefore not realise that so far as the farmers are concerned, it is imposing a tax not on profits, but on capital? The Government is taxing the capital of the farmer, and thereby undermining the capital resources of the farmers. I am sorry the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is not in his seat, because I am sure he will realise the position, if the Minister of Agriculture does not realise it. I even pity the Hon. the Prime Minister because his Cabinet today consists largely of men who do not realise how destructive for the farming community the taxes are that are being imposed on them from day to day. If the Minister of Finance were to tax the capital of traders, if he were to impose taxation which would simply amount to capital confiscation, what would be the reaction of the traders? That is what the Government actually is doing in respect of the farmers. You are concerned with capital confiscation. I hope the Minister and his Department and the Government will attend to that, and will realise that they are ruining the farming community, and are rendering undone the rehabilitation that has been effected during the past years. Then I should also like to ask the Minister of Agriculture to bear in mind the fact that the past year has been an abnormally bad season for a great part of the country. There are areas which will soon simply be needy because there is no grain and no pasture, and the Minister definitely should exert himself in co-operation with the settlements of the Department of Irrigation, to produce lucerne so that those resources may be mobilised in order that, when the evil day arrives, our country will not be further harmed. With reference to the financial provision being made for the laboratory of Onderstepoort, I should like to say that I think we owe that institution all credit and thanks. It is an unmixed blessing for this country that we have Onderstepoort in connection with the fighting of stock diseases. But the Department of Agriculture should realise that some of the vaccines they are making available, are definitely too expensive. It is too expensive for many of the smaller farmers. I mention for instance the vaccine for horses. Now that the supply of petrol has been curtailed during this time of war, and the use of machinery being restricted to a greater extent, there are many people who are again using horses and mules, and they dare not and may not invest capital in those unless they safeguard the animals against horse sickness. The only remedy for that is the vaccine from Onderstepoort, and 5s. per dose in too expensive. The Department should take that into consideration. There is another item I should like to mention, namely, the vaccine for Texas fever and gall-sickness. There are many farmers who are unable to invest £15 and more to pay 9d. per dose. I understand it has been reduced by 3d., but it still is too expensive. I am unable to express an opinion on the costs of production. But it behoves even the Government to fix a standard price of 3d. for vaccine for all kinds of diseases without exception. It will be meeting the farmers, and the country will derive benefit from it. Of course not in the case of sheep, because that already is on a cheaper basis. With these few words I hope that as regards the taxes on agriculture, the Minister will give his earnest attention to it, and that he will also do so with regard to the difficulties of the mealie industry.

I want to congratulate the Minister on his appointment as food controller, and at the same time I want to just mention that it is a very big job and one that will put him and his officials to a very severe test. I hope that they will be able to live up to it. That appointment, Mr. Chairman, requires the wholehearted cooperation of producer, manufacturer and distributor, it requires experienced businessmen who will appoint officers to work with the Government Controller. There is already a great deal of criticism that the men at the head of the Minister’s department are perhaps not quite the right persons to handle this position, and I hope therefore that it is the intention of the Minister to appoint an advisory committee to help him. There is just this fear that the officials who are handling this will not be able to co-operate with these men as effectively as it is desired. Let me tell the Minister that the job is a big one and let me further tell him that food control will be absolutely useless unless it is accompanied by rationing. If we are going to have effective food control, then rationing is absolutely necessary. That has been the experience in other countries, and you will find the same thing here in this country. Take for instance this latest attempt at rationing tea, which has just been pumlished, just look at the regulations which have been framed there. The very thing that we are trying to avoid in this country is hoarding, and we are also trying to avoid inflation. But here you bring in a regulation that every purchaser of a pound of tea has got to buy 10s. worth of other goods. Have you heard of anything more absurd? Let me tell the House that there is no such great scarcity of tea in this country, the stocks are plenty. But what do you do? You are going first of all to handicap the poor people who cannot afford to buy the other goods, and you are going to tempt all the other people to hoard. If you go round to the stores today you will find that there are queues of people who can afford to buy are buying 10s. worth of goods and hoarding the stuff in order to get an extra pound of tea, depriving the poor people who may want it. Why is it necessary to compel these people to buy other goods. Everyone today, including the primary producer, is anxious to conserve resources, so that they will go round, yet here you are putting a premium on hoarding. This is just one of the things that I am afraid may happen when the food controller takes charge of the position, because these regulations are issued so hurriedly without consulting the people who know, and I do hope in future that in that respect the Minister will not act hastily, but will take the people who are in trade, and who are anxious to help and do everything possible to make the thing workable, into his confidence. Let me refer to the objects of the present Control Board. There are various divisions, including production, marketing, price fixation, supplies to convoys, and propaganda. But the most important need as it appears to me is the purchasing commission, to buy the goods for supply to the convoys and other consumers, so that the public shall not be exploited. This commission will buy what is needed of the potato or any crop, and that purchasing committee should be the most important committee and should consist of men of experience who know something about trade. Then another committee which is needed is a rationing committee, and here I want to repeat that you will find your food control will be another failure unless you combine rationing with it.

How are you going to have control without rationing if there is a shortage?

To my mind control is impossible without rationing, therefore the first committee that ought to be set up is a rationing committee. I think in the smaller centres rationing is not so important. But in the larger centres such as Cape Town and Johannesburg you must have a proper and strict system of rationing. In the smaller towns where the dealers and distributors know their customers, they impose a sort of voluntary rationing which is effective. We have here in Cape Town in most commodities a sort of voluntary rationing, but that I am sorry to say has not been a success because support from the public has been lacking. People who are well-to-do have gone round hoarding at the expense of the poorer people. I think the establishment of food control is quite useless unless you combine it with rationing, and you cannot have a better illustration of that than what has happened here in connection with tea rationing. There are queues of people going round trying to buy tea. And there is another difficulty that I would like to point out in this connection, and that is that there are a number of people who don’t drink tea at all, they drink coffee, cocoa and other beverages, and if you ration tea you must ration the other commodities as well, otherwise you are bound to have people who normally don’t use tea going round and buying tea to sell it on a black market. My appeal to the controller is: Don’t start with this food control until you have everything properly discussed and arranged with the interested parties.

I am not rising to criticise the Minister of Agriculture’s general administration as such. I leave him to his own supporting newspapers. It seems that the Minister’s administration is hopeless judging from his own supporting papers, as we read in the “Natal Mercury” and the “Natal Witness” last week. They accuse him of his administration being hopeless. Those organs of his even go so far as to state that the Minister’s administration is becoming so hopeless that he ought to resign. I am not going to labour the point. I leave him to them. I should just like to say here that I regret to say that I cannot associate myself with the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) in his congratulation of the Minister on his appointment as Controller of Foodstuffs. If we had to judge from his administration of the Department of Agriculture, I think that in his hands things will go still further wrong. We are afraid that this Minister in the past has adopted an attitude which has prejudiced our production. The hon. member for South Peniusla has enumerated the functions of the Board that has been appointed, and he stated that the most important function is that of purchasing. I suggest that the most important is that of production. Production is much more important than any of the functions of control, and I submit here, without hesitation, that as regards production, the Minister has in the past neglected to a large extent to see that there is a proper production. When we talk of production, we do not forget that part of the Minister’s duties is seeing that there will not be losses which could be prevented, and in this connection I think of an important section of our producers. We have talked here about a possible shortage of meat. If there is a meat shortage in the country, then no one other than the Minister himself has contributed to a larger extent to the cause of it. He could have prevented it in a large measure if he had met the farmers, but he did not do so. We think of the serious drought that has prevailed throughout the country. There have been numerous losses which could have been prevented, and would not have occurred had the Minister of Agriculture taken steps in time to help the farmers. I believe those losses in respect of cattle, alleged to have been caused by the drought, has to a large extent been exaggerated. But it is a fact that there has been serious losses as a consequence of the drought. Some time ago I asked the Minister whether representations had been made to him to help the farmers to feed their stock in this drought. He admitted that representations had reached him as long ago as October of last year already, but the Minister has done nothing to help the farmers in this regard. It seems to me he is waiting to see whether it will not rain, so that the farmer’s position could be improved without him having to do anything. That delay occurred, and losses were incurred, and I only wish to hope that the Minister will see that this does not happen again in future. What strikes me as being so deplorable is that when we ask the Minister to help the farmers with fodder, he says there is a shortage of mealies. But mealies is not the only feed in the country. There are other kinds of cattlefeed that could be used. If the Minister were to encourage and assist that fine scheme, the Vaalhartz, in future, he will see that more stock feed will be produced on that fine scheme than he could imagine. If the Minister does that, he shall only be carrying out what I have already said to the Prime Minister, namely, that we should concentrate upon the production of fodder at Vaalhartz. There has always been a feeling on the part of our friends of the Western Province that Vaalhartz is going to prejudice them some day, because fruit is going to be produced there. That scheme need not produce any fruit, and the Government will see and help that Vaalhartz will serve to produce fodder for those parts, as, for instance, Bechuanaland, where large numbers of cattle are bred, but where sometimes there is not sufficient pasturage throughout the year. Such a scheme could be used to help those farmers in times of the year when they have not sufficient fodder for their stock. Another point of interest I should like to raise in regard to the work of the Controller of Foodstuffs, is that he should not only permit young cattle to be imported, as, for instance, from South-West Africa and the Bechuanaland Protectorate, but that the Government should resolutely advise the people to do so as long as it can be ascertained that there is a serious shortage of beef. We find that in certain areas of the country, during certain times of the year, there is much more pasturage than the cattle need, the cattle we already have in the country. There are farmers who are prepared to do that kind of work to acquire young cattle and let them grow up on that pasturage for the production of meat. For that reason I want the Minister not only to allow the importation of these young cattle, but that he should actually encourage it. We see in yesterday’s paper—I think it was in the “Cape Times”—that it is stated that Rhodesia is out to obtain large numbers of cattle from the Bechuanaland Protectorate. Those cattle ought not to go to Rhodesia, but it should come here. If we permit those cattle to come here, we could let them grow up and feed them and see to it that there is not a serious shortage in our country. Not enough cattle is being bred here at present. Then I should like to refer to another important matter. The Minister has heard a lot about it from me already. That is the position of the farmers on the border between the Union and the Protectorate. I am not going into the merits of the case again, but there is one thing the Minister is now doing, and I should like to remind him that by doing so, he is doing the farmers an injustice. I would be neglecting my duty if I did not do so. I have asked the Minister a question to which he replied on the 6th March. I asked him whether he would lay upon the Table the agreement entered into —the agreement of a give and take wire fence between the Protectorate and the Union Government so that we could scrutinise it. I asked him whether the agreement entered into with the Protectorate was of a permanent nature. I asked him further what the position was going to be of the rights of private owners on the border. The reply given to that was that there was no formal agreement in existence, and that the agreement was entered into by way of notes exchanged between him and the Administration of the Protectorate. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman I was very glad when the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) raised the point that he did raise in this debate this afternoon. I must say that when I saw the regulations governing the purchase of tea I was completely horrified both as a housekeeper who pays her way as she goes and as a representative of the poorest people in this country. Sir the more I see of the attempts to regulate the distribution of our foodstuffs in this country the stronger becomes my impression that these regulations are framed by people who have no idea at all of how the poor live. It seems to me that there is an enormous gap between all our Standing Committees that are dealing with the food of the people and the bulk of the people who are affected by their regulations, particularly the poorer groups. I trust that the Hon. the Prime Minister will soon do something to bridge this gap, and I sincerely hope the hon. Minister of Agriculture will see that the Committees of which he has charge will show more appreciation of the needs of all the people than has so far characterised our Control Board’s actions. I am very much tempted to support very strongly the recommendation of the hon. member for South Peninsula, that we should have a rationing system, because that seems to me the only way we shall begin to learn what some of our people need, and the only way some of our people will ever get some of the food that they need. That brings me to the point that I really wish to raise with the Minister. The hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) last week raised the question of the distribution of fruit. This question of fruit is like the other question of fish; it is one to which we ought to pay a good deal of attention, because it is one of the few fields of food production in this country where we have at least a possibility of supplying the needs of the community. What I am hoping for is that some time before the passing of this vote, the Minister will make some statement as to the long term policy of his department in regard to the distribution of fruit. I am impelled to ask him to do that by the experience we have had of the distribution of fruit, where it is regulated by a Control Board. There has been a great deal of dissatisfaction this season with the distribution of those fruits which are under the control of the Deciduous Fruit Board. I am alarmed at the amount of fruit that has had to be buried on farms because the board has refused to allow it to be put on the market. I am told the policy is to build up a certain standard of fruit for this market, apparently with any regard to the consuming capacity of the country, and the ability of the community to pay. What I want to know is whether it is to be the policy of the Minister and his department to induce us to appreciate Covent Garden fruit at Covent Garden prices, or to see that as much fruit as possible is put on our market and at prices which the people can afford to pay? There are a great many people in this country who will never be able to pay for Covent Garden standard, and a great many more who do not appreciate that standard. There are also a great many people who would be glad to get cheap fruit on our market, and who will never be able to pay for anything else. We want an understanding as to the policy which is being pursued. We ought also to have some understanding about the policy of the Citrus Board. I was horrified to hear that last year numbers of people had been forced to bury their citrus on their farms, and had not been able to distribute it to people who had been buying from them. I have no inside information; I am merely repeating to the Minister facts that have been put before me, and I shall be glad to have any explanation of those facts, and to know whether they represent a definite policy on the part of the Government? It seems to me that what we want from a Fruit Control Board is that it will explore every possible avenue for getting on to the market all the fruit that is worth eating in this country at a price that people can afford to pay. It is no argument to say that we are supplying the canning factories. Fresh fruit has a value of its own, and ought to be supplied to the people. We can deal with our canning factories thereafter. I hope the Minister will give us an explanation of these things, because I feel there are many people who are anxious to know what is going to happen.

When the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture replied to the debate on Thursday, he stated inter alia that as regards the mealie industry, he thought it would be necessary that the price should be higher this year than last year. When I heard that, I immediately became perturbed, because when we think of last year’s price, we find it was only 8s. 6d. or 9s. per bag. Now the Minister says the prices should be better than those of last year. I think the mealie farmers have the right to be disturbed about that statement of the Minister. Unfortunately the Minister is so secretive about the matter. We meet here in Parliament to discuss national matters, and to look after the interests of the different sections of the people. But the Minister acts in a mysterious manner. I am afraid the whole attitude of the Minister inclines one to uneasiness. As long as Parliament is sitting, he envelops himself in secrecy, but once we disperse, I am afraid we shall learn from the papers on a certain day that the Mealie Control Board—that is the Minister in the last resort—has decided that the price of mealies will be so much and so much. Probably the Minister argues that if he waits until then, there would be no appeals here in the Assembly for better and more reasonable prices. Last year the mealie crop amounted to more or less 22,000,000 bags, and this year it will not be more than 14,000,000 or 15,000,000 bags. We producers consume about 10,000,000 bags. Therefore only about 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 bags will be marketed this year, as against 12,000,000 last year. And then the Minister comes along and says: “The price should be better than last year.” I should just like to give the Minister the assurance that if he is unable to give the farmers a very reasonable and living price, and we have to go from here without having had the opportunity and the right of discussing and arguing the matter out fully, protests will be made outside from one end of the country to the other. We have had the experience in the past, that the Minister is afraid that he might be giving the farmers a penny too much. He gives them as little as possible, and if protest is made, he says: “We shall give the farmer another 6d. or 1s.” What is the result? That the consumers then think the Government is once again pampering and supporting the farmers. For instance, take what happened with regard to the wheat industry. There we also protested and said that the price of £1 6s. 9d. was too low. So the Government came along and said they thought the wheat farmers should get 1s. more. What was the result? The consumers said the farmers were again getting 1s. per bag more for their wheat. Actually that 1s. came out of the wheat farmers’ own funds. The principle is quite wrong. The Minister now says he is unable to say what the price of mealies is going to be this year. But he has explained that the wheat farmers will get £1 10s. 6d. The wheat has not yet been sowed even, but there the Minister is able to fix a price. We are nearly able to estimate the mealie crop, but here the Minister is unable to say what the price is going to be. It is very unfair, and I ask the Minister to make a statement before we disperse—let him do so today if he can. There is worry in the country. We may have a shortage of mealies, a serious shortage. Now I should like to suggest something, which will automatically render unnecessary the rationing of mealies which is being contemplated, and that is that the Minister should fix a fairly high and reasonable price. Then mealies will not be used for every trivial thing, and then those who do not really need mealies, will not buy. In this way the mealies will be used rs economically as possible and no rationing will be necessary. Then there is something else about which the Minister is mysterious. In the past we had reached a policy according to which 1s. 6d. more would be given to the small farmer than to the large farmer. I do not think the Minister should deviate from that principle, and I should be glad to learn from the Minister what he intends doing in this connection. As regards potatoes, I think the Minister was a little too hasty in fixing the price, and I must say that I think the Minister and his Department are quite on the wrong road there. We notice that from December or January there has almost been an over-production of potatoes. Every morning you find thousands of bags of potatoes left on the market. Why should there be a fixed maximum price with regard to a commodity of which there is an over-production? My experience has been that there is no commodity of which you can more easily have over-production than potatoes. Large convoys arrived which took large quantities of potatoes, and the prices were quite high, and we shall, if things go on like this, soon have a very large overproduction of potatoes. The price of potatoes meanwhile has fallen considerably, after the Government fixed the maximum price, and the producer is not protected. Let the best class of potatoes obtain 30s. That is a class of potatoes which is bought by people who can afford to pay, but do not control a commodity in this manner. The Government interfered too soon. There is one more point I should like to refer to, and that is the destruction being caused by the commando worm. It is a good act of the Government to make seed available, but I am afraid the administration in connection with that is again going to be very slow. Last week I had an interview with the Department and they told me that the magistrates will be notified of all the particulars. On Friday I telegraphed to the people in my constituency that they should consult the magistrate and obtain all particulars there. On Saturday they wired me that the Magistrate there knew nothing about it as yet. If you want to tackle the matter in a practical manner, consult the representatives in Parliament. Come to me as a member and say to me: “Look, we intend doing this, what do you think, how much seed will be required in your district?” Then we will give our co-operation and support. I shall immediately make the seed available at the depots it can establish, and make available a quantity of wheat and rye and oats at the co-operative depot in Klerksdop and elsewhere, so that applications may be dealt with without delay. If a man comes to apply in the morning, he should be able to get the stuff in the afternoon. Particularly in the parts where you have no winter rains, you have to sow very soon when a slight rain has fallen. If we want to sow for pasture, rye or wheat, it should be put into the ground very quickly. I am afraid the administration is going to be too cumbersome and we shall lose weeks through that. If there is too much seed at the depots, it could under existing circumstances easily be disposed of again. It is very important that you should get your seed in early when you are able to prepare your field properly. Our area will not be benefited by it if we should sow our seed for pasturage only in May, or even late in April. Be practical. Cut out the red tape. Then we shall be able to produce. Then I also feel there is something wrong with the subsidy of £1 in connection with fertilizer. If I understand the matter rightly, it is only granted to those who buy their fertilizer for cash.

No.

I understood so. Can you get the subsidy of £1 even if you buy from a company on credit?

The company has to wait until it receives payment. If the man can show his receipt, he receives the subsidy.

I wish to add my plea to the Minister on behalf of our assistant stock inspectors. The Minister will know of the responsible work that these men have to do and the difficulty there is in getting suitable men. We are dependent on them for keeping in check East Coast fever in Natal, but the pay which these men receive—£17 to £20 per month—is really out of all proportion—it would not be an excessive rate of pay if they had anything else to meet out of it but out of that pay they have to supply their own transport, and that reduces what they are able to use for their families and themselves to a very small amount. I know that at the present time the areas which these men have to cover are doubled in comparison with what they had to do previous to the war; they not only have to keep a horse but the majority have to keep a motor car. I know that many in my area have to do as much as 400 miles per month by car, and out of their meagre pay they have to pay for petrol and expenses so that their families and they themselves have to suffer severely. I have had letters from some of the wives who write without the knowledge of their husbands, because the husbands are afraid to complain as they may be penalised. I have the case of a woman who has six or seven children, and she says she is unable to send her children to school because she has no boots for them, and their clothes are in such a bad condition that the children are ashamed to go to school and mix with other children. It is a scandalous state of affairs and it is high time the Minister enquired into the whole position of these stock inspectors. They should at least get an allowance for their transport. It is quite unfair to expect them to pay for their own transport out of the small salary they get, and that is one of the reasons why good men will not take these positions. I know that many of these stock inspectors have not remained for more than a month—they found that they could not live on the wage which the Government allowed them for this important work. I hope the Minister will enquire into this matter and also, if possible, make the position of these men easier because it is not only the men but their wives and children who are suffering, and if one remembers that members of this House have all expressed the view that unskilled labourers should be paid at least 10s. per day—that is for unskilled work— here you have skilled men, competent men, doing very responsible work, getting a wage which is hardly more than that which hon. members want unskilled labourers to get, and out of that wage they have to pay for their own transport. I hope the Minister will try and do something, because unless something is done we as farmers are going to suffer through not having the right type of stock inspector to control these dangerous diseases which we have to face. Now the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) was not able to finish his representations in regard to margarine and the danger this may be to the dairy industry. The hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) has been urging that the farmers of this country should produce more protective foods, in the way of milk, butter, cheese and dairy products of that kind. She implores us to do more in the way of producing these foods, and now she comes forward with a plea asking the Minister to licence margarine factories which are going to be a distinct danger to the dairy industry. On the other hand she wants us to produce more and on the other hand she asks for an industry which may result in many of those who are producing those products going out of business. You cannot have it both ways, and I feel sure that the Minister who knows the position will not consider, will not agree to any request for further margarine factories in this country. The Dairy Industry Control Board has set its face against margarine being used in substitution for butter, and if, as the hon. member for Jeppe has requested— and I believe there are other town representatives in the House as well who would like to see this industry encouraged and expanded at the expense of the dairying industry—if these requests are complied with they are going to do themselves and their people harm by decreasing the quantity of those protective foods which they want so much. That applies to a large extent to the production of milk. If margarine is going to be produced in large quantities you will not have the number of dairy cows bred in this country, you will not have men producing milk near the large cities and also your production of butter and cheese will go down without doubt. Margarine can take the place of butter. You have to choose between margarine factories or an enlarged dairying industry.

I should like to support sincerely the appeal of the hon. member for Western Cape (Mrs. Ballinger) in connection with the distribution of fresh fruit. We have on previous occasions already drawn the attention of the House to the irregularities prevailing in connection with the distribution of fruit. It is simply scandalous—I cannot use any other word. The hon. member has referred to oranges that have been buried. I may tell you that in my area tons of it have been buried under the trees, and the people in the cities have been able to obtain oranges only at exorbitant prices. I do not know what the Government intends doing in that connection, or does the Government propose to leave the matter to the New Order, when it comes into power, to rectify the irregularities? We shall do so. I am glad the hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock), is in his seat. He made an appeal a few days ago for the restriction of the price of food, and he referred to the convoys calling on here, and which are being treated shabbily. Because the convoys have been harshly treated, the hon. member has woken up. We are grateful that he has at last risen to say that a stop should be put to irregularities. If the war has done something, then at least it has opened the eyes of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central), and a number of other hon. members. Those irregularities have not just recently arisen, but have been in existence for years. For years the middleman has been exploiting his position, the agents and the companies have been exploiting the consumer and the producer. The farmers cannot secure prices for their produce, for their labour. I am grateful that the hon. member now has become an advocate of putting a stop to the irregularities. The farmers have never yet received their rightful share, and have always been exploited. If you go to the Cape Town Market, you find that the entire market is in the hands of Malays and hawkers. They buy the stuff from the farmers at low prices, and sell it at exorbitant prices. I hope the Minister will put a stop to that position. If there is one section of the people that requires protection, it is the farming community. Appeals have been made for the determination of a price for mealies, and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has stated that it should be £1 per bag, while other hon. members are satisfied with 15s. I would say that if the Government fixes the price at 15s., the poorer classes of the population will have to be protected, and a subsidy will have to be paid, so that the poor man could obtain food cheaply. I am in favour of the farmer receiving a reasonable price, but the poor man cannot afford to pay £1 or more for mealie meal. There are many poor people in our country who do not eat cheese and jam and bread like the criminals of Tokai, but they have to eat mealie meal. I am sorry the hon. member for Western Cape is not here, because I should like to give her the assurance that in Potgietersrust and in those parts there are many poor people who eat mealie meal and a little unsweetened coffee. That is all they get. If the Government helps the farmers, it should also pay a subsidy to protect the poor man. In reply to a question asked by me, the Minister replied that my area is not dependent on the use of tractors. The trouble is that we have had a terrible drought, and after this almost unprecedented drought, the commando worm turned up and devoured what remained. The difficulty the farmers have to cope with is that they have to pay their debts to the oil companies. Or let me say it is one of their difficulties. I do not know where the Minister got the information that in our district we are not dependent on tractors. You hardly find a single farmer there who does not possess a tractor. They are only able to have a crop by farming on modern lines. They have to sow quickly once a slight rain has fallen. Now they have to obtain oil. I know the Government is obliging and extends credit as regards debts to the Land Bank and in terms of the Farmers’ Relief Act, but the trouble is that the oil companies want payment. The Minister of Finance will say he has no jurisdiction in the matter, but the Government could address a request to the oil companies not to be in too much of a hurry, and not to take steps against the farmers in the circumstances. I should like to read a letter from the Agricultural Societies at Potgietersrust, as follows—

That is all. They ask the Government to request the oil companies kindly not to take steps, but give the people a reasonable chance to recover. I do not want to describe the seriousness of the position. It is grave and gloomy. The people have virtually not had crops, because the rains came late and the commando worm has devoured almost everything. I hope the hon. the Minister will request the oil companies to grant extension of credit.

I should like to bring a few things to the notice of the Minister, but I first want to say that I am sorry, but I cannot agree with what the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Du Plessis) said, namely, that the Government should allow the territories bordering on the Union to import cattle into our country. I want to repeat that we cannot allow the other territories to send more than their quota of cattle to our country. I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister the present position relating to the meat trade. The hon. member for Potgietersrust (Rev. S. W. Naudé) spoke here of exploitation and of hawkers. I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture has been appointed as Food Controller, and I hope that he will carry out his duties as well as is possible in the circumstances, but I cannot agree that the Minister should now act as hawker. I understand that the Minister has now appointed buyers of beef at the various markets. Perhaps the Minister was driven to it by the large companies, but I am disappointed at the step taken by the Minister. I think that it is wrong. I do not believe that he will attain success in this way. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister asked that the farmers should produce as much as they can, but we cannot produce 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. more. It is impossible. Now buyers have been appointed by the Government to purchase oxen in the Cape Town market and at other places, also in the Johannesburg market. I think in all seriousness that this is an unwise step. Why did the Minister not consult the Meat Control Board? I cannot understand it. Now a military board or something of that nature has been appointed, and the Government is now assuming the role of meat buyer. I understand that the head of the Marketing Board is one of the buyers, and I cannot understand how the Government can use these officials to buy meat. I know that the Minister means well, but I am convinced that he is committing a blunder. And why does he not use the Meat Control Board? I know that scandals took place, especially in connection with supplies to convoys. I understand that payment was made for 100 per cent. and that only 75 per cent. was supplied; I know that ships left here and that they did not get meat, and in Durban they could get meat. Of course, these are the same people, whether you buy in Durban or in Cape Town. You go from the frying-pan into the fire. I think that the Government ought to exercise control over the wholesale butchers. There is some talk that the Government wants to fix the price of meat. I do not know how the Minister proposes to do that, but let the wholesale butchers slaughter the cattle pro rata which the Government requires. The Imperial controls everything in Cape Town today, for example. They do what they please. I think that they have 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of the meat trade of Cape Town in their hands. I suggest that the Government should take the various grades of meat, first, second and third grade, on a pro rata basis from the wholesale butchers, and that they should deliver the meat at the same price as they pay for the unslaughtered oxen, and then they can keep the hide and offal. I think the butchery companies will do that. Steps must then be taken to see to it that the farmers do not receive too little for their cattle. Our farmers must no longer be exploited. But I appreciate the difficulty. If the Government buys, say, 100 oxen and there are 20 which the ships do not take, what will the Government then do with the meat? The Minister has two people in his department, namely, Mr. Wentzel and Mr. McLachlan, who ought to see to it that the farmers do not receive too little. Mr. Wentzel is a person who was on the cold storages for many years; he is a person who is on the Dairy Board today. I want to tell the Minister that we are not simply cutting off the ordinary channel which we have. The Mealie Board is in quite a different position. Mealies have a grade, while meat has no grade. If you buy 100 oxen, the best man in the Government service cannot tell me what grade that meat will be. It will only be guess work. I say again that every wholesale butcher ought to get a share of that contract. Let everyone get his pro rata share; give them the share which they should have. I also want to bring to the notice of the Minister the fact that the permit system is greatly abused. A farmer asks for a permit for 10 or 20 oxen, for example; it comes on the market, and then one finds that it is stuff which the butchers cannot use at all. Steps must be taken to see that when a farmer asks for a permit for 10 or 20 oxen he is in a position to deliver the stuff. Reference was made here to the fixation of the price of hides. I am not opposed to the price being fixed, but why must a price be fixed on such a low basis so that we can provide the soldiers with shoes at a Cheap price? And then there is another question which I also want to touch upon. As a result of the drought there will be considerably fewer calves this year. I want to tell the Minister that I am of opinion that he should not allow young cows to be slaughtered. The same applies with regard to sheep. There is a great shortage of mutton today. The main reason for that is, of course, the drought in the first instance, but … [Time limit.]

It is not my intention to delay the House very long. I feel, nevertheless, that there are a few matters which I should very much like to bring to the notice of the Minister before his vote is disposed of. In the first place, it has come to my notice that there is some talk of giving the Wheat Control Board control over the oats and barley industry. I want to ask the Minister seriously to be good enough not to do that. As a result of the policy which is followed by the Board of Control, we have the position in this country today that the wheat industry has gradually fallen to the present level, where it has not stood for a long time. I want to ask the Minister to give his serious attention to this matter. For many years we met with failure in the sphere of oats. Last year we had a particularly good oat crop, and as a result of it the farmers may possibly go in for oats to a considerable extent during the forthcoming year, but if the industry is placed under the Control Board it will not happen. As things are today there is so much prejudice against the Board of Control that it will not happen. The farmers will go in for the production of oats on a very small scale. It is true that the price of oats has risen considerably during the past few years, and the farmers did better than they have ever done before. But it is mainly due to the drought in the interior that the price of oats increased. Let me draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that at the congress which was held at Stellenbosch last year, a resolution was passed in which the Minister was requested not to place oats and barley under the Board of Control. If it is placed under the control of this Board the Minister will hit that industry as hard as the wheat industry was hit by the Board of Control. The farmers will simply not produce oats and barley. I also regard it as my duty to thank the Minister heartily for the extra £1 which the farmers are allowed on artificial manure. It will be a considerable help to those sorely afflicted areas. But I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the majority of farmers have already ordered their artificial manure. There was some talk that they would not get more than three-quarters of what they require. In fact, they were advised by the factories that if they did not take as much as they could get they would not be able to get their full supplies later during the season. If people who buy artificial manure after the 1st April receive this £1 and the other people who have already got their artificial manure are not going to get it, the Minister will not achieve his purpose. If it becomes known that the farmers will not get this £1, they will simply give three bags of artificial manure where they would otherwise have given four bags. I should like the hon. Minister to take into consideration that it will be in the best interests of the industry seriously to bear in mind these few matters which I have mentioned, and to act in accordance with these suggestions.

I would like to associate myself with a few previous speakers in regard to the price of mealies. We trust that since the Minister has fixed the price of wheat ten months in advance, he will tell us what price will be fixed in respect of mealies. Earlier speakers discussed the price of mealies, and I want to say in all honesty, that I do not see how the mealie farmer can make ends meet on less than 15s. per bag this year. Labour costs have risen considerably, farming implements are so much more expensive, and everything is more expensive as a result of the war, and for that reason I think the farmer is fully entitled to ask for 15s. per bag, and if the Minister does not meet the mealie farmer in this connection, I am afraid that there will be bitter dissatisfaction in the country. Earlier speakers asked that the Minister should see to it that the supplementary payment is not taken away, especially in the case of small farmers. If the price is fixed at 15s., then the small farmer will need the 1s. 6d. per bag all the more. I want to plead with the Minister to meet the Mealie Board in this respect, even though it be with £500,000, so as to enable them again to give that supplementary payment to the small mealie farmers. When we came here in January, when Parliament was opened, the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) and I approached the Secretary for Agriculture, and we discussed this question of a seed wheat scheme with him. The Minister might later say that I do nothing else but plead for seed wheat for the farmers. But conditions are such that we feel called upon to bring the matter to the notice of the Minister. We are glad that the Minister took heed of this, and that such a scheme was introduced. I pointed out the necessity of introducing such a scheme as soon as possible. As the Minister probably knows, the best time to sow is from the 15th March to the 20th April. Unfortunately I again had to go to the Secretary for Agriculture with a letter today. It seems to me that there are still magistrates today who do not know precisely how the scheme works. The one magistrate wants to drive back a farmer from a wheat area to a cattle area. I hope the hon. Minister will see to it that the magistrates are properly informed with regard to this scheme. The farmers suffered very heavily. I asked the Secretary for Agriculture whether it was not possible to assist these people in getting seed for fodder. I showed a letter to the Secretary, in which it is stated that the commando worm destroyed everything on a farm of 2,700 morgen; and, since the farmer has no grass on his farm, I am glad that the Minister immediately heeded my representations not only in respect of my constituency, but in respect of all the areas afflicted by the worms. Now, I want to ask that the matter be tackled immediately, because it will be of no use at all if farmers have to sow fodder for their stock later than the 15th April. And now I want to ask the Minister to regard this matter as serious and urgent. If the Minister does not do that I am afraid that the time for fodder seed will also pass. I seriously hope that the Minister will give his attention to this matter.

I should like to bring a few matters to the notice of the Minister in connection with markets. The Minister will notice from the report of the commission that approximately 195 people gave evidence before the commission. What I want to ask the Minister is to see to it that the law is so amended as to give the Municipalities the powers proposed in this report. I just want to bring to the notice of the Minister my personal experience in order to show him what goes on in the markets, and how mistakes are made to the prejudice of the buyers and to the advantage of the speculators. On the 4th September, I had four pigs driven on to the scale at Pretoria. According to the scale, these four pigs weighed 470 lbs. Then I went to the scale myself, and I called another person to get on to the scale with me. We found that we weighed nothing. Then I sent for Mr. Kotze, who was responsible for the scale. He fiddled with the scale, and thereafter we again drove the four pigs on to the scale. Then the four pigs weighed 740 lbs., a difference of 270 lbs. That difference in weight makes a difference of £6 in the price of the four pigs, and if the 15 pigs had been weighed on this scale it would have meant a loss of £24. I then saw to it that the scale was changed. But supposing I had not been there? Then all the buyers that morning would have suffered a great loss. I mention this case merely to show the Minister that we are not talking without good reason. I hope this will persuade the Minister to comply with my request. I have pleaded for this thing for years. I have already referred to it as a scandalous position, and I still call it a scandal. Then there is also another matter which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister, and ask him whether he will not raise the matter with his colleagues? In my district the Loskop Canal is almost completed. The money is on the Budget, but it would seem, according to information which I have received, that the canal will not be completed. The lands are ready, and everything is in order, and the farmers would like to sow wheat this year, but it seems that the canal will not be completed this year. I shall be glad if the Minister will discuss this matter with his colleague, the Minister of Irrigation.

I am aware that it was the intention to dispose of my vote this afternoon, and for that reason I want to reply as shortly as possible to the various questions which hon. members have put to me. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) spoke of labour in connection with production, and also of tractors. With regard to labour, I know that the farmers are experiencing a shortage of labour. With regard to natives, it is of course largely the duty of my colleague, the Minister of Native Affairs, to assist the farmers in getting native labour, but I realise that if I want total production I shall have to assist and perhaps plead with him, and make plans so that the labour forces which we have can go as far as possible. With regard to tractors, we have already made enquiries, and it is my intention to borrow or to take over as many as possible of the tractors which are to be found in the country, in order to enable us to assist if possible with tractors. The question of prices which the farmer has to pay will not, I think, be insurmountable. The hon. member also spoke of closing the border district at Swaziland. I know what the position is, but the hon. member knows as well as I do that wire is almost unobtainable. The hon. member points to me with his finger. But I have already ascertained from a colleague of mine that he requires the wire of which the hon. member talks. We can see what we can do when the war is over. In that respect I cannot meet the hon. member, unfortunately. He also told me that the farmers would not produce if we did not provide them with labour, but I hope that the hon. member will contribute his share. I know that he has many labourers, and I expect that he will be able to contribute a fair share of the products which we require. I am sorry that I cannot tell the House today what the price of mealies will be. We cannot estimate what our mealie yield will be, but I realise that the price of mealies will have to be higher. I realise that that will have to be done if we want to safeguard our mealie production. We always asked the farmers to send their mealies to the market, but our first duty is to provide food for the people, and our second duty is to provide food for the animals. I realise that the better the price is, the more goods farmers will send to the market. Our estimates are very vague, however, and I think that I shall perhaps be in a position to tell hon. members, before the end of the session, at what price mealies will be fixed. I shall do so as soon as I come to a decision. I hope, therefore, that hon. members will leave the question at that for the moment. I appreciate the attitude of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) in regard to the question of vegetables. The only thing we can do in that respect is to buy when vegetables are plentiful. We have no place, or rather we have very little place, to put the goods in cold storages, but we are now engaged in a plan to can vegetables, and this plan promises every success. As the hon. member apparently knows, our canning factories are working as hard as they can, to can vegetables. Tin is very scarce, and that, of course, creates difficulties. The hon. member tells me, and I accept it, that I should not interfere unduly, unless it is necessary, with normal circumstances. But just a moment later he says that it will be necessary to fix a quota in regard to the quantity of potatoes to be planted. The hon. member therefore realises that it will be necessary for the Government to intervene. I personally believe that the less the Government or anyone else intervenes in business or farming, the better it is in general. He asks me whether I will assist, insofar as the companies are concerned, to send the cans direct. That is a matter for the hon. the Minister of Commerce and Industries. I am prepared to send a circular to the companies and to ask them to give the farmers a certain amount of preference in refilling their cans. Then the hon. member also spoke of mixed meal. I have already stated here that the Mealie Board made a mistake, and I immediately rectified the matter. We immediately amended the proclamation, and I trust that we can leave it at that. With regard to the commando worm, I understand that the worms which there are now, do not show the “V” in such a pronounced way on their heads.

We have it here; we can show it to you. It has the “V” on its head.

I can assure the House that the department of the day is actively engaged in advising the farmers what they should do. We are still making experiments. The hon. member knows that when he was still Minister of Lands, we made serious efforts to combat the plague. The one powder which we used is not available at all today, but the department advised the farmers what to do. I am glad to be able to say that my information is that they are of opinion that the plague is over, and that the farmers need not fear for their winter crops. I cannot say much more about the price of potatoes. The hon. member said just now that there is already an abundance of potatoes on the market today. If that is the case, where a maximum price was fixed, how much more will it not be the case if a minimum price is fixed? They realise now how dangerous it is to fix a minimum price.

Do not fix a maximum price, then. Why is a maximum price fixed, and then the Government is afraid to fix a minimum price?

It may happen that we take away the maximum price, but I can only say this, that I think that by buying when there is plenty, and by storing it as long as you can, in order to supply the ships, we will probably keep the price as stable as it can possibly be kept; but we know that during the last 20 years we could not keep the price stable. With regard to the remark of the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) concerning the price of hides, I want to remind him that during the first eighteen months of the war we were left with the hides on our hands. We could not export our hides.

Why not?

Because there was no shipping space.

But you said that they would lie and rot if we did not take part in the war.

If we had remained neutral, we would not have got a price at all. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Fullard) said that the British Government heard how cheap hides were here, and then it ordered 1,000,000 pairs of shoes from us. It is just the opposite. We received the order, and then we had to fix the price of hides, so that we could be in a position to continue carrying out such contracts.

The farmers will not thank you for it.

The hon. member for Hoopstad also spoke of vaccine. I can tell him that not a penny profit is made on vaccine. It is sold at cost price or below cost price. I also want to remind him of the fact that a few years ago vaccine for horses cost from £2 to £3, and we are now selling it at 5s. In any case, I shall talk to my department about the matter, and we can again go into it; especially with regard to horses, we will probably require more horses in the future with which to do our work. I do not believe, however, that the farmers can have much to complain about with regard to the price of vaccine. It is cheap, and it is sold at cost price, and even below cost price. I want to say this to the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Du Plessis) that I cannot plead guilty with my hand on my heart. Wherever we have been in a position to do so, we have always helped people up to the present in droughtstricken areas. Districts have been declared drought-stricken districts. In the second place, in the past mealies were given, because that is the only fodder, which, up to the present, could be used successfully by the farmers in those circumstances. This year there was a shortage of mealies however. We received representations from Vryburg, and I informed those people, and also the hon. member, that there was a shortage of mealies, so that we really could not provide them with cheap mealies in order to feed cattle.

What about lucerne?

We made enquiries about that, but I think that the farmers, generally speaking, will agree with me that it is barely an economic proposition to convey lucerne for hundreds of miles in order to keep cattle alive. I do not think that it is, and I think that the farmers will agree with me. In any case, lucerne was not available on a large scale.

†The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) spoke about food control. I am sorry the hon. member is not here now, but I only want to say that I am not inclined to agree with him that rationing is almost the only way of dealing with the position. Fortunately our country is largely self-sufficient. That is the difference between us and other countries, between us and England, for instance; and I hope that we shall be able to carry out a measure of control in this country without going in for a very definite rationing scheme. I should like hon. members to remember, however, that we have got here not only one class of people, as they have in other countries, where rationing is carried out. We have to deal here with Europeans, coloureds and natives. It is a far greater question and a far more difficult question here, but if rationing becomes necessary we shall carry it out. Let me take butter as an example. Last year butter was getting scarce, and we did introduce a mild rationing of butter, with quite a large saving, by merely rationing through the different distributors. Now the hon. member has also spoken of tea, and so has the hon. member for Cape, Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). Again I am sorry to say I am not guilty. Here is the man you should speak to, the Minister of Commerce and Industries.

Do you think he should be shot?

I am not going to assist in a Cabinet crisis, but possibly it will be necessary for him to hand over to me. I don’t know but at this stage we have not yet taken control of tea, and I don’t want to say anything about this rationing of tea. The hon. member for Cape (Eastern) also asked me to make a statement on long term food control policy. I am sorry I cannot oblige just yet. I have just taken on the job, and we are busy as hard as we can to find out where we are.

I did not say that.

If I misunderstood her, and her question was about the policy of the distribution of fruit, I want to tell her that we have a Committee going into this matter at present, and I am expecting their report every day.

What about instructions?

I do want to tell the hon. member that I agree that we should get as much fruit for the people as possible —that it should not be luxury fruit at luxury prices, but ordinary, good fruit at ordinary prices. I agree there, and I have told the Fruit Board that if they insist on a policy of going in for export fruit only, or if they still want to try and run their business on that basis, they will find that they will not get the support from the Government which they have had till now. That is one of the points in the terms of reference of the Committee which is investigating the matter. I can only tell the hon. member that this report of the Committee, which I regard as a capable body, will have our earnest attention. I can also tell her that I am just as dissatisfied as she is with certain conditions, but, as far as the Citrus Board is concerned, I do want to say that they brought their fruit to the people in a fairly satisfactory manner last season.

It was not very economic.

It may be, but it was the first season they did it, and they gave a large quantity of fruit for distribution through the Department of Social Welfare direct to the poorer classes.

†*The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Jan Wilkens) raised the question of the price of mealies—I have already dealt with that. I only want to tell him that I shall again go into the question of supplying seed. He is quite right, that if the seed is not supplied soon it will be too late. The instruction in regard to the £25 was posted to the magistrate on Saturday, but we shall try to see to it that the farmers are assisted as soon as possible. If they don’t get their seed before the 15th April in those parts of the Western Transvaal which the hon. member spoke about, it will be of no use to them. The hon. member opposite said that I should make representations to the companies in regard to the carrying out of the contracts. I want to tell him that the whole question of beans is receiving attention at the moment. I do not know whether it will be possible under existing circumstances to interfere.

†I don’t want to mix myself up in the fight between the hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) and the two hon. members, who were at one time, or are still very much interested in the Dairy Board, but I do want to say that, having heard them, I am still doing what I promised the hon. member for Jeppe, and that is to assist in establishing a margarine factory here. This factory has, in the first instance, a scheme to export its margarine, but I would like to have this factory here. It is a factory that will produce an edible substance, and an edible substance of considerable value. Their request to me is to allow the registration of such a factory, so that they may supply convoys, and may be able to export.

Why only export?

That is what they are asking me to do. I propose, if they can come up to scratch, to assume the right at any time to take as much margarine for internal consumption as necessary. It is definitely an edible article which is not the case with the product of the margarine factory which exists here in Cape Town today. In so far I want to support the hon. member for Jeppe.

†*In regard to the remarks by the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Fullard) that we are now becoming hawkers (smouse) I want to tell him that we have to do things today which we don’t usually do. I listened attentively to what he said and there is a good deal in his remarks. We shall keep a careful eye on this matter and we shall follow the best course to have sufficient meat here and also to see to it that the producers get proper prices. He says that we should not allow young cows and ewes to be slaughtered. That is already having our attention. The hon. member wanted to start discussing the question of Karakul lambs. He need not do so, because that question, too, is already having our attention. Now I want to come back to what the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. LeRoux) said. He said that there was no mention anywhere in the Wool Afreement of our being paid by the British Government in our own currency. I said that there was provision made, and he denied it. If he looks at the notes at the top of the schedule of the list of types he will see that it is stated there—

There is no question of that. I may say that it was an important question with the British Government but they agreed to it. Then the hon. member raised another point, that in terms of the contract it is possible for the wool to be scoured or processed in England, and for the British Government thereupon to sell it abroad, and that our farmers will not share in the profits on that wool if that is done. I raised that point with the British Government, and they said that it was not intended to do so. They do not do it, but if it is done and if scoured wool is exported then the matter can be raised again. I further discussed the matter with the Controller of the British Wool Commission and this is what he has written to me in that connection—

And when the war is over?

Then the agreement is practically also over. The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) spoke of the extra 2s. 6d. which the farmers in the Eastern Transvaal get for their seed potatoes. They have an Association there which sees to it that they have a standard article, which continually inspects their potatoes; and for that reason it is necessary to get a higher price for them than for the ordinary seed potatoes by the Department in other ways. We cannot make inspections three or four times every year, it is impossible. The hon. member also said that when we fix prices we should remember that mealies cannot be imported for less than 27s. 6d. per bag. He is talking very high up in the air there. I don’t think he need worry his head about that for the moment. I have already said that we hope to fix prices shortly so that the farmers may know what the position is. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth District (Mr. Hayward) spoke about horse sickness. We have already gone into the question of injecting horses with vaccine, which we have, to see what can be done with them. What he said about cacto blastus has been taken notice of and I shall deal with the matter.

†The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) spoke about subsidising the farmers, and he said it was about time we stopped the subsidy.

I said on condition.

I would remind him that only last year an amount of £1,000,000 was paid in order to subsidise the consumer. I have already told the Committee that many people have not carried out the spirit of the price regulations and many merchants have abused the regulations in order to make extra profits. We are finished with all that, because under this new proclamation, whereby the Maize Board takes control of all the maize, I have every hope that there will be a more uniform price throughout the Union. There will necessarily stil be the question of wholesale and retail prices, and you will have to allow the retailers something for distribution, but apart from that the price should be a fairly reasonable one. The hon. member complained that last year the maize farmers received a subsidy of £500,000.

I think it was the year before.

Neither last year nor the year before was it necessary to pay that.

I believe I have now dealt with all points as believe I have now dealt with all points as briefly as possible. If I should have forgotten an hon. member, he can remind me again.

The Minister will admit that it is essential for the welfare and for the good health of the people and the country to have a sound agricultural industry, and that being a generally admitted fact, it is the duty of this Government as well as of future Governments to take effective steps to place the agricultural industry once and for all on a sound and lasting basis, if not in its entirety, at any rate as far as that object can be achieved. The Minister will admit, and farmers’ representatives will admit, that there is no section of our population which has had to put up with so much humiliation and which has had so many charges and reproaches cast at it as the farming community. We hear it said from time to time that the farming community is always on the Government’s doorstep. The people of the towns often raise a cry and say that they are responsible for the paying of subsidies to farmers, but if these things are said they only go to show that the agricultural industry and the farming community are not on a sound and healthy basis. The fact remains, and it is further proved by this, that the Minister has to apply a number of relief schemes to help the farming community, and that the Government has had to do so repeatedly in the past. All this goes to prove that in spite of the fact that hon. members in this House have declared the farming community to be in a flourishing position, it is very definitely nothing of the kind. First of all let me point to the very unhealthy state of affairs which prevails in regard to the £100,000,000 farm mortgage bonds, the Government’s various relief schemes to help the farmers, and other matters which prove to us how bad the conditions are which prevail and make it necessary for the farmers to be assisted. We have that admission. These relief schemes and these increases of prices are temporary. The root of the evil lies in the over-capitalisation of the farms in the first instance. The second difficulty is that there is no stability and never has been. That is why the farming industry has gone backwards and that is why the farming community has gone backwards. I want to give the Minister and the Government this advice, tackle the problem at its roots. Reduce this mortgage bond burden, the economic pressure which is making the farming community suffer. That is the first thing that should be done. A redemption scheme with Government aid is the first thing that should be undertaken and the second thing is this …

They have not got time for that now because they are making war.

Yes, they are making war, but if the farmers cannot carry on their industry then they cannot carry on their war. We have already been told by the Government that the farmers must be encouraged to produce. If the farmers are to be encouraged to produce then they must first of all be assured of a decent market for their products. If they have no such guarantee then this attempt on the Government’s part to encourage the farmers is no use. This uncertainty and insecurity have existed for years. We must have the markets we require. Secondly, prices have to be fixed at a certain level. Let the Minister fix a minimum price, and if the consumer also has to be protected let him also fix a maximum price, but we must have stability, because with the present state of uncertainty the farmers cannot go ahead, and they will never get rid of their economic difficulties. The farmers are now to be encouraged to produce in spite of the prevailing uncertainty, in spite of the uncertainty in regard to crops, in spite of all the setbacks and all the plagues they have to contend with, and now the Government comes along, but it does not give us any security, it does not assure us to what the position is going to be if we don’t get good crops. The farmers have to take the risk in the purchasing of expensive seed; they have to put up with the high costs of production; they have to buy expensive machinery and fertiliser, and then they can produce. But the farmer is not being told what prices he is going to get on the market. That question is dealt with here and there, but the uncertainty and insecurity remain. Only when that is done will the Government be able to solve the farmers’ troubles—if it can establish stability in regard to prices. If that is done then not only will the position of the farm owner be improved, but the position of the tenant and of the man sowing on shares, of all those people who have to eke out a living under very difficult conditions, will be greatly improved. The solution of all the farmers’ difficulties are embraced in these two matters which I have mentioned. In those two matters are also embraced the removal of all the worry and trouble which the Government is having today and which previous governments have had, and which future governments will also have. If that is done, all this care and worry, so far as the Government is concerned, will be removed. There is a revival today, but that revival is only temporary and it is unstable. This revival is due to the war, and unless steps are taken now to create something permanent, we may expect to fall back into all our troubles of the past. I can tell the Minister that during the time of war he is meeting with difficulties to keep the position of the farmer sound and healthy, but his difficulties are going to become infinitely greater if he does not take immediate steps to avail himself of the present time to create a permanent solution of the farmers’ difficulties. When the war is over, and a time of deflation and depression comes, then I warn the Government that unless it does something it will have a very unsound farming community to contend with. And then we shall again see a condition of affairs where the farmers will have to undergo further humiliations such as they have already undergone, the humiliation of bankruptcy and all the rest of it. It is not to the credit of the Minister, who is an Afrikaans speaking farmer, to behold the way in which the farming community has to struggle along in days like the present. The farmer does not deserve it. The Government should do everything in its power, while it has the opportunity, to help the farmer, and seeing that the Government during this time of war is taking drastic measures, it should also take drastic measures in regard to the farming community to place the industry on a sound basis with a view to the future. This is the time for the Government to take steps so that in future there may be stability in every respect so far as the farming industry is concerned. I want to ask the Minister whether his department could not have used its locust officers to combat the evil of the Commando Worm when I personally brought the whole position to their notice. Surely that organisation of locust officers was available, and the combating of locusts is the same type of work; I want to ask the Minister whether he could not have used that organisation to cope with that plague which has caused such tremendous ravages.

We tried it but it did not work.

The Minister now tells us that it did not work. Is it not possible for the Government, if that plan did not work—the worms have worked hard and have done a lot of damage—to get some other means, some other vaccine to cope with this trouble? The Commando Worm has destroyed everything wherever it has been, and the Minister has again had to come to the assistance of the farmer to supply him with seed, and so on. Those farmers who suffer damage through the ravages of the Commando Worm have gone backwards, so there is another trouble to be dealt with. The Minister must use that organisation, and if locust poison is no use to destroy the Commando Worm then he should try something else., The farmers cannot do all these things themselves; their position is so weak that if they are touched they will fall over. They cannot do what they are told to do in all those radio talks and in the pamphlets which are distributed to them. They cannot afford to incur the expense. As the department has those officials at its disposal it should use them in the emergency conditions which exist. The department should even have used its tractors to plough the necessary furrows to be used for the purpose of trapping the worms. [Time limit.]

I must say that I was surprised to hear the Minister speaking with two voices. He told the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) that he cannot quite complete the boundary line in Swaziland, because he has not got the necessary wire. In spite of that, the Minister is forcing the farmers in Bechuanaland against their will to close up the boundary line. He has ample wire for that.

That wire had already been bought.

I want to warn the Minister that he is forcing the people there to put up their fences with wire which he is supplying, and the boundary line has not even been fixed yet. There is no certainty even as to where the boundary line between the Bechuanaland Protectorate and the Union runs. The Minister is threatening people. I hope he will take note of what I am saying, but I don’t know whether he knows what is going on in connection with the boundary line. I have a sworn statement here from a farmer who is concerned in this matter, in which he clearly states that he has been approached by two officials, one from the Union Administration and one from the Protectorate. He has been told that if he does not fence that boundary line in accordance with the give and take line on the boundary—which has not even determined yet—his cattle will be impounded if they cross the border, and he will be prosecuted. That is all we can deduce from it. In the circumstances I have drawn the Minister’s attention often enough to this matter, and I have pointed out to him that it is unnecessary to have this undefined boundary line fenced. If the Minister is not prepared to take action in the interests of our own farmers, but if he is prepared to act on behalf of the Administration of the Protectorate, then I want to ask him to take some notice of the legal position. He is a lawyer. Why does he want to force this boundary line on the farmers against their will? He says that the boundary line is going to be a permanent one, and he says that it is going to be of such a character that it will affect private rights in connection with the give and take fence. Why does he force this boundary line on to people when it affects their rights, and why does he do so by using threats? I have a sworn statement here that these people have been threatened and forced to do all this. Why is the Minister doing it? As the representative of the farmers there, I consider it my duty to protest strongly against the interference with private rights. It may happen at some future time—it actually has happened—that the real boundary line may go deeper into the Protectorate than has been fixed by the so-called give and take border. If these farmers suffer damages at some future time the Minister must not say that I, as the representative of the farmers there, have not warned the Government. If the Government of the day has to fix the boundary line, then they must not tell me that I have not protested against the interference with the private rights of farmers which is now taking place. I shall leave it at that. I leave it to the sense of justice of the Minister himself, and I warn him of the future consequences, and, on behalf of my constituents I say that we are not responsible for the consequences that will result.

We could not hear the hon. Minister here when he replied to the hon. member for Margarine, I mean the hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon), but I understand him to say that he was prepared to allow the manufacture of margarine for export purposes and for the supply of convoys. I know for a fact that in Durban they attempted to procure margarine for shipping during the last 18 months, and have been unable to obtain it because the licence to manufacturers was withdrawn. The whole point is that the manufacture of margarine was in competition with butter, and this did not suit the farmers. I think the biggest mistake the Prime Minister made was in appointing the Minister of Agriculture as Food Controller. He would have been better advised to have left that in the hands of the Minister of Commerce and Industries, I think it would have been in better hands there. I suppose that now manufacturers of margarine will have difficulty in obtaining supplies of tin plate and raw materials. All that could have been overcome by now if there had been no interference with the manufacture. Margarine is necessary because there will be a shortage of butter again. I feel convinced that we shall experience another shortage, as we did last season, and there will be no margarine to fall back upon. Margarine can be manufactured for something like 6d. a lb., which I am sure will be appreciated by the natives and coloured sections of our population, and also by the Indians.

And the poor Europeans.

Yes, and the poor Europeans as well. The Minister probably knows that in European countries the consumption of margarine is 80 per cent. and butter 20 per cent. I believe the nutritive value of margarine is 90 per cent of that of butter. There is therefore no justification whatever for interfering with the manufacture of margarine when so many thousands of people in South Africa are unable to obtain butter. Now it has been stated in this House that it is the distributors who are making profit of our cattle. The Minister knows that there have been innumerable investigations into this question, and he is aware that it is not the distributors who are making the money out of the cattle industry, and I think he should inform the House of the facts. He ought to do that in fairness to the disctributors, who are alleged to be profiteering.

Of course they are.

And why does not the Minister give us the figures?

Everybody knows it.

The Minister knows perfectly well it is not so, the investigations that have taken place in the industry have proved that, and it is up to the Minister to put the House right in that connection. I stated the other day, and I repeat, that the people who are making money out of the industry are the farmers, a few auctioneers and a few speculative farmers, out of supplies to convoys. If we take the figures supplied by the Division if Economics and Markets, it will be seen that on Cape Town market last week the ruling prices were primes 56s. 9d. per 100 lbs., mediums 56s. 6d., compounds 45s 6d. and 40s. 6d. These figures speak for themselves, and show whether the farmers are making any money out of the industry. The farmer is justified in getting what he can for his cattle, but the Minister should put the country right when these accusations are made that the distributors are making huge profits out of the industry. I suggest to the Minister that the correct way to deal with this position is to do away with Government graders at the municipal abattoirs, and agree to a representative of the farmers and a representative of the distributors, two farmers if you like, and they could grade all the cattle in these abattoirs and see that the farmer is satisfied with his prices. They could fix the prices ruling say for a month; you would be able to do away with your graders, the farmers would get a reasonable price, and you would be able, to a certain extent, to control the price to the consumer. I believe that is a sound scheme for bringing about stabilisation in regard to prices, and enable the farmer to get reasonable prices for his stock. No one in this House or outside wants the farmer not to receive a reasonable price for his products.

I think the Minister of Agriculture, like many others, can say “Heaven spare me from my friends,” especially if he listens to what the hon. member for Durban, Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire), has to say. The hon. member contended that the farmers are in a flourishing position, and he spoke of cattle which were sold in Cape Town at 50s. per 100 lbs., that is to say, prime beasts. If the hon. member could make a little calculation he would find that that is a little more than 6½d. per lb. for prime beef, and I am convinced that the consumers in this country would be only too pleased if they could buy good beef at that price. No, it is clear that the middleman makes large profits on the products of the farmer, but I want to leave that point. I want to say a few words to the Minister in regard to the wool scheme. I know that it is stated that the wool scheme has been talked to death by this side of the House, but an unfair agreement remains an unfair agreement, and that is why we are going to continue our agitation. We know now that South Africa has not got a guaranteed price. We only have the type basis and we are dependent on the valuation made by the British Wool Commission. It is perfectly clear that no one can ever value a large clip in such a manner that at the end of the year it will result in returning a certain definite figure. It is a practical impossibility. Nobody can do it. We have no hope of getting near 10¾d. and we know, too, that we are not getting it. We are, as I have said, dependent on the valuation by the British Wool Commission; and now I want to put a question to the Minister, and I do so in all seriousness. I learn that the members of the British Wool Commission themselves are large wool buyers, and that one of the members of the British Wool Commission is a large shareholder in a broker’s firm in Cape Town, and that another member, or members, of the Wool Commission have shares in the wool washing works at Paarl. I want to know from the Minister whether that is so; if it is true, then I feel it is unfair to the wool farmers. We are dealing here with a hard truth, namely, that we are handed over to the mercy of the British Wool Commission which has to value our wool. If the members of that Commission have big personal interests in the low price of our wool, because they themselves are wool buyers and shareholders, then I say that is a scandal of the worst kind. We cannot allow our wool farmers to be exploited in that way. In spite of all that has been said from the Government side, we know now that we have no guarantee, and I feel that the Minister has given great offence to the wool farmers in that regard. Our wool is sold on the same type basis as in Australia, but Australia at the end of the season is compensated for the difference between the type basis and the guaranteed price which is laid down in the agreement made with Austraila. We don’t want compensation. We sell on the type basis which is calculated to produce 10¾d. in respect of the Australian wool, but while Australia has a guarantee that at the end of the season the difference will be made up, we only get the type basis. In that way we do not even get 10¾d. The hon. member for Klipriver (Mr. Friend) told the House that he had got more than 10¾d. for his wool. That, of course, has nothing to do with the matter. We are talking of the average price. I want to know from the Minister whether there is anything in the statement that members of the Wool Commission are personaly interested in this matter? It is a well-known fact that agricultural production costs have gone up tremendously during the war. Prices have been fixed for certain agricultural products and the increase in production costs has been taken into account, but it is only the wool farmer who was stuck with the original price laid down in the wool agreement at the beginning of the war. I want to point out to the Minister that the production costs of the wool farmers have also gone up tremendously. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that in large areas of the Union hundreds of morgen are annually ploughed and are put under seed for winter food for sheep. In the parts of the country where I live we plough up to 200, 300 and 400 morgen in a year, solely for the feeding our sheep. Have not our production costs also gone up tremendously? I feel that it is time that we should agitate for a better price for the wool farmer. In terms of paragraph 5 of the wool agreement we are tied, we are slavishly tied, to what happens in Australia. We cannot agitate for a higher price; we have to wait until Australia gets a higher guaranteed price. Only then can we expect a higher price; then we may get some of the crumbs. We may get a little more, and then the price for the types may be raised a little. I feel that the time has come when the Minister, who has to look after the farmers’ interests, should see to it that as the production costs of the wool farmers have also gone up, the sheep farmers must also be considered, and they should get a better price for their wool. There is another point on which I want to say a few words. The Minister knows that we on this side of the House are not opposed to Control Boards. We are opposed to the composition of Control Boards as it is at present. We know the difficulties that existed last year in regard to the fixing of the price of wheat. We also know that one member of the Wheat Control Board, namely, the hon. member for Aliwal North (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) has resigned. He sat there as the representative of the Cooperative Societies. The day after he had resigned another man was appointed to the Wheat Control Board, and he is a man who for years was a non-operator and a member on the Wheat Control Board as a representative of the non-operators. I want to emphasise that I have nothing against him as an individual, but the principle is wrong. That man has now for a short while been a member of a Co-operative Society for the first time. He is not even a director of a Co-operative Society. He only got a few votes when there was an election for directors of that Co-operative Society a short while ago. He is now being appointed to the Control Board as a representative of the Co-operative Societies, without the Co-operative Societies having been consulted. We cannot refrain from protesting against this. It is a neglect of the interests of Co-operative Societies. We know the important part which Co-operative Societies are playing. We know that more than ever before the future, and the interests of the farmers, depend on co-operation, but if Co-operative Societies are treated with contempt in this way by appointments of representatives to the Control Board, then the Minister is doing very serious damage to the co-operative movement. I should like to know from the Minister what is the reason for it. Why have the Co-operative Societies been ignored in this way? I can assure the Minister that we feel very seriously about this, and I cannot find words strong enough to express our indignation that the Co-operative Societies have been ignored in the way they have been. It is not a question of the individual who has been appointed, but it is a matter of principle. There are many objections to the composition of Control Boards, and here the Minister comes and deprives the Co-operative Societies of the right to recommend the man they want as their representative on the Control Board.

When my time expired, I was saying that we are getting in less sheep from South-West because the farmers there have changed to karakul sheep. Then, if I understood him correctly, the Minister said that I was unfair in my criticism in connection with the buying of oxen by the Government. I dropped the Minister a few hints in a moderate way, and the Minister asked whether I was pleading on behalf of the consumers. I tried to record my opinion in an honest way, and to warn the Minister. Within a short time the Minister will return to this House saying that the Government cannot purchase sheep and cattle. He himself will realise that it is wrong. The Minister asked whether I do not want the farmers to get better prices. I wish to prophesy that, with the Government now acting as buyer, the market will not be as high as it was last year. I only desire that the Minister, as Controller, should see to it that the farmers do not get too little, and that the consumers do not pay too much, and what I did suggest in connection with this matter, I suggested in all modesty. There is something else which I want to suggest in all modesty. I think the Minister should, as Food Controller, have a survey, a census, made of the cattle which the farmers will be able to market for slaughter purposes in the course of the next six months, just as he has a census of mealies. It is calculated beforehand how much mealies the mealie farmer will be able to produce, how much mealies the farmers have on the farms, and how much there is in the silos. I think it will help the Minister a lot if he tries, in connection with cattle as well, to ascertain how much cattle can be marketed in the next six months. You may not be able to ascertain it in advance for 12 months, because a drought or much rain may come, and on that depends how many cattle will be available. The hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) tried to create this impression, namely, that farmers are making a big profit. When cattle fetched 70s. or just over 7d. per lb. on the Durban market, the Durban newspapers announced the next day that the consumers were paying 1s. 9d. per lb. Now, the Durban people would like to know who pockets the difference between 7d. and 1s. 9d. We know that it is the wholesale meat trade, especially the wholesale butchers, that is making the profit, and I therefore ask the Minister to see to it that this does not happen. The Minister replied in connection with the point about tractors which we raised here. I wish to say that the Minister helped the farmers a lot by making tractors available, but the division, the distribution, was not quite right. One farmer got five tractors, and another none. I want to ask the Minister to help small farmers with teams of young oxen. I do not know how much money will be required for it, but unless the small farmers are helped in this way, many of them will not be able to produce. As regards the alleged profits which the farmers are making, I want to point out that the return of Dr. Viljoen— that is to say, of the Department of Agriculture—created an entirely wrong impression last year. He calculated that the farmers’ income had amounted to £43,000,000. By that the townspeople were incited against the farmers, and they then represented it as if the farmers had made a profit of £43,000,000. Naturally that is quite wrong. Just let us examine how the farmers’ profits increased in comparison with that of the mines and the traders. From 1924 till last year, the income of the farming community increased by £5,000,000, whereas that of the mines increased from £40,000,000 to £81,000,000, that of trade and industries from £28,000,000 to £70,000,000. I once again want to urge the Minister to lay down a price for mealies. He says he cannot do so. But he laid down a price for wheat, and we should know what the price will be for the mealies that is now going to be reaped. There is a shortage of mealies, and therefore no difficulty in connection with export mealies.

The Minister should also intimate what the minimum for the next harvest will be. I do not say that the farmers will not produce, but they will certainly not produce as much as possible if they cannot depend on a fair price. Our farmers expect at least 15s., and then £500,000 must be made available as subsidy to the consumers. In the case of wheat, £600,000 was voted for the consumers.

We do not wish to blame the Minister for the drought prevailing in the country, but I think that what we can blame him for is the fact that sheep now have to die, and for this reason, that there has not been a single agricultural congress held in the North during recent years, at which it has not been urged strongly that fodder depots should be established, and the Government has not yet seen its way clear to do so. I should like to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that the sooner the Minister gives his attention to that the better it will be. At the moment there is a frightful drought prevailing in my constituency—in Victoria West, Williston and Carnarvon the drought is unbearable. Cannot the hon. the Minister help us? I would suggest the following remedies: I have already seen the Minister of Native Affairs. There is today a native trust farm which is unoccupied on which the grass is growing luxuriantly, and where it is possible to help the farmer. The Minister of Lands has land available. Help can be given along those lines, and then I should like to ask whether the Minister will see to it that mealies is supplied to those people, because if they lose their stock they lose their all. In the second place I am sorry that our time is so short, and there are such important things to be dealt with. But I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister the question of soil erosion. We have lost considerably by the increase of soil erosion in recent years, and I can give the Minister the assurance that grave mistakes have been made. I would ask the Minister whether the Soil Erosion Board—I suppose there is such a Board, but the Board never meets—cannot be convened to see whether any improvements could be made. If the Minister were as acquainted with the matter as we practical farmers, he would realise that enormous sums of money is wasted. The soil erosion scheme should not be an avenue of providing employment; it should be undertaken for the purpose of arresting soil erosion. That is No. 1, and there are many other things that I cannot go into now, but I should like to ask the Minister to call the Board together in order to see whether improvement cannot be made. Then I should like also to bring the problem of the blue bottle to the notice of the Minister. In this connection I should like to know how far the case against Smith has proceeded, and whether the costs will have to come out of the funds of the woolgrowers’ association only, and whether the Government will pay a share of the costs to fight the case, because it seems as if it is going to be a big case. Then I should like to ask how far the department has progressed in remedying the problem. I can give the hon. the Minister the assurance that many farmers in our district despair of farming with merinos. The problem is much graver than the Cabinet realises, because the only Minister who is a practical farmer has told me that if a man loses a sheep through the blue bottles, he is too bad to be called a farmer. That shows that the Cabinet knows nothing at all about the blue bottle problem. Then I should just like to refer for a moment to a matter which has already been raised, that is, the wool question. The hon. member for Klipriver (Mr. Friend) made certain statements here this afternoon. He almost suggested that we only wished to make political capital out of it. If the hon. member for Klipriver had to go through the costly experience we have gone through in the past in regard to the price of wool, from which we are dependent, he would not say that. I have gone out of my way to obtain a statement of my own clips which have been sold in recent years. In January, 1940, my B.M. wool was sold on that open market at an average price of 14.8d. Then in September, 1940, after the scheme became operative, I obtained only 10.8d., and part of that was A.M. wool, which was not in the clip. Eight or nine months subsequent to that I obtained 10.1d., and for the last clip I received 11.1d. Quite a lot of A.M. and A.F. wool was among that. But the Minister can take it as a fact that the average price is 3d. to 4d. per pound less. The hon. the Minister shakes his head. I shall hand that statement over to him and then he can see the details for himself and determine what the position is. The argument of the hon. member for Klipriver that the wool will not improve is quite unfounded. You have to raise the type basis price only in this respect. But we do not obtain the type basis price. Therefore we cannot proceed with the thing if the increase in our costs is so much. What profit is not being made out of the wool? I have here a statement by the correspondent from Bradford I should like to read to the Minister. It reads as follows—

[Inaudible.]

I shall be glad if the hon. member opposite, who knows nothing about wool, will permit us to discuss the position. I wish to appeal to hon. members opposite to let me proceed; I have only ten minutes at my disposal. If the hon. member is so uncivil, do let him remain quiet in the interests of the farmers. When our wool is being sold at a profit of 60 per cent. I ask why should we be satisfied with 30 per cent.? Why can’t the farmer get a reasonable profit? Hon. members opposite said this afternoon, where would we have found an open market? I should like to ask the hon. Minister whether it is not a fact that South Africa last year had to pay £4,000,000 to Japan—her credit balance at the time. If we had to pay that to Japan, why could we not have sold wool to her? Thus far America has already taken 600,000 bales of wool, and we have not yet come to the end of the season. If it is a fact that America has already taken so much, and you had 200,000 bales left over, there was not the slightest danger that we would not know what to do with our wool. If there was the slightest danger that that would have been the position, the Government could still have helped, because we absolutely need the wool here in South Africa. The question of the establishment of their own wool factory by the farmers will be raised at the ensuing congress to be held at East London. The farmers themselves want to lend a hand with the establishment of our own wool factories. [Time limit.]

I did not intend participating at this stage in the debate.

Why don’t you sit down then?

But after the misrepresentation on the part of my hon. friend, the member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) I cannot refrain from refuting his statement. He said that he received 14.8d. for his A.M. lines. That market is guaranteed; the guarantee was that the British Government would take whatever could not be sold in open market. At that time we had the entire world as our market; we had France and even Japan also. At one time they wanted to buy wool on credit. To come here with that story, is creating an impression that is devoid of all truth. I did not wish to go into this matter, but now that I am on my legs, I cannot refrain from referring to the breach of faith that has been committed here by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) when a few days ago he availed himself of confidential information furnished to the Wool Board.

Are all the scandals confidential?

I say it is a scandalous abuse of confidential information.

But it is true?

All the scandals are true.

Those hon. members will have an opportunity to speak on the matter.

It is unfortunate; we have no opportunity.

Now you are off the point; come up again.

You have never been on the point yet. If there is one thing we are proud of, then it is our own sense of what is decent, and I say emphatically that the hon. member has rendered neither himself nor the wool farmers a service by following that course. The Commission appointed to purchase our war supplies and supply it for our war effort, have done wonderful work. The hon. member comes here today and be breaks down what has been done, and he tries to arouse suspicion in the country which is undesirable and unworthy. But I am sorry to say it is just typical of the attitude of that hon. member. In the past, when the hon. member was a member of the United Party and the Farmers’ Group, he went to the Minister while we were discussing confidential matters, and of his own accord gave interviews and information to the papers. I feel so strongly on this point, that I had to raise this matter, and I do hope the hon. member will be so thoroughly ashamed that he will not rise again.

I particularly want to deal with one point in regard to this question of the clean yield. The Minister has told us that he is satisfied with the report. I told him that the farmers were beginning to suspect the position. Let me give him a report of a certain wool farmer. He could not get his wool into a certain lot on the coast. The wool had all been shorn together and the bales had been pressed from one bundle. It was back wool. In the first place the wool was valued at 7d. The body pieces were valued at 7¼d. That same wool a week afterwards—that is the other part which arrived on the market later—was valued at 8d. for body pieces, and the back wool was valued at 3¾d., although it had been valued 7d. before, a difference of 2¼d. for the same wool. That was the same wool—the only difference was that it arrived later on the market. Now I would like the Minister to tell us why that difference should be made, if the valuations are so genuine? That wool was pressed in the same bales and all the wool arrived at the station together, but, unfortunately, owing to railway difficulties, the whole lot did not arrive on the market at the same time. Here we find this great distinction in valuations. The Minister says he is satisfied with the valuation. I want to assure him that the farmers suspect the position, and in future the farmers will take their clips, which you prevented them from doing in the past, and have proper tests made at Onderstepoort. I want to make a request to the hon. the Minister in this regard. We are not satisfied with the valuations. I want to ask the Minister whether be will give the wool farmers an assurance that they will get true valuations in future. There is one further remark I want to make and that is in regard to America. The Minister said that we were not at all sure of our trade with America. I just want to give him the wool report of the Wool Council, in a few words. It is the report for November, 1939—

And now the Minister tells us that we were not at all sure that America would take our wool! That was what the Minister’s whole argument was based on. We are now stuck with this contract which the Minister has entered into; we are stuck with this complicated scheme of the fixing of prices. We now expect the Minister, as he is responsible for this complicated scheme, to see to it that the farmers get full value for their wool.

There is a certain degree of uncertainty among the farmers in regard to the subsidy they have been promised by the Minister of Finance. We want to know whether this subsidy on our fertilisers is going to be in force as from a certain date and whether it is going to apply to all fertilisers used by the farmers during the coming season? We are very anxious to have a little certainty on this point. I am going to say a few things about the operation of the Fruit Control Board and I want to make it clear first of all that I and the farmers I represent are definite supporters of this Control Board. At the same time we want to say that we have not the slightest objection to individual members of this Control Board, but I want to tell the Minister that there is a genuine feeling in my constituency at least, and possibly in other constituencies as well, in regard to the working of the Fruit Board. We have this objection, inter alia, that we are not quite satisfied with the composition of the Fruit Board. The first Board was appointed by the Minister under the Emergency Regulations. We accepted that. The further nomination of members of the Fruit Board was done by the Fruit Exchange; I myself am a member of the Fruit Exchange, and what I am saying here I am saying against myself in a certain sense. The farmers generally prefer that the members of the Fruit Board who have to be elected by the farmers should be elected directly by certain areas and not by the Fruit Exchange. The principal reason for this is that the Fruit Board today does not handle export fruit only, but also handles the local marketing, and also deals with the canning factories and the jam factories, and that the Fruit Exchange only has members who represent export and the farmers who deal with the local market are not represented on the Fruit Exchange; consequently, they have not the opportunity of having any say in the appointment of members on the Fruit Board. That is the general feeling, and I hope the Minister will consider the question of making that change. I say again that we have no objection to any individual member of the Fruit Board, but there is something wrong. I have a letter here from Bloemfontein from a man who has a very thorough knowledge of grapes, and this is what the letter says—

There was an arrangement about 40 lbs. of grapes being packed in a case and those grapes were then sold for social welfare purposes for 3s.—

These grapes arrived on the Monday—

And the man who writes this letter really knows all about grapes. Now there is another question I want to bring to the Minister’s notice, and it is this: that some time ago a truck full of grapes was sent to the inspection offices at the docks, and for some reason or another those grapes which left Paarl on the Friday evening only arrived here on Sunday evening; the inspection only took place on the Monday, with the result that all those grapes were condemned. I unfortunately was one of the victims. I immediately got my grapes back and had them put in the press, but my neighbour insisted that it could not be right; the grapes only arrived there on Sunday and that could not be. The Fruit Board thereupon told him: “Send in a claim.” He did so, and consequently he did not get his grapes back, but the point is this: that the stuff of all the other growers who did not take the trouble, was overlooked, and the Fruit Board did not take the trouble to notify the other growers that they could put in a claim and get compensation. There was a mistake somewhere over which the growers had no control. The farmers feel that they have no protection from the Fruit Board when things like that happen. Now, there is another point. In regard to this matter, I have a reply here from the department. Shortly after the establishment of the Fruit Board certain consignments were sent overseas, to Scandinavia, among other countries. Part of those consignments went bad and were thrown overboard, but, what is worse, part of the consignments intended for Scandinavia was sold in England under some arrangement, but none of the people who sent fruit to Scandinavia, whether it was sold in London or thrown overboard, or sold in Scandinavia, did not get any money for their fruit. In one case the stuff went bad, and in the other case the man who had bought the fruit did not have any money, and the farmers suffered. Where there is a Fruit Board the farmers should at least be able to feel that if A is recommended as an agent they should be protected. We have evidence to prove that a certain firm was recommended by the Fruit Board, and if that man cannot pay, then surely the Fruit Board should be responsible, and it should not simply say that the farmers must lose their money. I have the documentary evidence here, and I can show it to the Minister tomorrow if he wants me to do so. That man has been doing the work for years, but in 1939—’40 he could not pay, and the farmers, whose fruit he handled, had to suffer. We are grateful to the department for paying out an equalising price of round about 9d. per box. The farmers who suffered losses got their 9d., but not the original amount. In other words, for that part of the consignment they only got 9d., and we want to tell the Minister that there is something wrong somewhere, and that the farmers are not getting the proper amount of protection. Now, there is another matter, the stuff sent by that boat was insured, and the amount paid in insurance is pretty high. Something went wrong with the machinery of the boat between Southampton and Norway, with the result that 14,000 cases went bad. [Time limit.]

I want to discuss the question of the Fresh Fruit Board with the Minister. He knows that the K.W.V. is engaged on determining the maximum production a man shall be allowed to have and sell from his vineyard. The Minister knows all the circumstances in connection with this matter; we are dealing with it now. The K.W.V. estimates the largest quantity to be produced according to the capacity of the existing vineyards, and we cannot stop planting. If the people continue to plant they can dry or sell their grapes, but they cannot make wine. The trouble in regard to the carrying out of the Act is that the Fresh Fruit Board also fixes’ a quota under which they pay a subsidy. That quota is fixed on the basis of the export for 1937, 1938, and 1939. Now the trouble arises that the farmer who gets subsidy for export can put in new vines now, and they get a quota on those new vines, whereas the K.W.V. fixes the quota on the existing vines. I want to ask the Minister to assist the wine farmers in this connection by making a statement in this House that the Government will not allow the K.W.V.’s quota system to be used for further expansion of vineyards by the Fruit Board. I understand that the quota is fixed from time to time and also the subsidy to be paid. I therefore want the Minister to make a statement that this matter will not be interfered with. I believe that that is his opinion, judging from what I have been told by the department, but I should like to have some statement. I do not want to criticise the Fruit Board, because I know that their task is a very difficult one. They are dealing with a commodity which has to be sold, and which very quickly goes bad, and they can easily get into trouble. Bad weather increases their difficulties. But it seems that there is something wrong in regard to their attitude. The complaint is that the fruit is good, and when it reaches the market it has become useless and rotten. Hundreds of tons of grapes have been thrown into the sea. Somebody told me yesterday that they had sent 20 tons of pears from Elgin to Jones at Paarl, and when the pears got there they were bad. They started going off at Elgin, so much so that the Railways told the factory that they could not use the stuff. There must be something wrong. There was another instance of a farm at Paarl who had plums which were somewhat small for the market. He rang up the office and asked them what he was to do with them. They told him that he was to pick them and bury them. I have realised for a long time that the people will not stand for foodstuffs being destroyed when there are poor people in the country who get very little or nothing in the way of fruit. If there is such a thing, the Fruit Board should see to it that it is sold cheaply or given away for nothing, because the public are not going to stand for fruit being destroyed in this way. The Fruit Board does not realise that the people who have been dealing with fruit for years have built up a business connection. It seems to me that they want to cut out the agents and the middlemen, and want to go to the factories at once, and that is why we have had 10 lb. boxes of grapes sold here in Cape Town for 1s., while the box and the packing cost the farmer 9d. A coolie takes it from the market to the Parade, where he sells it for 5s. The poor cannot get the fruit. The man who sells to the public makes an abnormal profit and the farmer makes nothing at all. He gets a subsidy and other things, but it is the taxpayer’s money and the taxpayer is not going to stand for this sort of thing, particularly if they know that the stuff is being destroyed. If it is given to the poor, it is regarded as a social service, but if the fruit is destroyed it is going to cause trouble. I again say that I don’t want to criticise, because I realise that theirs is a difficult task. Now I also want to say a few words about the Dried Fruit Board. The Dried Fruit Board has been in operation for three years; they were given powers to exercise control, and every year they admit having made mistakes. They go to the farmers and they say: “Help us to make a success of it for the next year.” It seems that they have again made a mess of the whole business. The farmers who produce sulphurated sultanas considered the Board unnecessary for the exercising of control under their arrangement. They produce those sultanas for the local market and they have been placed outside the control of the Dried Fruit Board. The other day a deputation from those people called on me at Robertson, and they told me that they had to pay £3 per ton to the Control Board. The Control Board does not sell their stuff; they sell it themselves. They fall outside the control and yet they have to pay a contribution for this kind of sultanas. Sulphurated sultanas are a different thing and fetch a much higher price because they easily deteriorate. There is a limited market, and the farmers know that they cannot make much out of it. It does not seem fair to me that those people should be called upon to contribute £3 per ton to the cost of administration as they are not controlled and they have no benefit from the work of the Dried Fruit Board. If they make too many of this kind of sultana the Control Board does not buy them, and the result is that they have no protection. In the circumstances I feel that it is not fair that they should have to contribute. If they have any benefit from the Board let them pay for it, but I personally cannot see any benefit in it. I have been asked by people in my constituency to ask the Minister to meet the farmers in regard to the subsidy on fertiliser. I understand that the subsidy is paid as from the 1st April. I want to tell the Minister that on account of the people in those areas being anxious to get as much fertiliser as possible they bought early. They had a good year and they expect another good year. They have expanded and it is a credit to them that they want to contribute to the country’s food supplies. They were told that they would not be able to get as much fertiliser as last year, that they would only get 70 per cent., so they bought fertiliser and they were compelled to buy before the time, and it is no more than fair that the subsidy should be made retrospective, so that the people who have already bought their fertiliser will also be able to get it. They produce the same commodity as the other people who will get the subsidy. On account of the poor price of wheat those farmers have been going backwards in the bad years. They are in this position today, that they have to buy their fertiliser on credit. They pay when they deliver the wheat. They cannot pay cash. I want to ask the Minister, in spite of these facts, to let the subsidy be paid to them. It need not be given to them, but it can be paid to the merchant so that it can be deducted from their debt. They cannot pay before the crop has been delivered, and circumstances may arise which may make it difficult for them to get it. That is why I feel I am entitled to ask the Minister to give this subsidy, provided the money does not go to the farmer but to the merchant to be deducted from the amount owing for the fertiliser. [Time limit.]

When I was interrupted by the time limit I was endeavouring to prove that certain sections of the farming community were doing quite comfortably well with the present prices they were receiving. The speaker who followed me was not prepared to accept that position, and I therefore now propose to quote the prices of sheep sold in Cape Town during the last week. I quote from the Division of Economics and Markets, figures that justify the remarks that I have made that the farmers are getting more for their products at the present time than they have for many years. These are the sheep prices per lb.: Merinos 9¾d., mediums 8¾d., Cape Persians, prime, 9¾d. These are prices farmers are actually receiving less commission paid to the auctioneer. In addition to that they are getting better prices for their wool than they have for many years. Arguments have been put forward that they might be getting better prices, but that is not the position. I maintain that in wartime farmers should be prepared to accept the same responsibility as other people, and they ought to be satisfied with the good prices they are getting. I agree with the Prime Minister that no one should be allowed to benefit as the result of war, no one should be allowed to enrich himself because the country is at war, but the farmers say “Give us a guaranteed price, ensure us that we are allowed to make double profits, or handsome profits, and we are prepared to see that South Africa has all the food that is necessary.” I say again that is a wrong attitude to adopt. I have advocated, and members of my party have advocated for many years that the Government should institute a thorough enquiry into all activities of agriculture to see if it is not possible to put the industry on a sound basis. The time is fast approaching ‘when the Government should seriously consider placing agriculture in the position of a public utility corporation. It has been done in a number of other instances, and if the country has to be faced year after year with demands from the farming community, then I say something should be done to relieve the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister is now doing half-a-dozen men’s work; indeed, the Minister of Agriculture today has to be almost super-human. It is too much of a job for any man to be faced with. Something should be done which will prevent the farming community year after year coming to this House and making these demands upon the Government. The Minister has now been made food controller, a position which I don’t think should have been loaded on him, because he has far too much to do already. I do hope that he will follow out the suggestion made by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) and get experts around him who will be able to advise him in his very difficult job. The Minister is surrounded by control boards of every description, and I would ask hon. members who are concerned about the cattle industry to make a few enquiries about what has happened to the £760,000 that the poor farmers have contributed to the Meat Control Board by way of a levy of 2s. a head on their cattle. So far, since the Board has come into being, they have contributed £760,000, and if the farming community is still prepared to allow this levy to be imposed upon it, when we are not exporting anything in the way of meat, they should enquire what is done with the money. Why are they continuing to pay this 2s. per head, which is a tremendous amount in the aggregate, each year? These are matters which should be concerning the farmers, particularly the cattle farmers. We are all agreed that the farmer should have a reasonable return for his money, and a reasonable profit, and if they would only take into their confidence the people who understand the marketing of their commodities, they would find that the distributor is not the black sheep that they are always crying out about. The Minister should enlighten the House on this point, and show the House that the distributors of South Africa, so far as farm products are concerned, are not the exploiters of the farming community that they are made out to be. The Minister should do that. There has been quite a lot said today about fruit that is being allowed to rot on the farms. Here again there is something wrong. If the farmers think that by means of boards of control they are going to be any better off I make bold to say they will not be any better off. We have ample proof from members on the Government side that fruit is rotting on the farms, and when it is sent to various markets, after being kept in cold storage, it has had to be absolutely given away. If the farmers think that the mere fact of sending their fruit to market is going to get them better prices they are going to have a sad awakening. A highly specialised business in marketing fruit has been built up by the distributing trade, and you cannot cut that out and merely consign your fruit to the market. We have had hon. members on both sides of the House complaining of goods being sent to market and not receiving enough to pay the rail fare. I know as far as the Durban market is concerned this matter of cutting out the distributor will not answer. [Time limit.]

I want to ask the Minister a question in regard to the amount on the Estimates for the experimental farm in the Malmesbury district, namely, Langgewens, on page 106. I want to point out to the Minister that as all farming requisites, such as fertilisers and so on, have become more expensive, it is very notable that the amount on the Estimates for this experimental farm is getting less and less. For instance, we find that in the year 1939—’40 there was an amount of £3,040 on the Estimates. In 1940—’41 an amount of £2,990, and in 1940—’41 an amount of £2,640. This year there is a small increase, and it has gone up to £2,724. It is not clear to me why the position should be like that. The amount in connection with the experimental farm has come steadily down during the last few years. I would have thought there was every possible reason for increasing the amount. We further find that for equipment, repairs, fuel, light and miscellaneous expenditure, the expenditure was as follows: In 1939—’40 it was £1,000; in 1940—’41 it went down to £940; and in 1941—’42 it further went down to £850. I fail to understand why it is that these amounts to provide for these particular items should have gone down. The expenditure for fertiliser and seed in 1939—’40 was £500. The next year the amount was the same. But in 1941—’42 it went down to £450. This year again it is increased by £100. I cannot understand why this vote on the Estimates is being curtailed, and I should like the Minister to give us some explanation.

I just want to say this to the hon. member, that I have not got the Estimates for the years 1939 and 1940 before me, but there is no reduction in the work that is being done there. If I had had notice of this question I would have been in the position to give him more information. I can only tell him that the work is not being reduced, and that this is all those people have asked for: This is all the head of the division and the people at Malmesbury have asked for. So far as I know, we have given them what they have asked for. The hon. member will realise that I am not able immediately to give all details on every particular item.

Then I want to draw the Minister’s attention to this, that according to the estimated revenue for the year 1939—’40, the amount was placed at £1,760. The next year it was less. Last year it was £1,350, and for this year it has been put at £1,250. I only want to show that even the revenue of this experimental farm has come down during the last few years. The Minister will pardon me if I come to the conclusion that the reason is that growing wheat generally is not a paying proposition, and in order not to make the Josses any bigger, they have to curtail their production. These are facts which I am stating here. I don’t look for profits on an experimental farm, and my remarks here must not be constituted as an attack on Langgewens. I want to repeat what I said before, that this experimental station is rendering excellent services to the wheat farmers in the neighbourhood. But that is not the point. It seems to me that it pays better to sow less and to use less fertiliser. The less wheat you sow the less you lose. Here we have evidence of the fact which the farmers have been contending for all these years in regard to the wheat industry, namely that the prices which we get for our wheat do not pay us. The Minister and his advisers have been shutting their ears to our representations for years. But the experimental station at Langgewens has proved the fact that the wheat farmers are correct in their contention. I trust that the Minister will go into the matter, and that he will perhaps give me a written explanation of the position. I do not blame him for not being able to reply to me immediately, but I do expect to get an explanation.

I should like to put a question to the Minister in regard to subhead (g). There we are asked to vote money for certain sawmills which the Department of Forestry has put up in various parts of the country. Those sawmills are factories. Last year we passed a Factories Act.

Sawmills are dealt with on the Loan Estimates.

An amount of £12,000 is asked for here, and £7,125 of that is for sawing and drying of timber.

That is for the research institute in Pretoria.

I want to put a question in regard to policy to the Minister and I think he can give us a reply to that. There are certain sawmills and they are factories in terms of the Act which we passed last year. That Act provides in Clause 56 that it also applies to the Crown except in regard to the activities of the Railway Administration. That is to say the Crown is bound in respect of any factory which is established by any Department of State except the Railway Administration. Clause 54 of the Act, however, provides for certain exemptions. Now, the Act which we passed last year also applies to sawmills of the Department of Forestry, and I want to ask whether the Minister has obtained exemption from the Minister of Labour. If he has obtained exemption in regard to the sawmills then I want to know in which Government Gazette it was published that exemption was granted in respect of sawmills. I should like to have a clear answer from the Minister.

I want to reply to the hon. member’s question on the subject of sawmills when we are dealing with the Loan Vote on which it can be dealt with. I want to tell the hon. member that I am engaged in giving serious attention to this matter, and I am not able at this moment to say what the position is. If he will raise it again on the appropriate vote I shall be prepared to give him an answer.

We are now discussing the policy of the Department and I am dealing here with the Minister of Forestry. He has certain sawmills which fall under his Department. The Act which we passed last year relates to sawmills. Now I want to know what the Minister’s policy is and I can only raise that question now.

The hon. Minister’s salary has already been voted.

This is the first time I am concerned with the Minister of Forestry. I could not raise this question when the Minister’s salary was voted in his capacity as Minister of Agriculture. Before this vote is passed I want to know what the policy of the Minister of Forestry is. I hope hon. members will realise the importance of this particular issue. The Department of Forestry has certain sawmills which are factories in terms of the law which we passed last year. Now I want to ask the Minister whether the Factories Act is being carried out in respect of the sawmills, yes or no. The law says that it also applies to factories established by Departments of State, and unless the Minister has obtained exemption the law has to be carried out. If the law is not being carried out in respect of sawmills I want to know whether the Minister has obtained exemption under Clause 54. Clause 54 says this—

All I now want to know is whether the Minister has obtained exemption.

Even after the explanation by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) I still doubt whether this matter should be discussed on the vote. Secondly, I doubt whether it comes under my vote or under the Minister of Labour, but I am prepared to tell the hon. member what the position is. I am dealing with the matter at the moment, the documents are on my table. I have had a discussion with the Minister of Labour to obtain exemption in the same way as I am asking for exemption in connection with the tobacco industry, the wool industry and the dairy industry. We have not yet obtained exemption. We are fighting for exemption. Personally I think we should get it, but the hon. member will pardon me if I do not at this stage go into all the arguments why we should get exemption. There are various reasons why to my mind exemptions should be given for sawmills. I don’t want to go into those questions now, however. We are trying to obtain exemption and if we get it it will be published in terms of the law. I cannot tell the hon. member any more at this stage.

It sounds very strange to me. Last year we passed the Factories Act That Act came into operation the moment it was proclaimed. The Act was proclaimed on the 1st September last year. Since the 1st September of last year the Minister has had to give effect to the provisions of the law unless he had obtained exemption before hand. Now the Minister comes here and says that he has actually contravened the law of the land. Can you advise me, Mr. Chairman, what I am to do about a case where the Minister contravenes the law of the land? The Minister has not yet obtained exemption and yet he has not yet applied the law. I must honestly say that it is an unheard of position so far as I am concerned for the Minister to come here and admit that he is acting in conflict with the provisions of the laws of the country.

Ask the Minister of Labour why he has not prosecuted.

I shall ask him, but I hope at least that the Minister of Forestry would try to carry out the law.

I wish to say a few words about the wattle industry. In doing so, I feel that I need not go into great detail, as the Minister himself is a wattle grower, and he knows the importance of this industry, and he also knows the value of it, and the problems we are up against.

We want some information from the Minister.

I am afraid I cannot speak while there is a conversation going on among members on the other side.

We cannot hear you.

Nobody can hear me while all this conversation is going on, but I wish to speak to the Minister and not to members on the other side.

You should address the Chair.

For some years now the wattle industry has been pressing the Minister for the institution of a Research Institute for the wattle industry. When we first approached the subject the Minister told us that if the industry was prepared to make a contribution the request might be favourably considered. The feeling of the wattle farmers is that the wattle industry is not only a very important industry, but it is one of the few agricultural industries that has never had any assistance from the Government.

The Government does not assist …

We have many research institutions for practically every section of the agricultural industry. We have the Wool Research Station at Onderstepoort; then there is a Central Tobacco Research Station, there is a Poultry Research Station, a Low Temperature Research Station for fruit export, and numerous other Research Stations, both with regard to veld preservation and the improvement of pastures. The wattle industry has carried out many experiments, co-operative experiments; they have also had a research station of their own, but it has not been over-satisfactory. What we are asking now is that the Government, through the Minister, should assist us because we are in a position today to make certain contributions towards that Research Institute. The wattle growers of the Union have offered to contribute £7,000 in cash, and they have also offered £3,000 annually towards maintenance for the first three years, and a percentage to be mutually agreed upon towards the annual income of the Union for the next five years. Besides this, they have offered a site for the Institute and an adequate amount of land, and they have already prepared plans for suitable buildings. I think that the wattle growers, having gone so far to carry out the wishes of the Minister, have a claim to be met in this matter, because this industry has very many problems, and its future depends on a proper research scheme with regard to the solution of these problems. Unless we get that we may find this industry in very great difficulties. At present research is being carried out at the Rhodes University with regard to the tanning of skins and hides. The wattle growers of the Union contribute £1,000 per year towards that research, and towards the experiments that are being made there. I feel that we are not asking anything unreasonable—we are only asking to be treated in the same way as other sections of the agricultural industry are. I take it that we are quite as important as many other sections of the agricultural industry who have been assisted, and if they have qualified for assistance in the way of research, we certainly have just as good claims, if not better, than some that have been assisted. I do not intend going into the merits of the industry, and what it means to the country, because the Minister is fully aware of all that, but I say that when farmers come forward and are willing to help themselves and to make their contribution and pay a very large sum of money towards helping themselves, then it is the duty of the Government to contribute perhaps even more than the farmers themselves are willing to do. I feel that we have a good and a very strong case, and that if the Minister will discuss it with the wattle growers and get the Forestry Division to go into the merits and great necessity of the case, we may perhaps have some hope of getting this Rerearch Institute in Natal. I hope the Minister will take this matter seriously, because it is a matter which has been raised for some years now. And while it might have been said that the Government during war time has not got the money to start an institute of this kind, if the Minister will tell us what he requires from the wattle industry in the way of contribution, perhaps the industry will contribute so much that the Government’s part of it will not be anything they could not grant. Of course, I know that the Minister may say that technical men are not available at the present time, and that many of his departmental men are away at the front; but it will take some years to get this Research Institute into proper working order, in the way of buildings, and preparing the land, and we wish to get it ready and equipped for the time when these men will become available—perhaps in a year or two. So I hope that the wattle growers’ plea for sympathy and assistance will not be put on one side on account of the war, because, after all, when the war is over, we must look to our industries to get this country on a proper footing again. The wattle industry employs and gives a living to a great many white men and also natives, and in this industry there may be openings for many of our returned soldiers to make a good living, but if our many problems are not faced in the proper way in good time, it will not be an inducement for these men to make their future careers in this area. I wish to say also that wattle can only be grown in comparatively small areas in this country, comparative with the size of the whole Union, and I would also like to say that wattle cultivation has been able to be carried on on a proper basis in this country where it has been a failure in other countries, due to high cost of production. So we are properly suited to cultivate the wattle industry in this country, where even in its native country, Australia, they are not able to do so. It is one of the most promising industries that agriculture can undertake and develop to its full, because it is able to compete in the world’s markets where many of our other agricultural industries are not able to do so, and we have a world market for wattle products.

I shall be very brief. But I notice on page 116 dealing with forestry workers that there is a reduction of £2,000. Hon. members will recollect that two years ago I felt very much concerned about the position of forest workers who did not get the wage they should have got. The Minister told us at the time what the conditions were under which those people were living, and that they were earning 5s. 4d. per day. I notice that there are still 226 of them, and I want to know whether the reduction in the amount is due to a reduction of their wages, or a reduction in the number of persons. If the number of persons has been reduced I want to know whether those who are left are getting a cost of living allowance. If so, how much is it? Is the maximum still 6s. 4d.? What position are these people in? Are they still in the same conditions as two years ago? I said at that time that I had visited the forestry workers and I reminded the Minister of the way the Egyptians had treated the Jews, and I said that the Government were treating the forestry workers like slaves, exactly as the Egyptians had treated the Jews. Those people used to get 14 days’ holiday without pay, and they could not even afford to feed and clothe themselves properly. The forestry workers were turned into slaves. I lodged a strong protest at the time and I want to know whether the Minister has effected any improvements in the conditions of these people. We were told on that occasion that there was no money, but we are spending millions of pounds on the war, though for our own flesh and blood there is not even enough money to give them decent living wages. I am glad the Minister of Finance is here. He knows his Bible better than I do. He often goes into the pulpit. When he goes on to the pulpit next week I want him to tell his congregation how the Egyptians treated the Jews, and he should also tell his listeners then that that is the way we are treating our own people. Those people have to work eight hours and more in the forests, and if they cannot get a bus or a lorry they have to walk eight or ten miles to get to their work—that is to say, they have to walk two hours to get to their work and two hours to get back. They get no pay for that. In other words, they work twelve hours, and when they start they get 5s. 4d. per day. It is barbarous and nothing else. I would not treat my natives in the Western Transvaal like that. But that is how you treat your own people. I also notice that there is a reduction of £1,500 under head H on page 120, and I do not understand the position. It seems to me that that, too, is a reduction to the detriment of the forestry workers. Why this reduction?

I represent quite a large section of the wattle industry in Natal, and I want to support the plea of the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) and ask the Minister to consider, or rather to persuade the Minister of Finance to provide sufficient funds to meet the request of the wattle industry. It is not a case of asking for something for nothing. They are prepared to put up half the money, at any rate to start this Research Institute, and I think if the Government will accede to the request very fine results will ensue both to the industry and to agriculture in Natal in general. I want to refer for a moment to the conditions affecting the settlers at the Weza Forestry Settlement. It is a settlement situated in the Ingeli Mountains of Natal, some seventeen miles from rail head, which is about 160 miles from Durban. Naturally the cost of provisions at such a station is very high. Now, what may appear to us to be very small items, to these people appear to be very large, and I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister one or two of them. For instance, there are contract rates of pay granted to men who do not receive a wage of so much per day but who are paid on results. And these men find that when they are given very thin timber to deal with they cannot get out so many cubic feet of prepared timber as they can from thick trees. The Director of Forests promised that he would go into this matter, and realising the difficulties of the whole position I left it to him to try to evolve something to meet the difficulties encountered by these men on contract. I hope the Minister will not shelve this matter, but will, to what extent he is able, consider an increase in the contract rate per cubic foot. A cost of living allowance is certainly paid to the daily paid men, but it is paid on the basis laid down by the Public Service Commission for Government employees as a whole. The rate of pay in these settlements is not very large, and the cost of living allowance based on the scale laid down is not very much on the low wages these daily paid men receive. There is also the question whether the contract men should not be paid a cost of living allowance, but I think that would be met by a slight increase in the price paid per cubic foot for prepared timber. With regard to the daily paid men, I do think that when wages are small and cost of living paid on the basis of low wages, some consideration might be given to these men, especially as the cost of necessaries is higher there because of the distance from distributing centres. Another question which looms very largely with these people is one which the director promised he would consider. Certain men volunteered for service anywhere in Africa, but they were regarded as key men, and the last time I had any communications with them they had not been issued with “on service” badges. I hope in the meantime the matter has been remedied, and these men have got their due. There is also the case of a man who was engaged temporarily as a machinist. He was kept in that capacity longer than is usual with a temporary hand, because such men generally, after a period of about six months, get an advance of pay and a higher status. I hope the matter has been gone into, and the Minister will be able to assure me that this man has had consideration. Much has been said lately about these people being forgotten, and I wish to correct the impression that is going round the country that we who represent these people are forgetting them. We do not forget them, and especially I do not forget them. These small questions loom largely in the minds of these people, and it is on their behalf I ask for consideration.

There are two points in regard to which I should like to have further information from the hon. Minister, namely, in connection with Votes “Q” and “U” on page 115. I am not an expert in connection with the coast line, but provision is made here for a small amount of £250 for drift sand reclamation along the coast. It seems to me that the problem is a fairly big one in areas where the sand is fast silting.

Is that under Vote “Q”?

Yes. I would like to ask the Minister with regard to the reclaimed areas, at what average costs per morgen the land is reclaimed, and whether the land that is reclaimed justifies the cost. Then with regard to Vote “U”. Provision is made here for an amount of £75, which is described as a contribution to a fund for propaganda against forest and veld fires in the Cape Peninsula. I do not know what the experience is, but it seems to me, at any rate, that veld fires are increasing year after year. If we take the Western Province, for example, then it seems to me that the fires exceed those of the previous year in each case. If we think of the big fires which occurred in the Paarl mountains recently, it seems to me that this small sum of £75 which is being voted, is simply being thrown into the water. I think the hon. Minister will agree that the destruction caused by veld fires is tremendous, and that the damage is in many cases irreparable. One cannot restore in a period of years what the fire consumed within an hour. It sometimes takes 25 years or longer again to restore the area which was burnt down. I want to ask the Minister whether the time has not now arrived rather to spend a big sum of money instead of only making propaganda; whether the time has not arrived to adopt the principle of placing guards everywhere, as the Government does at the French Hoek forestry settlement, for example. I want to ask whether the time has not arrived to protect all those areas which are subject to veld fires, and where large plantations burn down: whether it would not be advantageous to the country to appoint guards there in order to see whether the fires cannot be reduced. The salary which will be paid to those guards will not be wasted. The money circulates in the country. When there is a tremendous veld fire which causes hundreds of thousands of pounds damage, it cannot be restored. I want to hear whether the hon. Minister is not of opinion that something should be done which will be more effective in reducing veld fires.

It is with pleasure that I associate myself with the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) in what he said with regard to the wattle industry. The hon. member has set up a very strong case, and there is very little that I can add, but I would like to mention that the wattle industry has in the past fifty years grown from a turnover of £11 per annum to one of over £2,000,000. That will give us an indication of the importance of this industry, especially when we know that the turnover in future will be considerably greater. But the wattle growers today face a competition such as they have never faced before. New areas are being placed under wattle in competition with our own products, and not being very far away in other parts of Africa and along the East Coast, where great tracts are being placed under wattle, and it is quite clear that we shall be face to face with very serious competition in the future. We know that the Government, owing to the war situation, has to contend with very great difficulties, and they may feel that such matters as the wattle industry should be subordinated to the necessity for carrying on the war effort and should stand over, but I would point out that delay may prove fatal. After the war this industry is going to enter into very much more serious competition than is the case today, when most of the markets and the producingcentres are closed. I therefore feel that if we establish a wattle Research Institute now and get it going at the earliest possible moment, it will be something in the nature of a national asset. A certain amount of research work is being done by private enterprise, but no matter how commendable such private enterprise may be, it does not carry with it the hall mark of international repute. If we want a certificate for our product, it is absolutely necessary to get a Government certificate. Overseas markets and overseas buyers are not satisfied with a certificate given by private enterprise; what they want is the official stamp of the Government. The Government has at present in its employ experts who are working on wattle culture, but they are working under great difficulties; they have no proper accommodation, they have no wattle experimental station, and I think the time is opportune that a start should be made in the very many subsidiary industries which belong to wattle culture, such as the production of paper pulp, rayon, etc. Wattle lends itself to the manufacture of several by-products, and the industry supplies a real want as far as the gold industry is concerned, and generally speaking, it is a national industry. Why this research is so necessary is the fact that once an area of land has been placed under wattle, it cannot be used for anything but afforestation Therefore, if a pest gets in and wipes, out a plantation, you cannot put in crops, because the cost of establishing other crops on such land is quite prohibitive. It is of paramount importance, therefore, to preserve our wattle culture, because once land is utilised for tree growing, it becomes practically a permanent investment and something which cannot lightly be interfered with. I feel, under all the circumstances of the case, we can justly ask the Government not to delay this matter.

I just want to bring a few other matters to the notice of the Minister of Forestry. The first is a matter which was also referred to by the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens), namely, the question of war allowances. I know, of course, that forest workers receive a war allowance. But I want to ask the Minister that the war allowance should not be taken away from them in cases where these people are unavoidably prevented from working. I have here a letter from the head of the La Motte settlement. I received a letter from one of the workers and I then wrote to him. What is the position? Do these people are unavoidably prevented from how is it deducted? His reply was that it was in respect of rainy days, or when they were ill. Then the war allowance is not granted. Even he is of opinion that when these people are unavoidably prevented from working, they should nevertheless receive the allowance. The other matter which was also touched upon by the hon. member for Ventersdorp is this. It seems to me only fair that those people should get a short holiday with payment. I think that that is the least which they can be granted. The third matter, which I have also referred to in the past, is this, that the forest workers forfeit their payments into the fund which is built up for them if they leave the plantations of their own accord. It is very well known to us that the majority of those plantations are situated in areas where the rainfall is very heavy; in other words, the plantations are situated in areas which for the greater part are very unhealthy. The circumstances under which those people work, although they have been improved, are still very unhealthy; and if they then obtain better employment, where they can get away from those unhealthy circumstances, then it seems reasonable to me that they should have the privilege of getting back from the fund what they paid in. I believe the objection is raised that these people—or at any rate some of them— if they know that they will get back what they paid into the fund, would leave the service only in order to get their contributions, and then again make application after a short while, to be employed as forest workers. There may be some who will do that, but the majority of them will not do it. But even that can be prevented by not making those payments immediately, but at a certain age, for example, so that the funds collected with the aid of the department, will be received by the employee at a certain age.

The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) asked me to take this matter seriously. I have taken it seriously for the last year or two, as the hon. member knows, and I think my department has shown all the sympathy in this matter. When a deputation met me only a few weeks ago, I explained to them that it was just impossible to get the building material for one thing, or the men to do the building either. We cannot build this Research Institute during the war, and it is no good talking about it any more, because I am not going to ask the Minister to give me the money. I have told these people before that as soon as normal conditions return I am willing to do what can be done. I am very glad indeed that the people concerned have done their share, and a very large share of what I asked them. We have got many important works that have been on the estimates for years, but we simply cannot carry them out under present conditions, because we have not the men nor the material to do the work. I would like hon. members to remember, though, that we are at present spending £7,000 per annum on research for the wattle industry. It is not that the Government does not realise the importance of the industry, nor that the Government is not sympathetic towards it, but I cannot make any further promises during the war. There is simply no question of building this institute.

†*The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) put a question to me in connection with the big reduction in the number of officials. The reply is simply that many people are on active service, and that they are receiving military pay, and that the Forestry Department only pays out the difference in those cases where their military pay is less than their salaries. I think he also put a question to me in connection with the reduction in the forestry school vote. The intention is that during the next financial year fewer students will be taken, because there will be less posts for them in the future.

Why will there be fewer posts?

You cannot go on appointing people when the positions are filled. At some time or other you come to a point where you train more foresters than you have posts for, and from time to time we must see to it that we reduce the number of students to a certain extent, as the posts decrease. The hon. member asked me why there was a reduction in connection with the subsidy which is paid to farmers in respect of driftsand. I do not want to say that the farmers no longer take any interest, but there are fewer farmers who do the work. I can only tell him that the value of the ground which is reclaimed is more than what is spent thereon. In one part of the world the value of the land is more; in other parts it is less. But the Department of Forestry assures me that the value of the land which is reclaimed is more than the sum paid for it.

What are the costs per morgen?

I cannot say what the costs are per morgen. In one place it is more than it is in another place. It so happens that I do not know the amount that the land is worth per morgen. Then the hon. member spoke about the £75 for propaganda against forest and veld fires in the Cape Peninsula. He will notice that it is a £ for £ contribution on the part of the Government. Well, although I am immediately prepared to agree with him that it is not sufficient to spend, I do not want to agree with him that it is not worth while making propaganda, especially in the Cape Peninsula, where there are many fires during one year, there are possibly less the following year as a result of the propaganda. I think that the propaganda teaches many people, who might otherwise have caused fires, to be careful. I do not want to accept for a moment, that the money was wasted. I want to tell the hon. member that the money which the Department of Forestry spends in preventing fires is £6,400. The extent of the land of the Department of Forestry is 1,600,000 morgen, of which only approximately one-half is used as a catchment area and protection of the land. The duty of the foresters is, inter alia, to guard those territories, and in respect of that alone the department pays a sum of £6,400; but, apart from that, the Municipality of Cape Town pays a fairly big sum in respect of guards. I do not know whether the Provincial Council contributes towards it. The Department of Forestry has various guards in the Cape Peninsula, too. What the hon. member therefore demands is already being done.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) has spoken about the settlement at Weza. I want to tell him that these daily paid men get the cost of living allowance and I would not like to promise him that that will be increased. Many of the settlers prefer piece-work, and they are making more at piece-work, I am informed, than those who work by day, and get the cost of living allowance.

†*The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Hugo) asked me why war allowances were not granted to foresters on days when they cannot work. I am afraid that that is the lot of the daily paid person in the country, not only in the civil service but everywhere. If a person is a daily paid worker he does not receive payment in respect of days he does not work, and in the same way I do not know how I could approach the Treasury and say that the forest worker does not receive any salary in respect of that day, but that he should nevertheless receive a war allowance. I am afraid that it would be against the regulations of the civil service. The same applies with reference to holidays. It is a rule throughout the service that a daily paid worker does not get paid leave. We would have to take into review the whole civil service system before we could alter that, and I again want to go into the question where he forfeits his contributions when he resigns, and perhaps I shall write to the hon. member in regard to it if the position is satisfactory. I shall write to him whether an alteration should be made.

Cannot the forest workers be paid monthly?

They are paid daily.

I inted to move the amendment standing in my name as printed on page 294. As hon. members will have noticed what I am doing is to move two new Clauses 6 and 7 ahead of the present Clause 6. The new Clause 8 as printed on page 295 will be the same as the old Clause 6 with some amendments. Clauses 6 and 7 as printed on pages 294 and 295 are therefore new clauses. The Bill as it stands is subject to criticism from certain points of view. The main point is this that under the Bill the applicant for insurance must have his application accepted, there can be no refusal of an application on the ground that the motor car is not roadworthy. I am sure hon. members will agree with me to drive that particular car. In the second place there can be no refusal of an application because the person who is going to drive that particular motor vehicle is a person who is likely to endanger the safety of the public. So, sir, it is proposed in these new clauses to provide that a company which has to deal with applications for insurance can require as a condition that the person applying shall undertake that a particular person who on reasonable grounds is held to be a dangerous driver shall not be allowed to drive that particular car. In the second place it is laid down that the company to whom the application is made can refuse to accept an application because the vehicle is not roadworthy or can require the roadworthiness of the vehicle to be put to a test. If a company is given those powers, there must be means of checking up on the exercising of these powers. So if Clause 6 is accepted I shall propose a further Clause 7 to give the right to the applicant who is dissatisfied with the company’s decision to apply to the magistrate to have the case reconsidered. I shall therefore move that the present Clause 6 be negatived and a new Clause 7 inserted.

I move—

I do so because we did not receive timely warning that this Bill would come on the Order Paper. We can tell the Minister that it was thought the whole afternoon that we would still continue this evening with the Posts and Telegraphs vote. During the evening I heard a rumour that a change would be brought about. We did not, however, receive any intimation from our Whips, and the first intimation which our Whips received about it was when I sent a message to them. Not one of the Whips received intimation that a change had been made. I heard the rumour here, and thereafter I made enquiries. The Whips of the Government did not come and talk to us, and we members sat here and waited and prepared ourselves to speak on the Postal Department Vote. If the Government expects us to carry on in the evening with other business, then it ought to notify us before 6 o’clock so that the members who take an interest in the other work can be present. If it goes on in this way, then it is really impossible to do the business. I do not know what went wrong, but we cannot go on with this work because we did not receive notice timously. We simply cannot carry on with it at this stage, and for that reason I moved as I did.

I am sorry that there has been a misunderstanding. The position is this. Early this afternoon I asked the Chief Whip on this side to notify the Whips on the other side that we would take this order on the Order Paper, after disposing of the Agricultural Vote. Early in the evening, the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) asked me whether we were carrying on with the Postal Vote. I told him we were not, and that we were going to switch over to this Bill. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) then also came and asked me.

That was after the hon. member for Mossel Bay had told me about it.

Then the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) discussed the matter with me. If he had insisted that I should withdraw my proposal in view of the misunderstanding, then we could have done so, and continued with the original business. But now it places me in a very difficult position, to withdraw it. We cannot now return again to the Budget. I understood at the time that there would be no objection against the proposal to proceed to this Bill, and I therefore hope that my hon. friend will not insist on his motion.

In this connection I just want to say that there was apparently a misunderstanding. The Minister of Finance was under the impression that we knew of it, and in view of that he told the Minister of Posts that he could allow his officials to leave. That was before 6 o’clock, and if we had known of it, there would have been time to warn our people. About 20 minutes ago I spoke to the Minister of Finance, and then we were faced by the fact that the officials of the Minister of Posts had left, and that we could not carry on with that vote. Although we were not satisfied with it, I then undertook that we could carry on until the next order. I therefore hope that the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) who did not know of what I had done in connection with the matter, will not insist on his motion.

I must confess that I am a little confused on the procedure which is now being adopted.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) to report progress. I shall put that motion.

On the clause as it stands I have an amendment.

Should you not put these amendments to my new Clause 8?

I want to work it in with the new clause as drafted. If I have to draft my amendments to the new clause they will not dovetail in in the same order. So long as I am given the opportunity of drafting my amendments again I don’t mind, but it will be impossible for me to do so at once.

I am rather anxious about the changes which the Minister is proposing to introduce in this Bill. They are quite wide reaching in spite of the limited character of the two points which he has mentioned to the House. They involve, as a matter of fact, the extension of the powers on the part of the insurance companies to refuse to accept applications for insurance. As the Bill stood the companies had to accept proposals for insurance and they could deal with the question of the justice or otherwise of granting insurance thereafter. Now the companies are placed in the position that they can refuse to insure cars on the extremely vague condition of having reasonable grounds, that the applicant while driving any motor vehicle has actually been a danger to the public or may be a danger to the public. I shall be very glad to know how the Minister would interpret these words “reasonable grounds.” We have particular reason for being anxious about the granting of this sort of power. We know the sort of thing which is said about drivers belonging to the group which we represent. There is a general assumption that native drivers are a danger to the public. Would that assumption be regarded as a reasonable ground for refusing registration?

Of course not.

There is nothing in this clause to guarantee that a company could not act on that basis, and if a company thinks that it has reasonable grounds for refusing an application the person whose application is refused must resort to court to establish his claim which may involve him in expenses he cannot meet. That is my reason for anxiety and I should like to know what the Minister’s answer is to that?

I can understand that the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) voices her anxiety, but I cannot for the life of me see how the ground which she has given could be regarded as a reasonable ground. There is, of course, the appeal to the courts, and surely if refusals were made on that ground they would be upset immediately. I do not think that position could be maintained. I think my hon. friend will realise on consideration, that there are no grounds for anxiety.

I must say that to a certain extent I share the anxiety of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). Are we now going to do away with all the licensing authorities and are we going to make the insurance companies the arbitrators whether people should have licences or not? Let me put this point — before a person gets a licence he must have a certificate of competence, and if a person has a vehicle it must be roadworthy.

But it does not remain roadworthy.

And once you have these requisites you can get your registration. If this amended clause is accepted it means, or it may mean, that an insurance company can put a man to tremendous trouble. A company may have “reasonable grounds” which may or may not be upheld by the court, and they may prevent a man from getting a licence.

Why should they want to do that?

That is all very well, but if you substitute the insurance companies for our licensing authorities you may be creating a very dangerous position. If we want to maintain our present licensing structure then I think the new clause goes too far.

Is this not in conflict with Section 3?

I have already made that clear, I have explained that on the report stage a further amendment will be moved if this amendment is accepted, to make the provisions of subsection (3) subject to the provisions of Clause 6.

My difficulty is this, you cannot separate Clause 6 from Clause 8. Clause 8 remains. Now, if an order is made under Clause 6 then for a period of three years a person is debarred from the use of a licence. The licence is cancelled and what I want to point out is this: that where a magistrate at present has the right on a criminal charge being preferred against a man to suspend that man’s licence, it means that that licence remains in force—it is only suspended—but it is revived automatically after a certain time without the man being put to expense. But now you are placed in this position. The licence is cancelled, and the present procedure which has existed all these years is to be scrapped. Now I have made it my business to study the position for January and February in Cape Town in regard to suspension of licences. There have been eight suspensions for a period not exceeding one year. But the major portion of the suspensions were for six months. Only in one case has there been a cancellation of a licence. In other words, the magistrates are exercising their powers in the manner they considered right. If a person’s licence is suspended for six months or a year, at the end of that period he can get his licence back without any expense. Don’t let us forget that not every driver can afford to go to court to have his licence reinstated. It would be interesting to know how many of these people whose licence has been suspended for six months have ever come before court again. I should say it is not more than one case in a hundred. The individual has learnt his lesson. Now, if under Clause 6 a person is deprived of the right to get an insurance registration that automatically covers with it a prohibition to drive, and if an order is made under that clause, then, as Clause 8 reads, a person against whom a magistrate has made an order under Section 6 may, after a period of three years from the date of such order, do certain things in order to get his licence back again.

You should move your amendment on Clause 8.

Yes, but my point is this, if I want to be able to do it under Clause 8, in the meantime I have given the magistrate the right to cancel the licence, because that is the practical effect of it. I am open to correction, but that is how I gather the clause to be intended.

I think this clause is quite sound. Let me give the House an account of an experience of my own. It is an account of a case where a driver took his master’s car out of the garage. He represented that he wanted the car for his master, whereas he wanted it for himself to go on a joyride. He went to a party, he got dead drunk, and he drove the car — a brand new car — along the road and got smashed up. Nobody saw it happen and he was found the next morning in the car. Nobody had seen him driving so the only charge that could be brought against him was that of taking his master’s car out without permission. Now, that sort of thing is not endorsed on the licence, and yet a greater danger to the public than that man could not be found. Unless you have a clause like this in the Bill a man like that could not be dealt with, because that particular kind of offence is not endorsable on the licence. No one had seen the man drive in a drunken condition, but it was obvious what had happened. Now, it is not enough to say that you deal with a man when he is convicted, you have to consider the safety of the public. Once a man has shewn himself to be a person who cannot be trusted, whether the charge was that he took out his master’s car or what ever it was — the fact was that that man could not be trusted on the road. My hon. friend seems to think that a suspension of the licence cures these people. I don’t think so. Why should an insurance company which has reason to know that a particular driver is dangerous be compelled to insure him and let him continue to go on the road and continue to be a danger to the public?

The car is insured.

Yes, but the car wants a driver. The driver is the danger to the public. I think this clause is perfectly sound. We want to try and save the public, and where you have information that a man is a danger to the public you should not insure the car until the name of the driver is furnished and it is shewn that the driver is not a danger.

In regard to the fears of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) that the interests of the people she represents will not be safeguarded, it may interest the House to hear that when evidence was given before the Transvaal Provincial Select Committee which sat on this question of third party risk insurance, evidence was given by the police as to the safety or otherwise from the point of view of driving of natives, and the evidence given by the police according to convictions and facts they had at their disposal was that the native driver was a safer — not a better driver but a safer driver — than the European male. So from that point of view the hon. member can be reassured that in view of that testimony of the police no insurance company would hold that a native driver was not a safe driver. In regard to the point made by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Friedlander) I have an amendment on the Order Paper to this Clause 6, which sets out that if a licence has been cancelled then after a period of two years has lapsed, the applicant may apply again for a licence. If that amendment is accepted by the Minister it will mean that once a man has been found guilty he shall not be permanently debarred but that there will be a period of suspension during which he may repent on his sins and then apply again. So that will meet the point of the hon. member for Wynberg. So there will be an opportunity for a person’s licence to be re-instated.

I do not think the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) will quite meet the position, certainly not as drafted. As the amendment stands insurance must be given after two years.

On the same terms.

Not as she has put it. Take the case where the licence has been refused, where the man has some eye defect. It may get worse in the two years. I should like to discuss that point further with my hon. friend. We may be able to arrive at some other amendment for the report stage.

I now move—

1. 6.
   1. (1) When the owner of a motor vehicle has applied to a registered company for the insurance of that motor vehicle under this Act, or when a motor dealer has applied to a registered company for the insurance under this Act of all motor vehicles of which the dealer is the owner in connection with his business as a motor dealer, and in either case the company has reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant, while driving any motor vehicle, or any person, while driving any motor vehicle belonging to the applicant, has unduly endangered the safety of the public, or that the applicant or any member of his household or any person in his employ is likely to endanger unduly the safety of the public if he drives a motor vehicle, the registered company concerned may refuse to insure the motor vehicle in question, or any motor vehicle to which the applicant owns in connection with his business as a motor dealer, as the case may be, unless the applicant gives the company an undertaking in writing, that he will not, during the period for which the insurance is to be effected, drive any motor vehicle to which the desired insurance is to relate, (if the applicant himself is alleged to have endangered or to be likely to endanger the safety of the public, as aforesaid) or permit any other named person who is alleged to have endangered the safety of the public or to be likely to endanger the safety of the public as aforesaid, to drive any motor vehicle to which the desired insurance is to relate.
   2. (2) If such an applicant as is mentioned in sub-Section (1) who has given such an undertaking as aforesaid, drives a motor vehicle or permits any person to drive a motor vehicle in breach of his undertaking, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
   3. (3) When the owner of a particular motor vehicle has applied to a registered company for the insurance under this Act of that motor vehicle, the company may refuse to insure that vehicle if the company has reasonable grounds to believe that the motor vehicle is not roadworthy, or, if the company doubts its roadworthiness, the company may demand that the applicant submit the motor vehicle for examination and test to a person indicated by the company at any place upon which the parties may agree, or failing such agreement, any place indicated by the company in the town or village in which the applicant resides, or if he resides outside a town or village, at any place indicated by the company in the principal town of the district in which the applicant resides.
   4. (4) If the applicant has failed to comply with the company’s demand, the company may refuse to insure the motor vehicle in question (irrespective of whether it is or is not roadworthy) until the applicant has complied with that demand.

Will not the Minister allow us the opportunity between now and the report stage to frame amendments if we are working along the same lines— and that is that there will not be a cancellation but a suspension of the licence, or a right to drive, or a right of insurance, and that it will, after a period fixed by the magistrate, be revived? May I ask the Minister to consider this? It will save a lot of discussion. What I have in mind is this: the magistrate who tries a case must have more information on questions of fact than any other person. He is the best judge of the man’s capacity and criminal habits. No other person can have better facts before him. May I ask the Minister to allow that magistrate to determine what is to happen to that man’s driving licence, and to decide that it should be suspended and not cancelled?

I think that point applies not to my new Clause 6 but to Clause 8. At any rate I shall give my hon. friend plenty of time to frame any amendments he wishes before the Report stage. But I don’t think the hon. member’s amendment applies to this Clause 6, but to the old Clause 6.

I now move my new Clause 7 which lays down the procedure to be followed when action is taken under new Clause 6. I move—

1. 7.
   1. (1) When a registered company has refused an application for insurance under this Act, (otherwise than under sub-Section (4) of Section 6) the applicant may apply in writing to the magistrate of the district in which the applicant resides (if he applied for the insurance of a particular motor vehicle) or in which the applicant carries on business as a motor dealer (if he applied for the insurance of all motor vehicles which he owns in connection with that business) for an order to compel the company concerned to effect the insurance in question.
   2. (2) The application shall be supported by an affidavit or affidavits in which the facts upon which the application is based, are set forth.
   3. (3) If the magistrate is of the opinion that the application is prima facie well founded, he shall forthwith cause to be delivered or to be sent by registered post to the registered company concerned (which is hereinafter in this section called the respondent) a copy of the application and of every affidavit submitted in support thereof, and a notice calling upon the respondent to show cause, at a time stated in the notice, which shall be not earlier than seven days after the date upon which the respondent received the notice, and at a place mentioned in the notice, why he shall not be ordered to effect the insurance in question. The magistrate shall, immediately after the delivery or despatch of the notice to the respondent, cause a copy of the notice to be delivered or to be sent by registered post to the applicant or to a person whom he has indicated as his representative.
   4. (4) At the time and place mentioned in the notice the magistrate shall enquire into the allegations of the applicant, and at the enquiry (at which either party to the proceedings shall be entitled to representation by his attorney or counsel) the magistrate shall hear such relevant evidence and arguments as either party may submit and he shall record all such evidence and he may from time to time adjourn the enquiry.
   5. (5) The law relating to the summoning, swearing, examination and cross-examination of witnesses shall mutatis mutandis apply in connection with any person whose testimony either party to the aforesaid enquiry desires to submit to the magistrate, and the law relating to contempt of a magistrate’s court shall apply, as if the enquiry were a civil trial in a magistrate’s court, and for the purposes of the law relating to perjury such an enquiry shall be deemed to be proceedings in a court of law.
   6. (6) If at the conclusion of the enquiry the magistrate is not satisfied that the respondent was justified under Section 6 in refusing the applicant’s application for insurance, he shall order the respondent within a period defined in the order, to effect the insurance in question on payment, by the applicant, of the premium payable for such insurance and if the respondent fails to comply with that order he shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
   7. (7) If at the conclusion of the enquiry the magistrate is satisfied that the respondent was justified under Section 6 in refusing the applicant’s application for insurance, he shall refuse the application.
   8. (8) The magistrate may order either party to the proceedings to pay any costs incurred by the other party in connection with the enquiry and those costs shall be taxable as if they were costs incurred in connection with civil proceedings in a magistrate’s court.

I now want to move the Amendment 7 standing in my name. As the new Clause 7 stands it reads “that a magistrate may order either party to the proceedings to pay any costs incurred by the other party in connection with the enquiry.” My view is this, that seeing that the insurance company under the new Clause 6 has the right to refuse a man’s insurance, so that if a man desires to drive a motor car he has no option, once he has been refused, but to apply to the court, some special consideration should be given. The insurance company having exercised its rights under Section 6, any man who desires to drive a car has to go to court. It seems to be unreasonable to me, particularly in view of the number of poor people; I have in mind the group whom the hon. member for Cape Eastern represents—if we are compelling them to go to court, then it is unreasonable to compel them to pay costs. They have no option. We are compelling them to go to court and I am therefore suggesting that the magistrate in making an order under sub-Section (6), if he finds that the insurance company has been unreasonable in withholding its consent, shall order the respondent to pay costs, but even if he refuses the appeal, he shall nevertheless make no order as to costs in the latter event. The idea being that the person who is compelled to go to court shall not in any circumstances have to pay the costs of that proceeding. The whole purpose of my amendment is to ensure that if the insurance company has wrongly refused an applicant the company must pay; if the company has rightly refused the Magistrate shall make no order as to costs. In no event shall the applicant who has been obliged to go to court pay costs. I move—

If the hon. Minister could see his way to accept that amendment or something of the same kind my main objection to the new Clause 6, which I still feel very strongly would be largely met. I am not so much concerned with what are reasonable grounds in connection with which I have given the extreme case, perhaps but I am concerned very much about the financial responsibility of having to establish a claim to insurance. If this condition is accepted I think it would resolve that difficulty.

I do not see why hon. members should be afraid to trust to the discretion of the magistrate in regard to this question of costs. Surely it is possible that the applicant may have been vexatious, he may have concealed facts in his application and may have compelled the company to take action. He may be to blame and in such a case the magistrate should have power to order costs against the applicant. I think the hon. member’s amendment makes the thing much too one sided in depriving the magistrate of that discretion and laying it down that the magistrate can only award costs in one way. I cannot help thinking that the magistrate would act reasonably in matters of this kind and only in cases where the applicant was to blame would costs be given against him.

The reason why I framed the amendment in this way was because in the original Bill the company was compelled to accept all comers. Now they have the right to accept or reject and the position is now that we are compelling all those who are refused to go to court. If a man’s livelihood depends on this he has no option but to go to court but if he has no money how dare he risk having an order made against him. It does seem to me to be unreasonable that when we have compulsory third party insurance we should make it impossible for this class to get the protection of the courts.

The ordinary rule of legal procedure is that the unsuccessful party in any action or motion pays the costs but you don’t pass a law to say that the successful party must pay the costs. There are cases in which the presiding judge or magistrate thinks the unsuccessful litigant should not have to pay the costs because the successful party has done something in connection with the action which in the opinion of the court has deprived him of his right to have costs and therefore the Minister is perfectly right in providing that the magistrate may order either party to pay the costs. The Minister leaves it entirely to the magistrate. The hon. member for Jeppe says you compel the man to go to court but you don’t compel him. He is deprived of his right to insurance for reasons which are considered good and he goes to court because he wants to show that the refusal was wrong but he does not have to go to court, he can accept the judgment of the insurance company. Again, it cannot be a very poor man who can afford to run a motor car. As was said in Potash and Perlmutter a car is not an asset but a liability. I cannot understand how a poor man can run a motor car with the original cost of the car, petrol, licence and so on. It cannot be a very poor man who can afford to run a car. The legal principle is that the unsuccessful party pays the costs but if a poor man is concerned he can appear in court in forma pauperis. The Minister leaves it to the magistrate and he will exercise his discretion in a judicial manner. The amendment therefore seems to me to introduce a new principle into our law whereas the Minister simply applies the ordinary principle.

If we put in my amendment on page 331, after the penultimate line, the words “he shall make no order as to costs” I think that might meet the objection of the Minister. I would like to remind the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander) that when he talks of new principles, this new compulsory insurance is quite a new principle, and should be administered as lightly as possible.

I cannot accept that now, the hon. member might put it down for the report stage.

Very well, then, I will put my amendment down at the report stage.

With leave of the Committee, the amendments proposed by Mrs. Bertha Solomon were withdrawn.

I move—

That the following be a new Clause to follow Clause 5:

1. 8.
   1. (1) When a registered company has issued to any person a declaration of insurance in terms of Section 3 or 5 the said company may apply to the magistrate of the district in which the motor vehicle to which the said declaration applies, is registered under any law relating to the registration of motor vehicles, or if the declaration was issued to a motor dealer, to the magistrate of the district in which the motor dealer carries on business, for the cancellation of the licence to drive a motor vehicle which was issued under any law relating to the licensing of drivers of motor vehicles, to the owner of the aforesaid motor vehicle, or to the said motor dealer, as the case may be, or to any other person who has from time to time driven the said motor vehicle while it belonged to the said owner, or to any person who has from time to time driven any motor vehicle belonging to the said motor dealer, as the case may be, on the ground that the person for the cancellation of whose licence application is made (who is in this section called the respondent), has unduly endangered the safety of the public while driving a motor vehicle or is likely to endanger unduly the safety of the public if he drives a motor vehicle.
   2. (2) If the applicant submits with bis application two copies thereof and an affidavit or affidavits (with two copies of each such affidavit) which, in the opinion of the magistrate, establish prima facie the allegations upon which the application is based, the magistrate shall summon the respondent by notice in writing to appear before him (with his licence to drive a motor vehicle if he holds such a licence) at a time (which shall not be earlier than seven days after the date upon which the respondent received the notice) and a place stated in the notice, to show cause why his licence to drive a motor vehicle shall not be cancelled.
   3. (3) The magistrate shall attach to the notice a copy of the application and of each affidavit and shall cause the notice to be delivered to the respondent at the applicant’s expense, by the messenger of the magistrate’s court. The magistrate shall also as soon as may be cause a copy of the notice and of each affidavit to be delivered, by the said messenger at the applicant’s expense, to the person to whom the applicant issued the declaration of insurance mentioned in sub-Section (1), and he shall, further, as soon as may be cause a copy of the notice to be delivered or sent by registered post to the applicant or to a person indicated by the applicant as his representative.
   4. (4) At the time and place mentioned in the notice the magistrate shall enquire into the applicant’s allegations and the provisions of subSections (4) and (5) of Section 7 shall apply in connection with an enquiry held by a magistrate under this section.
   5. (5) If at the conclusion of the enquiry the magistrate is satisfied that the respondent has, while driving a motor vehicle, unduly endangered the safety of the public or that he is likely to endanger unduly the safety of the public if he drives a motor vehicle and that it is necessary in the interests of the public that the respondent be debarred from driving a motor vehicle, he shall make an order declaring the respondent unfit to drive a motor vehicle and declaring null and void every licence to drive a motor vehicle which was issued to the respondent and he shall impound every such licence which the respondent produced at the enquiry, and if he holds any such licence which he has not so produced, the magistrate shall direct the respondent to produce that licence to him and the magistrate shall thereupon impound it.
   6. (6) When a magistrate has declared a licence to be null and void he shall notify the authority which issued the licence of that fact.
   7. (7) If no licence to drive a motor vehicle was issued to the respondent, the magistrate may nevertheless deal with the respondent mutatis mutandis in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section and make an order declaring the respondent to be unfit to drive a motor vehicle.
   8. (8) When a respondent has been declared, in terms of this section, to be unfit to drive a motor vehicle, any licence which he held and which has become null and void in terms of sub-Section (5) I shall, for the purpose of any provisions of a law relating to the licensing of owners or drivers of motor vehicles be deemed to have been cancelled under that law, and while the order declaring him unfit is in force, he shall be deemed to be disqualified under that law from obtaining or holding any licence to drive a motor vehicle: Provided that a licence which has been declared null and void under this section shall not be re-instated or revived under any such law and the said disqualification from obtaining or holding a licence of a person who has been declared unfit as aforesaid shall not be removed or set aside under any such law.
   9. 9 (1) When a magistrate has made an with a direction given to him by the magistrate under sub-Section (5), he shall be guilty of contempt of court.

I hope old Clause 7 will be negatived so that I may move a new clause as printed on page 297, which is intended to meet the point I promised I would meet in regard to the right of appeal.

Clause 7, standing over, put and negatived.

On new clause to follow Clause 6,

I move—

That the following be a new clause to follow Clause 6:

1. 9.
   1. (1) When a magistrate has made an order under Section 7 or under Section 8, the respondent mentioned in the section in question or when a magistrate has refused an application under either of the said sections, the applicant mentioned in the section in question may appeal against the order or refusal, as the case may be, to the competent Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa, mutatis mutandis in the same manner as if the enquiry in question had been a civil suit between the parties concerned, in the magistrate’s court of the district in which the enquiry in question was held, and the said Division shall have jurisdiction to hear the appeal and in doing so it shall have the powers which it has in hearing an appeal against a decision of the said magistrate’s court in a civil suit.
   2. (2) An appeal under sub-Section (1) shall not suspend any order of a magistrate against which the appeal is brought, and if the court of appeal has set aside an order under sub-Section (6) of Section 7, a declaration of insurance mentioned in Section 3, which was issued by the appellant in terms of that order, shall remain in force for a period of three days as from the end of the day on which the said order was set aside, (unless it expired by effluxion of time within the said period) and at the end of the said period the said declaration of insurance shall lapse, unless it has been confirmed during the said period by the former appellant.
   3. (3) The former respondent in the said appeal shall, within the said period of three days, return to the former appellant the said declaration of insurance and the token of insurance mentioned in Section 4 which was issued to him as a result of the said order (unless the former appellant has confirmed the declaration of insurance, as aforesaid) and if he fails to comply with the requirement of this sub-Section he shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds.

I have certain amendments on the Order Paper on page 297, which I wish now to move—

1. (10) When a magistrate has refused an application under this section, the applicant, or when the magistrate has granted such an application, any other party to the enquiry may appeal against the refusal or grant, as the case may be, to the competent Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa, mutatis mutandis in the same manner as if the enquiry has been a civil suit between the parties concerned in the magistrate’s court of the district in which the enquiry was held, and the said Division shall have jurisdiction to hear the appeal and in doing so it shall have the powers which it has in hearing an appeal from a decision of the said magistrate’s court in a civil suit.

An amendment has already been moved to Clause 12 by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip). That amendment was under discussion when we reported progress on this clause, and asked that it stand over. As the result of the discussion which took place, I have framed an amendment, and I hope therefore that Clause 12, as originally presented, will be negatived so that I may move my amendment as printed on page 309.

The first step, therefore, is to negative the old clause, and then perhaps the hon. member for Brakpan will agree to withdraw his amendment.

I move—

That the following be a new clause to follow Clause 11:

1. 12. When a registered company has paid any compensation under Section 9 or 10, it may, without having obtained a formal cession of the right of action, recover from any person (including the owner of the insured motor vehicle in question) whose negligence or other unlawful act caused the loss or damage in question, so much of the amount paid by way of compensation as the third party mentioned in Section 9 could, but for the provisions of Section 11, have recovered from the person whose negligence or other unlawful act caused the loss or damage, if the registered company had not paid any such compensation: Provided that the registered company shall not have any such right of recourse against the said owner or against any person who, at the time of the occurrence which gave rise to the payment of the said compensation, was driving the insured motor vehicle with the consent of its owner unless—
   1. (a) the owner or his representative made a false statement in his application for the declaration of insurance under which the compensation was paid; or
   2. (b) the person driving the said motor vehicle at the time of the said occurrence was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of a drug, or was driving the said motor vehicle contrary to an undertaking given under sub-Section (1) of Section 6, or without holding a licence mentioned in sub-Section (1) of Section 6, or was using the said motor vehicle for a purpose or in a manner other than the purpose or manner of use for which it was intended according to the application mentioned in paragraph (a) and in the latter case the owner of the said motor vehicle would have been obliged to pay a higher premium for the insurance of the said motor vehicle had he stated in the said application that he intended using the said motor vehicle for the purpose for which or in the manner in which it was used as aforesaid; or
   3. (c) the owner or driver of the said motor vehicle has failed to comply with any requirement of subSection (1) of Section 20 with reference to the said occurrence, or has furnished the said registered company with false information relating to that occurrence, which he knew to be false.

As the clause now reads, I understand that if I injure anyone with my motor vehicle which is insured, then the person who is injured can submit his claim and receive compensation, but if I were negligent, the insurance company would be entitled to institute a claim against me.

Only in definite circumstances, as set out in (a), (b) and (c).

If I were negligent.

No, not on account of negligence, but if there is a false declaration, etc.

I have no objection to that, because, in fact, I insure against my own negligence, but the company has no claim against me then. If the Minister says, however, that the company has no claim against me, then I have no objection to it.

Just let me explain what the position is. The company has no general right of redress. It was proposed but was withdrawn. My amendment only gives the right of redress to a company in the circumstances set out in (a), (b) and (c), namely, in the first place if a false declaration was made, or if the person who drove the motor vehicle was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotics, or if the owner or driver of the motor failed to comply with sub-Section (1) of Section 20, or if he gave false information concerning the occurrence. There is a right of redress on the part of the companies in these cases only.

I must confess I cannot understand why this right of recourse is given. A reference to the evidence given before the Select Committee on Page 43 of the report will show that Mr. Schofield, who is a gentleman who speaks with authority, says—

The whole purpose of insurance is to indemnify without any right of being held liable whatever the circumstances may be, and that, I think I am correct in saying, is the insurance that the companies provide. This proposal means that I must take out one policy and in order to cover myself against this right of recourse, I have to take out a second policy. If I read this evidence correctly, the companies do noMask for that. Compulsory insurance was originally introduced in order to insure the person injured against the driver who has nothing to pay damages with, whatever the cause of the accident. We are now going further and saying that there shall be a right of recourse on the part of the company against the insured, which I say is not even asked for by the company. Accidents happen in a moment, and the driver does not consider whether he is going to be held liable for £3 or £3,000 in the event of certain things happening. I will not believe that any person deliberately kills or injures another, but I do believe that the purpose of insurance is to indemnify the motorist, whatever the cause of an accident.

I move amendments to new Clause 12 standing in my name on page 331 on the Order Paper—

I think the Minister should accept the addition of the word “habitually,” and as to the other amendment it simply brings subSection (a) into line with Clause 3. I think the company should not have recourse unless the owner has been convicted of havingmade a false statement.

I don’t think I can accept the second amendment, by which the hon. member wants to insert the word “habitually.” I think it is going to be extremely difficult to prove habitual use. Take the case of an owner who insures his car as an ordinary car, and then proceeds to use it for the conveyance of passengers for hire, for which he would have been compelled to pay a higher premimum. Surely it would be most unreasonable to require proof that that is an habitual practice. It would be most difficult to get such proof, and I think the hon. member will agree with me that her amendment is going rather too far. I also do not like her first amendment, because it means that you first have to convict a man and make a criminal of him. I might meet the hon. member’s point by altering paragraph (a) to read “the owner or his representative made a false statement in respect of any material particular in his application, which he knows to be false.” That would bring it into line with the clause to which the hon. member referred.

I am prepared to abandon my first amendment, but as regards the use of the word “habitually”, I want to put to the Minister the case of a farmer who licences his car, and then one day finds that his lorry is broken down and he uses his car as a lorry. Is his insurance to be vitiated for that? I will withdraw my second amendment.

With leave of the Committee, the amendments proposed by Mrs. Bertha Solomon, were withdrawn.

I move, as amendment

When is a person under the influence of liquor? If a person has taken a glass of beer, is he then under the influence of liquor? Surely it must be laid down that he is under the influence to such an extent that it interferes with his control of the motor vehicle.

That can be left to the court.

No, no discretion is left to the court. We are dealing here with an Act. You might have taken a glass of beer or a ginger beer … The position is that is is a dangerous provision. Surely it must affect the control of the car. You cannot simply say that there will be redress against you if you are under the influence of liquor.

May I, before we take the motion, move—

I object.

Then I give notice to move to-morrow. With the leave of the House, I wish to move the motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means in a slightly amended form, so as to include notice of Motion No. II. I think that will simplify the procedure and the discussion. I would like to move then—

That the House go into Committee of Ways and Means to consider the following resolutions:

I. Income Tax (Normal Tax and Super Tax).

1. (1) That, subject to an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament, and to such amendments of Act No. 31 of 1941 as may be provided therein, there shall be paid as from the first day of July, 1942, on all incomes received by or accrued to or in favour of or deemed to have been received by or accrued in favour of all persons from any source within, or deemed to be within, the Union-
   1. (a) a tax (to be called the Normal Tax), the rates of which for the year of assessment ending the thirtieth day of June, 1942, shall be—
      1. (i) in the case of companies the sole or principal business of which in the Union is mining for gold, for each pound of taxable income, three shillings;
      2. (ii) in the case of companies the sole or principal business of which in the Union is mining for diamonds, for each pound of taxable income, four shillings;
      3. (iii) in the case of all other public companies, for each pound of taxable income, three shillings and sixpence;
      4. (iv) in the case of persons other than those referred to in subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii), for each pound of taxable income eighteen pence increased by one one-thousandth of a penny for each pound of the taxable income in excess of one pound, subject to a maximum rate of three shillings and threepence in every pound: Provided that for a married person the rate for each pound of taxable income shall be fifteen pence increased by one one-thousandth of a penny for each pound of the taxable income in excess of one pound, subject to a maximum rate of three shillings in every pound;
      5. (v) in the case of any company or person other than a company who derives any portion of his income from mining in the Union for gold, in respect of each pound of the taxable amount so derived, a percentage determined in accordance with the following formula—
         y = 40-500/x
         in which y represents such percentage, and x the ratio, expressed as a percentage, which the taxable income derived from mining for gold bears to the income derived therefrom:
         Provided that the tax determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (v) shall be payable, in addition to any tax determined in accordance
         with sub-paragraphs (i), _(ii), (iii) and (iv); and
   2. (b) a tax (to be called the Super Tax), the rates of which for the year of assessment ending the thirtieth day of June, 1942, shall be—
      For each pound of the income subject to Super Tax two shillings increased by one four-hundredth of a penny for each pound of such income in excess of one pound, subject to a maximum rate of seven shillings and sixpence in every pound.
2. (2) That the rates fixed by sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph (1) shall be the rates fixed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 and sub-section (2) of Section 23 of Act No. 31 of 1941, respectively.

II. Gold Mines Special Contribution.

That, subject to an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament amending Act No. 25 of 1940 (as amended), the Gold Mines Special Contribution shall be calculated and levied at the rate of 20 per cent. on the dutiable amount.

III. Trade Profits Special Levy.

1. (1) That, subject to an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament, there shall be paid for the benefit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, subject to such definitions, conditions, exceptions, and exemptions as may be provided in the said Act, a levy (to be called the Trade Profits Special Levy), at the rate specified in paragraph (2) hereunder, by all persons deriving income from trade and having as a pre-war standard for purposes of the levy of excess profits duty under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1940 (Act No. 25 of 1940), an amount which is greater than the statutory percentage, and exceeds three thousand pounds, in respect of—
   1. (a) the additional amount on which any such person would have been liable for excess profits duty, and
   2. (b) so much of the amount in respect of which any such person is entitled to a refund of excess profits duty in terms of paragraph (c) or (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the said Act, as exceeds the amount in respect of which he would have been entitled to such a refund,

if his pre-war standard for the purposes of the levy of excess profits duty had been the statutory percentage or three thousand pounds, whichever is the greater.

1. (2)
   1. (a) The levy on each pound of the amount subject to the levy shall be eight pence for each completed one-tenth of the amount described in parapragh (b) which is contained in the amount subject to the levy: Provided that—
      1. (i) the levy in respect of the period of assessment ended upon the thirtieth day of June, 1942, shall not exceed six shillings and eight pence on each pound of the amount subject to the levy; and
      2. (ii) the rate at which such levy shall be payable in respect of any succeeding period of assessment shall not exceed a rate the imposition of which on the amount subject to the levy in respect of that period, would result in the payment of the levy on the aggregate of the amounts subject to the levy in respect of that period and of all previous periods of assessment at the rate of six shillings and eight pence on each pound of such aggregate.
   2. (b) The amount referred to in paragraph (a) shall be the amount by which the pre-war standard of the person concerned exceeds the statutory percentage or three thousand pounds, whichever is the greater.

IV. Personal and Savings Fund Levy.

That, subject to an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament and subject to such definitions, conditions, exceptions, adjustments and exemptions to be provided in such Act—

1. (a) there shall be charged, levied and collected annually for the benefit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund as from the first day of July, 1942, a tax (to be called the Personal and Savings Fund Levy) on every person, other than a company, based on his taxable income for the purposes of normal tax, the normal tax payable by him, his income subject to super tax and the super tax payable by him, as determined under the provisions of Act No. 31 of 1941 for the year of assessment ended on the thirtieth day of June, 1941, and each and every year of assessment ended on the thirtieth day of June thereafter, at the following rates—
   1. (i) a basic tax of five pounds if the taxable income for the purposes of normal tax plus the dividends of such person amounts to two hundred and fifty pounds or more for the relevant year of assessment; Provided that if such person is married and his taxable income for the purpose of normal tax plus his dividends does not exceed three hundred pounds, the basic tax payable by him shall be three pounds; and
   2. (ii) twenty per cent. of the normal tax payable by such person for the relevant year of assessment; and
   3. (iii) ten per cent. of the super tax payable by such person for the relevant year of assessment;
2. (b) there shall be paid from time to time to the credit of the Loan Account referred to in the General Loans Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1917 (Act No. 22 of 1917), out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, sums equivalent to fifty per cent. of the levy paid at the rates provided in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (a) (other than the proviso to sub-paragraph (i)) and sixty-six and two-thirds per cent. of the levy paid at the rate provided in the said proviso; and there shall be issued to each person in respect of whose tax payment any such sum is so payable to the credit of the said Loan Account, a special redeemable stamp or certificate for the sum so payable.

V. Fixed Property Profits Tax.

That, subject to an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament, there shall be paid for the benefit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, subject to such definitions, conditions, exceptions and exemptions as may be provided in the said Act, a tax (to be called the Fixed Property Profits Tax) on—

1. (1) the profit realised by any person on the alienation for any consideration of—
   1. (i) immovable property referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b), or
   2. (ii) any share referred to in the said paragraphs in any company which is a private company as defined in sub-section (3) of section thirtythree of the Income Tax Act, 1941 (Act No. 31 of 1941) and whose income, in the opinion of the Commissioner, is or will be mainly derived, either directly or indirectly, from immovable property or dealings in immovable property,

which was acquired for any consideration; and

1. (2) so much of any amount which accrues to any intermediary in respect of any such alienation as exceeds five per cent. of the consideration for the immovable property or shares, as the case may be, alienated, at the following rates:
   In the case of any such alienation of immovable property or shares, as the case may be, acquired—
   1. (a) on or after the first day of October, 1939, but before the twenty-sixth day of February, 1942, six shillings and eight pence; and
   2. (b) on or after the twenty-sixth day of February, 1942, thirteen shillings and four pence,

for each pound of the amounts subject to the tax in terms of paragraphs (1) and (2).

VI. Estate Duty.

That, subject to an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament amending Act No. 29 of 1922 (as amended), the rates of estate duty on the dutiable amount of the estates of persons who die on or after the first day of April, 1942, shall be:—

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

(2) the excise duty on—

motor fuel manufactured in the Union, as set forth hereunder be increased to the extent shown.

1. (3) excise duties shall be charged, levied, collected and paid, for the benefit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund on tobacco manufactured in the Union, whether from imported unmanufactured tobacco or not—
   1. (a) ready for smoking in tobacco pipes or in the form of cake, plug or stick; or
   2. (b) in the form of cigars or cigarillos,
      at the rates set forth hereunder—

(4) that excise licence fees be imposed, as shown hereunder:

This is a general motion asking the House to approve in principle of our taxation proposals prior to the discussion of these taxation proposals in Committee of Ways and Means. Now I have already dealt at length on two occasions with our taxation proposals. I did so in my Budget speech and I did so again in my reply to the Budget debate. I do not therefore propose to burden the House by repeating details which have already been laid before the House. May I make one general remark before I deal with these taxation proposals one by one. The total amount that we are asking the country to provide by way of additional taxation is certainly large, but I do not consider that in present circumstances the additional burden which we wish the House to impose on the country is an excessive burden. I have already in that connection referred to the calculations which have been made of our war expenditure in relation to our national income. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) on a previous occasion talked of the desirability of having the figures taken out as to our national income. Well, it has been done. I referred to such figures in my Budget speech and since then the results of the investigation made have been published in the South African Journal of Economics. I would again remind the House that our war expenditure in 1940—’41 represented only 12 per cent. of our national income, that is of the income of South Africa as a whole.

For the same year?

Yes, for the same year. In Great Britain, for the same period, the corresponding percentage was 40. In Canada it was 25i and in Australia 22. Hon. members may have noticed a recent statement which indicates that in the year that lies ahead the United States of America are contemplating an expenditure of 50 per cent. of their national income for war purposes. Since 1940—’41 there has been a substantial increase in our national income as a whole. It is true that there has also been an increase in taxation and we are now contemplating a further increase, but I do not think that the percentage, even with this additional amount of taxation now proposed, will be considerably higher than that 12 per cent. figure—I doubt if it will be more than 15 per cent. or 16 per cent. The fact is, as shewn by these same calculations to which I have referred, that after allowing for our war expenditure, the national income which is available for consumption, is still increasing; despite the big increases in our war expenditure there is still, after the tax gatherer has taken all that is required for that purpose, an increasing amount available for the consumption of the nation as a whole. In 1938—’39 according to figures which I think can now be taken as pretty accurate, the national income available for consumption was £316.2 millions. In 1939—’40 according to figures which are very nearly accurate the figure was £357 millions and in 1940—’41 according to a preliminary estimate which is stated to be very conservative, the figure had grown to £367 millions.

After paying taxation?

After providing for the whole of our war expenditure. Not merely the amount provided for out of taxation …

Is that providing for ordinary expenditure as well?

That is available for consumption by the public. I do not know whether my hon. friend has seen the article to which I refer …

No, I have not.

I shall be happy to show it to the hon. member. Our taxation may therefore appear to be heavy, and indeed it is heavy in relation to the level of taxation to which we grew accustomed in the piping times of peace, but even with these additional proposals the taxation burdens of this country will be by no means excessive in relation to the capacity of the country to carry those burdens. Now, let me take these resolutions in turn. The first resolution requires hardly any comment. It is the annual resolution in regard to income tax. Hon. members are aware, no doubt, that as one of the conventions of our constitution the rates of income tax have to be voted every year. We do not lay down the rates of income tax for more than a year at a time and whether there is a change proposed or not a resolution has to be passed imposing the income tax. That is the resolution now before us. It contains no change in the rates imposed by the House last year, and embodied in the Income Tax Act last year. It is true that we are proposing a surchage on the income tax, but that does not fall under resolution No. 1; it falls under resolution No. 4. Resolution No. 1 therefore is merely a renewal of the income tax rates as laid down last year. Then resolution No. 2 deals with the rate of the gold mines’ special contribution. There we are proposing, as hon. members are aware, an increase on last year’s figure. Last year the rate was 16 per cent. We are now proposing to raise it to 20 per cent. an additional 4 per cent., which will bring us in £1,696,000 according to our estimates. I have already dealt in my reply to the Budget debate with the suggestion that we have left the mines off too lightly. I am not going to repeat all I said on that occasion—I only want to make this twofold point again—there are two points which really are connected. The one is that this taxation has to be paid not by the big companies but by the shareholders in those companies, spread throughout South Africa, and also outside South Africa. The other point is that here we are dealing with a commodity, the price of which is fixed. It is true that when the war began there was an appreciation in the price of gold. That has already been dealt with as far as taxation is concerned, but since then the price of gold has remained fixed while the cost of gold mining has been going up. That means that any additional taxation can only be provided for by way of a reduction of dividends. There is no elasticity in the case of gold today, as there is in the case of what is known as trade. I come then to the third resolution—to the most important of all our proposals, the most important as it is also the most productive—that is the trade profits special levy. Being as it is the most productive of our proposals, it has, not unnaturally, attracted most attention. This is, as the name signifies, a tax on trade. To that extent it is a differential tax. We are selecting one part of the national income for taxation, but I think it is a differentiation which under present circumstances is justified. We already have that differentiation as part of our war time taxation machinery. We accepted the principle of differential taxation in trade when we accepted the excess profits duty, and this principle of a special trade levy is merely an extension of the excess profits duty— not in the rate of that duty but in the scope of the duty. The 13s. 4d. excess profits duty rate is to be maintained, but we propose that a levy shall be imposed on profits below the pre-war standard level where that pre-war standard is in turn above the statutory percentage level, in other words, where the pre-war standard is not the statutory percentage of 8 per cent., but some percentage on capital in excess of that. The levy will apply to the difference. I said we have accepted the principle of differential taxation on trade in previous years as part of our war time taxation fabric. It is therefore hardly necessary for me to justify it now. I would merely say that trade is the part of our economic structure which is the most receptive to war conditions. Trade is therefore best able to bear special taxation, and if hon. members will again refer to that paper, to those calculations to which I have drawn their attention, they will notice that my statement is also borne out by the figures given there. Let me deal a little more in detail with this trade profits special levy. I think it has been felt by many for some time that our excess profits duty did not as a measure of war taxation go far enough. In itself, of course, it is a severe tax, a tax of 13s. 4d. in the £, even if only on excess profits, is a high tax. But the point is this: that the excess profits duty lets off lightly the taxpayer with the high pre-war standard which is based on his profits before the war, as compared with the taxpayer with a low prewar standard, in many cases with a pre-war standard calculated merely as the minimum standard. Moreover, the present tax gives the taxpayer with a high pre-war standard a distinct competitive advantage as compared with the trader with a lower pre-war standard. That means that the taxpayers with high pre-war standards have hitherto formed a favoured class in respect of war taxation. They have borne a smaller portion of the burden of war taxation than trade in general has done, or than other traders have done. If we were to propose, as some thought we should, an increase in the rate of the excess profits duty, we would merely be accentuating that differentiation. We have taken the other course of obtaining the extra money which we require, and at the same time reducing that differentiation, by imposing a levy not on the excess profits but on the advantage which the man with the high pre-war standard has over the man with the low pre-war standard. It may be useful, and I think it will be interesting if I were to compare the procedure of other countries in this regard. In Australia, as the hon. member for Kensington has pointed out, there is no excess profits duty. What takes its place is a war time company tax, which is superimposed on the ordinary Australian company tax, which in itself exceeds our normal company tax by 50 to 60 per cent. in its rates. Over and above that relatively high normal company tax there is in Australia a war time company tax, and under that war time company tax—it may be even worse now, but when I had the last details all profits over 5 per cent. were liable to taxation, whether they were excess profits or not. On the first per cent. above 5 per cent. there was a tax of 4 per cent. On the next per cent. it was 8 per cent., and so it went on until you reached the stage when all profits, over 19 per cent., I think, were liable to a tax of 60 per cent.

It now goes up to 78 per cent.

My hon. friend has later information than I have.

That is only as far as companies are concerned.

Yes, but there are high rates in respect of income tax. At the bottom they are very much higher than ours, though at the top ours approximate theirs. In Canada there is an excess profits tax. There you have the normal income tax on companies of from 18 per cent. to 20 per cent., according to the method of computation of profits. That, again, is more than our normal company tax. Over and above that there is an excess profits duty which is calculated in one of two ways. Either it is 75 per cent. of the excess over the pre-war standard, after the income tax had been deducted, or it is 22 per cent. of the net profits, the total net profits, before the income tax has been deducted, whichever is the greater. Now that means that every company, whether it is earning excess profits or not, has to pay in addition to its 18 per cent. normal company tax, a 22 per cent. tax on its total profits by way of excess profits tax. That means that Canada has faced the same position as we are facing now, and it has done it in a much harsher way than we are proposing to do. It is, of course, not easy to compare the Canadian system or any system with ours. I have, however, through the kindness of a very competent economist, had some calculations made and as the general result of these calculations it can be said that our system as it will be with excess profits plus trade profits special levy will be much less severe than the Canadian system on concerns with small and moderate profits, concerns with profits say up to 50 per cent.—if we may call that moderate.

Not very moderate.

Perhaps I should have said relatively moderate, but it is only when you get to concerns with very high profits that our system is more burdensome than the Canadian system—but only slightly. On the whole our system, if this tax which I now propose is adopted, will be very much less burdensome than the Canadian or the Australian system. Now of course, there have been criticisms of this particular proposal. I have heard a good deal of the inconvenience and the complexity of our systems and the addition of yet another tax. I do not regard this as another tax. I regard this as an extension of the excess profits duty, but on the general question of the complexity of the taxation system I can only say that I regard that as inevitable in present circumstances. This is a time of violent economic changes; the over-riding importance of war finances necessarily has to receive very special consideration, and in those circumstances some measure of complication is essential in any attempt to arrive at equity. If we had to resort to more simple measures I think those more simple measures would provide a less, rather than a more equitable system. It has been said that instead of having this trade levy we should have spread the burden by increasing the rates of normal income tax and super tax. That sounds alright, but when you come to analyse what would be the effect on the rates of normal income and super tax of taking an additional £4,000,000 from that source, you begin to sit up and take notice, when you realise the very serious hardship that would be imposed.

Why take it from only a portion of the community?

Because we are taking it from that portion of the community which reacts most readily to war conditions. I shall deal with that point in more detail later. I said that this levy is to be regarded as an extension of the excess profits duty. It is conceived in the first instance as a method of removing the present inequities attaching to the excess profits duty. Therefore we must limit this tax to trade just as the excess profits duty is limited …

Why leave out the professions?

We are not leaving out the professions. The question is asked: “Why not bring in employment, why not bring in the salaried man and income from investments?” If that were done it would involve the re-casting of the excess profits duty no less than this. If we were right in imposing the excess profits duty on trade as such then surely its extension as limited to trade is also right? I want again to make the point—and here I come to the question asked by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell)—that speaking generally in time of war trade earns fortuitous profits by reason of the existence of abnormal conditions. I have already referred to these figures in the analysis of the national income to which I drew the attention of the House. The facts bear that out. In time of war trade earns fortuitous profits by reason of the existence of abnormal conditions. I do not say that that applies to every trader; I don’t say it applies to everyone whose income falls within the definition of trade …

It certainly does not apply to professional men.

I think it does. Speaking generally that does apply to trade, and I contend that the incidence of the tax, of the special tax which we require, should fall on those whose incomes are enhanced by these profits. When you come to incomes from investment the position is different. Under war conditions the rate of interest returns has been dropping. The rantier is no better off. His income does react unfavourably to war conditions. The other thing happens. When you come to the salaried man …

He earns more than ever before.

The man at the bottom, yes, but that does not apply to the man we are trying to get at. The bigger salaried man is no better off. His salary does not respond to extra profits. His salary tends to remain stationary, and in fact in many cases its real value is lower than before. That is the position. A special point has been raised in regard to professions. Under our legislation we group professions with trade. The definition which we re-enacted last year of trade is this:

The principle therefore which we have adopted in our taxation measures so far is that professions go with trade in the economic life of the country. If trade is good, the professions benefit, if trade is poor, the professions suffer. I think that is correct as a general rule, and certainly in time of war professional men also tend to benefit by the fact that some of their competitors are away on active service.

Does not that apply to salaried men too?

No, I don’t think so.

If business is good, salaries are higher.

Salaried people at the top don’t depend on profits. If they do I would point out that under the excess profits duty we can get at them. Where salaries go up with profits we have means of charging back these excessive salaries for purposes of excess profits duty. I don’t therefore see—and I am sure this House, which consists so largely of professional men —would not like to confer special favours on professional men as a class—but I do not see how we can get away from the procedure which we have followed in the past in this regard. It would indeed be very difficult to alter the definition of trade. I would like to see how it could be done. It is by no means easy to define “profession.” Of course, there are many men who regard themselves as professional men but whom others do not regard as professional men. We should be creating many anomalies if we started defining profession for the purpose of inclusion or exclusion from the definition.

What about professional politicians?

I would not go so far as to include them. But take a masseur; he might be defined as a professional man, but then there is the chiropractor—would he be defined as a professional man? And then there is the professor—you have the professor of music, but what about the professor of dancing or of palmistry? And then you have the old grievance of the analytical chemist against the gentleman whom he prefers to call a pharmacist, but who calls himself a chemist. It is not easy to draw the line, and I would be very loath to bring upon my shoulders and on the shoulders of those associated with me the very difficult task of defining what “profession” is for the purpose of exclusion from this tax.

Are you including the farming profession?

Yes, but not as a profession.

You are not depending on what you will get from the farmer.

No, but I think that in spite of what we hear of the farmers’ troubles there have been some farmers who have made substantial contributions to our excess profits duty—and good luck to them. Now I come to the fourth of these resolutions, that is the one dealing with the personal and savings fund levy. There I think there is very little I need say. That whole point has been adequately covered. That proposal, as hon. members are aware, provides for a flat rate varying according to the amount of income, and the marital status of the taxpayer, plus a percentage of income tax, and it allocates the amount paid in that way between the revenue and the savings fund. I have already, in reply to the Budget debate, said that having regard to the fact that this resolution speaks of exceptions, adjustments and exemptions, we propose to provide in the Bill itself for a rebate of £1 per child from the flat rate up to a maximum of £5. That, I think, is known to the House, and I do not need to enlarge upon it, therefore. Then I come to the net proposal, the fixed property tax, where I would draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the original resolution as appearing on page 327 is replaced by an amended resolution on page 428. I gave my reasons for the institution of this tax in my Budget speech. Its main object, of course, apart from the revenue it will bring in, is to discourage speculation in land. Undoubtedly in present circumstances the imposition of a tax of this kind is to the advantage of the community as a whole, and as far as rural land is concerned I would contend that it is not least to the advantage of the farmer. We know what over-capitalisation means. We are still suffering from the overcapitalisation of the past, and in so far as we seek to check over-capitalisation, I think we are doing a national service. Generally, I think this tax has been welcomed as an attempt to deal with this particular problem. Of course, an attempt has been made to represent this tax as a land tax. It is not a land tax, it is a tax on the profit derived from the sale of land. As such, it is a temporary tax, having regard to the conditions of South Africa and of the world.

Why not confine it to land?

Does my hon. friend want to create another favoured class? I contend that exactly the same evils apply today to the sale of land with buildings on it, as apply in the case of rural land.

I do not agree with you.

Then I am afraid that we must agree to differ. The tax will only become payable in respect of the first sale of land subsequent to a transfer which has taken place since the 1st October, 1939. If property last changed hands before that date, and is now sold, the tax will not be applied.

What about property where the actual sale takes place, but where there was no transfer?

We shall have to deal with that when we come to the Bill. In the case of land last transferred before the tax was announced, and now transferred again, the rate will be 6s. 8d. in the £. In the case of land sold after the date of the Budget, and then transferred again, the rate will be the excess profit rate of 13s. 4d. A special question arose in connection with this tax in regard to the position of companies, who, in effect transfer land by transferring shares. I have already indicated that it is our intention to deal with such companies, and that is why the resolution was submitted after the Budget in an amended form. We propose that this tax will also be payable on the transfer of shares in private companies, as defined in the Income Tax Act, where the commissioner finds that the income of that company comes mainly from fixed property. A discretion is given to the commissioner to decide what is a property holding company, but we propose to make his decision subject to appeal. There are many points of detail which arise in connection with this proposal, and I have no doubt that the Bill will be carefully examined when it comes before the House. At the present moment we are only concerned with the principle. There is the position of the mortgagee who is compelled to buy in a property on the default of the mortgagor. There is the possibility of evasion by way of payment of option money, which is really a part of the purchase price. There is the question of allowances for improvements and other items. There is the question of the remuneration of the builder, whose sole or main occupation it is to buy land and to build houses, and then to sell the houses. These are all points we have had to consider in drafting the details of the Bill. I think the House will find when the Bill is before it, that these points have been satisfactorily met. The next proposal is that in regard to estate duty, and I think this is a proposal which was received with the largest measure of unanimity. I take it that we are all more ready to envisage taxation which is payable after we are dead than taxation payable while we are alive. No word of criticism was levelled at this tax during the budget debate. I would therefore only repeat that in this proposal we are making the progressive rate smoother and more logical, and in the second place we are increasing the rate at the top, raising it from 17 per cent. to 25 per cent. Finally, there is before the House a resolution dealing with customs and excise proposals. On pages 328 and 329 we have the budget proposals in regard to customs and excise. As hon. members are aware, we propose to impose an excise duty on tobacco and cigars, and that, despite what was said by hon. members during the budget debate, doubtless misled by Press statements, is to be balanced by a corresponding customs duty on imported cigars. Then we are proposing a customs duty on motor fuel which will be balanced by a corresponding excise duty on the locally produced article. And finally, there is a tax on films, to which I referred as something we are instituting to make good our losses in respect of the revenue from tea. Then there are other proposals which will be found on later pages. I would draw the attention of hon. members to page 414. There we have, in the first place, certain minor adjustments of customs duties which are put forward on the basis of recommendations by the Board of Trade in connection with industrial development and industrial requirements of South Africa. But these are all of a minor nature, and I do not propose to delay the House with that now. I can give any information which is required in that connection to hon. members at a later stage. Further, on that page, supplemented by the third list on page 532, there are provisions for the imposition of certain excise licence fees. In introducing the Excise Licence Bill, I stated that as part of that Bill, we thought it desirable to bring about more uniformity in the matter of excise licences. There are certain articles in respect of which licences are required, and other articles in respect of which licences are not required. We are proposing to make the position more logical and uniform now. In order to do so, the Committee is required to approve of our proposals before they can be embodied in the Bill. I hope I have, without undue detail, without repeating unduly what I have said before, indicated the scope of our proposals, and I now beg to move in accordance with the notice given.

I second.

When I was on the point of going to the Select Committee on Public Accounts this morning, I found out for the first time that the Minister’s taxation proposals were the first order on the Order Paper for today. That was the first time I heard of it. I don’t want to complain and I do not deny the Minister the right to change the Order Paper about as he sees fit. If the Minister imagines that he is doing something clever by trying to surprise the Opposition and by scoring a small political advantage over us, very well, let him do so; I only want to tell him that I do not think that by doing so he is rendering a service either to the House or to the country. I think the least we can expect from the Minister is that when he moves something from the bottom of the Order Paper to the top to inform us of it the night before.

May I say a few words in explanation? First of all, it is always possible for hon. members opposite to know what will be on the Order Paper the next day; all that information can be had, but I want to say that if the hon. member had asked me this morning to agree to the adjournment of the debate after my introductory speech, I would have been willing to do so. I am still prepared to do so if the hon. member wishes me to, but as the hon. member knows it is desirable to make the relevant Bills available as soon as possible, and he knows that we cannot introduce the Bills, before the resolutions, which we now have before us, are passed. So it is a matter of time. If I can get the assurance from the House that we shall get these resolutions passed by Thursday next, I am quite prepared to accept the adjournment of the debate. I only want to be able to introduce the Bills on Thursday so that they can be printed in time for consideration. I merely want to bring this fact to the notice of the House.

I only want to say that to my mind it is a matter of courtesy and politeness.

But the Minister is now meeting you in a reasonable way.

When the agenda is altered in such an important respect the Minister can at least notify us the eveningbefore, to give us some opportunity of studying the matter. It is for that reason that I took the unusual step today of objecting to the Minister’s motion for the House to go into Committee at once.

That was not the motion.

Now let us come to the Minister’s taxation proposals. When the Minister announced his proposals in his Budget speech, the main objection we raised was that the Minister’s proposals, as they looked to us, were half-baked. It seemed that the Minister had suddenly found that he needed more money and that he had to search around for sources of revenue, and that then, without having properly and thoroughly gone into matters, and without having ascertained how each of his new taxes would affect the public, and not only the public but also commerce and industries, he put forward his proposals. The charge we made against the Minister at the time was that the proposals were half-baked. We immediately drew attention to certain aspects of these proposals. For instance, I discussed the principle contained in the proposal about the personal tax. I told the Minister that his proposals meant that the married man with six or seven children and an income of £301 would under his taxation proposals pay just as much every year to the Exchequer as the man with four children and an income of £600. The Minister at once felt that that criticism was justified and he altered the scheme. We are glad he has done so. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) also pointed out in what respect the Minister’s proposals were half-baked. He pointed out that the profit tax on immovable property would not really affect the rich man but the poor man. It is the poor man, who buys a house for £1,000 and sells it for £1,500, who will be caught, but the rich man who builds a block of flats for £100,000 and who turns himself into a company, and who, if he sells one day, only sells his company, is not affected in any way. The Minister did not realise that. But it shows how half-baked the Minister’s taxation proposals were, and how little he realised what their practical effect was going to be. Now, let me give the House an instance to show how half-baked the Minister’s taxation proposals still are in their present form: I take the case of four people in South Africa today, all with an income of £10,000. This is not war profit, because I am taking the case of people who had the same income before the war. Before the war, too, these people had an income of £10,000 and they have the same income today, so that there is no question of war profit. Now, let us first of all take the case of the factory owner, the man who wants to build up something, to construct something, with his money—the man who takes a risk by investing his money in a factory. He does not make any war profits; his profits are the same as they were before the war. He is still making a profit of £10,000. Now he is penalised by the new tax on trade profits introduced by the Minister. He now has to pay 6s. 8d. on everything he makes beyond the legal percentage laid down. The legal percentage is 8 per cent. on his capital investment. But assuming 8 per cent. of his capital investment amounts to £7,000, then that is his legal percentage, and on anything over that he has to pay 6s. 8d. in the £. That is to say, he has to pay 6s. 8d. in the £ on £3,000. I am now putting the position broadly, because we have not got this Bill before us, and we cannot say exactly what the tax is going to be. However, he will now have to give up 6s. 8d, on the £3,000 because £3,000 is the amount over and above his legal percentage. That is the one case. That is the case of the man who invests his money in a factory and who takes a risk. Now let us come to the second man, the professional man, say, for instance, a doctor or a dentist, or a barrister, who has an income today of £10,000 and who also made that income before the war. Again there is no question of war profit. I think we all realise that if a doctor or a dentist or an advocate makes £10,000 a year he has to work day and night; he earns his money by the sweat of his brow and he has to work very, very hard indeed to make it. Now, what do the taxation proposals say? Everything he makes over and above £3,000, that is to say £7,000, is liable to a tax of 6s. 8d. in the £. Hon. members may perhaps say that that is how it should be in the case of a man who earns such a lot of money. Then let us take some other cases. Take for instance the Chairman of the Chamber of Mines in Johannesburg. Let us assume that he gets a salary of £10,000 per year. How much of that does he pay the State? Not a blue cent. for the purposes of these taxation proposals. He is a salaried man. He does not work half as hard as the dentist or the doctor who earns £10,000 per year; he is Chairman of the Chamber of Mines where he gets at least £10,000 per year and he does not surrender one penny of that for these purposes. Now, take the case of the rich rantier in Cape Town. I could mention quite a number of names, but I do not propose doing so. They do not invest a penny of their money in factories, or in anything involving risk. What do they do now? They look for safe investments. They first of all take bonds, perhaps they buy shares, Government Bonds; they sit still and they do not draw usurious rates of interest. Take the case of a man like that with an income of £10,000. He does not pay a penny to the State for the purpose of this particular tax. Here we have four different cases. Is that a fair allocation of taxation, of taxation burden, at a time of war? I am going to mention an instance from this House. We have the Minister of Finance; before the war he was not a Minister. It was just when war broke out, as a result of the war, that he became Minister and he gets £2,500 per year. I don’t begrudge the Minister getting that; he is one of the men in the Cabinet who perhaps really earns his money. There are very few who earn it. Under this form of taxation he does not pay anything. But what about the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan). He was a Minister just before war broke out — just before the 4th September, 1939. As a result of the war he lost that and now he has to practice as a barrister. If he makes as much out of his practice as he got as a Minister then he has to give up everything, he has to pay 13s. 4d. on his earnings above £1,500.

That is not correct.

In terms of the law it is so. The Minister may make exceptions but in terms of the law that is the position. He is allowed £1,500 but on everything over and above £1,500 he has to pay 13s. 4d. in the £. In regard to the whole of the Minister’s taxation system I must say that I find it so objectionable that I cannot find a good word for it. I am not going to move the rejection of all the Minister’s taxation proposals but I can assure the Minister that when we go into Committee of Ways and Means we shall fight every one of his proposals as hard as we can. I have given the instance of these four people, all with incomes of £10,000, and their incomes do not arise from war conditions. The one has to pay 6s. 8d. in the £ and the other pays nothing. Can we defend such an unfair state of affairs? Now let us come to the second important point. The Minister proposes to increase the Gold Mines’ special contribution from 16 per cent. to 20 per cent. On another occasion the Minister went out of his way to tell us how much more the poor mines have been paying in the last few years. The hon. member for Kensington, too is always keen on telling us about that. They tell us how during the last few years, since 1937, the mines have been paying more and more into the coffers of the State. The question which I want to ask is this: what special contributions are the mines asked to make to our war expenditure? That is the only question I want to ask. The question is not what taxes the mines are paying, as a result of the gold premium having gone up, the question is what special contribution they are making and have been making to our war expenditure since 1939? I have a paper before me prepared by the Minister himself and in that paper he admits that the only contributions made by the mines to the war expenditure till the end of this year, that is to say for the past financial year, is £6,730,000. This year the Minister proposes to increase the special contribution from 16 per cent. to 20 per cent., that is to say he asks for an additional £1,640,000 from the mines. That in round figures amounts to £8,300,000.

Extra war taxation.

That is the amount the mines contribute to the war taxation. Now. I have to tell the House that the extra taxation which the public as a whole contribute to the war expenditure amounts to more than £35,000,000 today, namely, £35,750,000. The contribution of the mines is only £8,300,000, and the public in general contribute £35,000,000. The Minister talks of the increasing working costs of the mines. Why did not the Minister tell the House that when he imposed the first special contribution of 9 per cent. instead of the Havenga tax he provided for a £3,000,000 increase in working costs? This is the only industry in the country which the Minister has made an allowance for the increase in working costs, and the working costs again constitute the reason now why we must not put a heavier tax on the “poor” mines. I did not expect the Minister to have kept silent in regard to that particular tax. Unfortunately I have not got all the figures for 1941 to show the position of the mining industry today, but I have the details for 1940. Now, let me tell the House what the position of the mining industry was in 1940. The mining industry in 1940 reached a new zenith of prosperity in every respect. The production of the gold mines increased by 1,250,000 fine ounces, and rose to 14,000,000 fine ounces; the value of the production increased in one year by £19,000,000 to £118,000,000. We are all told to be satisfied with a little less during this time of war, but not the gold mines, because the dividends of the gold mining industry went up in one year by £1,250,000—they went up from £19,990,000 to £21,280,000. The dividends in that year went up by one and a quarter million pounds to twenty-one and a quarter million pounds. That was not due to the fact that the ore worked was of a higher grade, because the grade of the ore worked that year dropped from 4.2 to 4.1 dwt. The year 1940 was one of the best years the gold mining industry has ever had, yet that is the industry which the Minister selects for lenient treatment. It is the “poor” mining “bosses” who have to be treated so very leniently.

Because they are also the Government’s bosses.

I think I may as well quote a few more figures. The Minister of Finance told us what taxes the mines paid during the past few years. We know what was the result of our going off the gold standard, and of the fact that the price of gold went up. The price today is twice as high as it was in 1933. Now we know that that is not something which the mines have earned, but we know that that happened as a result of a stroke of the pen by the former Minister of Finance. The predecessor of the Minister of Finance himself stated in this House that the gold premium was actually a subsidy paid by the people to the gold mining industry. I have calculated what the amount of the gold premium is which the gold mines have received since 1933. Altogether it amounts to £283,000,000. Of that, the State has been paid £87,000,000 by way of taxes. The State’s share in the profits was £39,000,000. That is to say, that the State has got £126,000,000 of this gold premium which amounted to £283,000,000.

Does that include mining leases?

Yes, it also includes leases. The gold mines’ share was £148,000,000. That is what they got in dividends. It is interesting to know that the dividends paid out since 1924 amount to the enormous sum of £218,000,000. If we look at the report of the Government Mining Engineer, we find that the total amount of capital invested in the gold mines is £119,000,000. The dividend since 1924 amount to a sum of £218,000,000. That is to say, that since 1924 the amount paid out in dividends is nearly twice as much as the total amount invested in the gold mines themselves.

And on top of that they are still providing for the redemption of capital.

When one takes note of these figures one should also remember that the gold mines are the only industry in respect of which the Minister has made provision for an amount of £3,000,000 for the increase in working costs. And that being so the Minister should stop his inane talk about the “poor” gold mines being so heavily taxed. The attitude adopted by this side of the House is that at a time like the present, the gold mines are not bearing their rightful share of the taxes, which they can be expected to bear, and that they should be made to pay a little more by way of taxation. Now let us go on to deal with another of the Minister’s taxation proposals. First of all I wish to pause for a moment at the proposed profits tax on fixed property. The Minister’s argument is as follows: In this way he wants to try to prevent an unsound increase in the price of land. I believe that I understood the Minister correctly that that was the main reason why he was imposing this tax. He said that we had had experience of unhealthy rises in the price of land, and he told us that it had led to over capitalisation. Let me say this, to the Minister, that he is certainly not going to achieve his object by this tax of his. I think the Minister realises what the danger is in that connection. There is an amount of something like £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 lying idle in our banks. That is money which people are leaving in the banks free of interest so that the moment they see that the value of our currency drops they will be able to invest that money in immovable property. At the moment the people are not yet nervous about the value of our money. Nothing has happened yet to make them feel panicky, but the Minister realises that the moment there is a further drop in sterling and the Minister allows our money to drop with sterling, the public will get a fright and become scared of the value of money, and they will immediately take that money which is lying there without drawing interest and invest it in land. And if that happens this tax of the Minister’s is not going to have any effect in preventing that position from arising. Those people are not buying land for specualtive purposes, they are only doing so to secure their money. They will all buy at the same time and it will rush up the price of land. If the Minister thinks he is going to stop the price of property going up by that tax, he is deceiving himself. Now I want to put a few questions to the Minister in regard to this tax. Assuming I have bought a house after the outbreak of war, that is, after the 30th September, 1939, for which I have paid £2,000. I then have to pay a tax of 6s. 8d. in the £ on any profit I make on the resale of that house. Assuming I sell the house for £2,500. Apparently there is a profit of £500. The Minister has not said anything about the commission I have to pay on that money.

That is not profit.

Very well, I bought the house for myself to live in, and meanwhile I have effected improvements to a value of £100. Is that deducted from the profit I make on the resale?

The Minister has said so.

And the cost of transfer? I want the Minister to tell us clearly what the position is going to be in regard to all those things such as commission, costs of transfer, improvements—are all those costs first of all to be deducted before the amount of the profit is calculated?

And what about the rent? If I have lived in the house myself.

Assuming I have bought an erf. We have not got the tax before us and we have to guess.

But all this will be set out in the Bill.

Yes, but we have to accept the principle of tax now, and surely we should know what we are going to vote for. The Minister cannot ask us to accept the principle and then afterwards give us a Bill which nobody wants. Assuming I buy an erf for £400 and I build a house on that erf. A good house which costs me £2,000. If I sell that house at a profit, must I still pay that 6s. 8d. in the £? I have not built that house for speculative purposes. Assuming I bought the erf before war broke out, but I built the house afterwards. Now I sell that house, am I liable for the tax then—yes or no? All these questions are put to us every day. We like to know these things. The officials are very much concerned about this Bill; there is a terrible house scarcity. Officials find it impossible to rent houses, and they are compelled to buy. Now, assuming an official is transferred to Pretoria. He cannot rent a house and is compelled to buy one; he has been compelled to do so after the outbreak of war. Now he is transferred to Cape Town. The same thing happens here. He cannot find a house to rent and he is again compelled to buy one. He has to sell his house in Pretoria and he makes a profit on it, but here in Cape Town he has to pay the new price for a house, the new price caused by the taxes which the Minister has imposed. It is going to hit people very hard, and particularly the officials. They cannot get houses, and if this type of man sells his house in Pretoria at a profit and if he has to give up 6s. 8d. or 13s. 4d. in the £ to the Minister of Finance, it is going to be very hard business. He has to buy another house in Cape Town and he has to pay the higher price caused by the Minister’s taxes, because the seller will always bear in mind the fact, and take into account the fact, that he has to pay this tax. Now that is the point. The Minister wants to try and stop inflation. He is going to cause inflation. It is so clear that I am surprised that anyone with sound commonsense fails to see it. Let me put the position this way. I bought a house since the 26th February of this year. I want to make £100 profit on that house. Now I know that if I want to make £100 profit I have to sell the house for at least £300 more than what it cost me, because £200 has to go off that £300 for the Minister of Finance. The Minister must see that he is at once causing the price of the house to go up by £200. The house scarcity in the big towns is such that one can ask practically anything one wants for a house and get it. The price of the house is fixed by the man who has bought since the 25th February, so that he can put £100 in his pocket and £200 can go to the Minister of Finance. In other words, he has to make a profit of £300. That immediately determines the price of houses. The man who sold a day before makes a profit of £300 and he puts £200 in his pocket and the Minister of Finance gets £100. The man who bought before the war takes the whole of the £300. The effect will simply be that the price of property is going to be rushed up. This tax is going to hit certain classes of people very hard. One cannot find a house to buy. My main objection to this tax is that it is going to make people try to evade the law. It is going to turn them into crooks (“skelms”). In the Transvaal the Provincial Council had a tax of this kind. People could drive a cart and horses through the provisions of that Act. As an hon. member here said, they could drive a wagon and two spans of oxen through it. They are going to do the same thing with this tax.

That tax was a very productive one all the same.

We don’t want to turn people into crooks, but that is what we are going to do with this Bill. A man sells his house with all the furniture. The furniture is worth £200, but in the contract the value of the furniture is put up two or three times.

They sell the erf with a Jersey cow on it.

Yes, that is what happens. All I can say is that the man who has designed this tax shows that he only has a theoretical knowledge of trade and commerce in this country, and that is where the Minister fails—he only has an academic knowledge.

Well, academic knowledge is better than no knowledge at all.

Yes, the Minister without Portfolio knows all about that. Naturally, there are Ministers without Portfolio, and also Ministers without brains. I only want to say this about the special tax on trade profits, that we are opposed to it in principle. We asked the Minister to amend the Excess Profits Tax, so that it would not fall unnecessarily severely on new enterprises. That is all we asked the Minister to do. Now, the Minister is not making any concessions whatsoever to new enterprises; all he does is to impose this tax on old industries, and everybody will tell him that this tax is becoming unbearable. The whole of trade and industry tell us that at the beginning of the year they cannot say what provision they have to make in the course of the year for taxes. There are no two accountants in Cape Town who would interpret these taxes alike. They cannot understand them. We want the Minister to give an explanation of these taxes long before they are imposed, so that the public may know what the nature and the effect of the taxation is going to be. We are going to fight the taxation proposals Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 tooth and nail. We are not opposed to No. 1, and that is why I am not moving anything at this stage.

While I listened to the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) this afternoon I thought of a celebrated character in the classis called Procrustes. At lunch time I looked up the history of Procrustes. That was the surname of a celebrated robber of Attica. All who fell into his hands he placed on a bed which was either too long or too short, but to which he adjusted them either by racking or by amputation until they died. This he continued until Theseus overpowered him and made him suffer the tortures which he had inflicted upon others.

That is not very original. You made the same comparison some time ago.

It is my misfortune if the hon. gentleman does not think it is very original, but I could not help thinking, when I listened to the criticism of the hon. member for George this afternoon, that the lot of the Minister of Finance is certainly a hard one. He makes his Budget proposals and those proposals are in due course criticised. If, Sir, he accepts some of those criticisms as reasonable, and adjusts his scheme of taxation accordingly, then he is jeered at by the Opposition for having introduced “half-baked” proposals. If, on the other hand, he hardens his heart, turns a deaf ear to every form of criticism, refuses to listen to any representations, however reasonable, then of course he is stigmatised as a reincarnation of Henry Burton. So, either way, Sir, it seems to me that the poor unlucky Minister of Finance is on a bed of Procrustes. Either he is too short or he is too long; if he is too short he has to be stretched out until he fits the bed; if he is too long, he has to have his feet lopped off at the hands of the executioner, my hon. friend, the member for George.

This one is too wide.

One thing I may say to the Minister and that is this. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the complaint with which the hon. member for George began his speech this afternoon. I admit that once notice is given of these resolutions, it is free to the Government to put them down on any particular day, but I do suggest Sir, that in future we might follow the same practice in regard to these Ways and Means resolutions, as we do in regard to the Budget. We know well in advance that on a certain day the Minister will introduce his Budget proposals. These taxation proposals are the very essence of the budget. They go to the very root of the life of the people of this country, and this discussion on Ways and Means is probably the most important discussion, certainly the most important resolution, in the whole session. I think, Sir, that it might offer a humble suggestion to the Minister that it would be wise for him in the future to fix a certain day and let it be known not only to the Opposition, but to both sides of this House that on that day the House will actually consider the Ways and Means proposals. Otherwise members like the hon. member for George and myself and others who take an interest in the finances of this country, are tied to this House by a string. We attend in the ordinary way, but it might happen that during the temporary absence of any one of us from the House, these proposals are discussed in which we take a very wide interest. The Minister has rightly said that compared with other countries this is a lightly taxed country; he has rightly said that, taking the proportion of State income which is raised by way of taxation, this country bears no comparison with any sister Dominion or with Great Britain.

[Inaudible.]

I agree, I am going to criticise some of the taxes myself, but I want to say that the country cannot complain and as far as I know, in spite of the hon. member for George, the country does not complain that £8,000,000 of extra taxation is sought to be raised this year. There is criticism, there has been very wide criticism in some directions as to the method by which it is proposed to raise this money. Now, what is the fundamental requisite of any scheme of taxation? Surely, sir, it is that taxation shall be fair, and the cardinal requisite of fair taxation is that it falls fairly and equally upon the shoulders of all sections of the community. A tax in my opinion is a bad tax which gives cause for A to say: “I am being taxed whereas B and C, who are as well able to bear the burden as myself, go scot free.” That, sir, is the standard by which you can judge even a war tax in war time. There is no disposition, sir, on the part of the section of the public of South Africa represented by this side of the House to shirk any share whatever of their bruden of taxation, but I find a very widespread disposition to criticise certain of these new taxes as bearing unfairly upon certain sections of the people. I want to begin by saying that two or three days ago I received a leaflet issued by the Labour Party of Durban in which a very strong class cry is raised that the rich people of South Africa are escaping their fair share of the war burden and that the present income tax system is unfair. I want to say straight away that I don’t think we will be able to escape in this country placing heavier burdens on the higher income classes of South Africa. Whether you take the limit at £1,500 or whether you take it at £2,000, which is the present super-tax limit, the time must come when additional revenue for this country must be raised by a very much greater steepening of the taxes upon incomes of that class of the community. In my Budget speech I gave figures to show that in Australia and New Zealand today your average middle-class man, or thousandpounder, pays four times as much or did pay four times as much as the South African was paying prior to the present Budget. Today he pays at least three times as much, if not more.

Is there a difference in the standard of living?

None whatever; the standard of living in Australia is much the same as in this country, the cost of living is the same, and you can more or less say that the members of the middle-class in Australia and in New Zealand live the same sort of life under the same sort of conditions as the people in South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

My hon. friend on my right (Mr. Alexander) raises the question whether in making this comparison I took Provincial taxes into account. I did, I took Provincial taxes in South Africa and State taxes in Australia, where they have a State income tax.

What about indirect taxation?

Mr. Speaker both in Australia and in New Zealand they have a certain amount of indirect taxation as we have in this country, but that forms a comparatively small proportion of the general scheme of taxation. As a matter of interest to members, I would like to tell them that in a Budget speech made in the Australian House some six months ago, Mr. Menzies, the ex-Prime Minister, speaking as a private member of Parliament, mentioned that the total income of Australia was £800,000,000. The total income of Australia was £800,000,000, and of that sum incomes up to £400 per year totalled £560,000,000, and of that £560,000,000 of income, income taxes were paid only up to £4,000,000. Let me put it again. For the total income for Australia of £800,000,000 the lower income class earners up to £400 per year earned £560,000,000, and they paid in income tax only £4,000,000. I should like the Minister if he can get the information to tell this House what is the position in South Africa. In South Africa you will find virtually that until the new Budget was introduced, the £400—four hundredpounder—paid no income tax because most of these people earning these small amounts had children and did not have to pay income tax. Therefore the income tax in South Africa is paid by the people earning more than £400 per year. What the corresponding figures are in other countries I have not been able to ascertain, but perhaps the Minister may be able to obtain the necessary information. Now I want to deal with one or two of the taxes which the Minister is proposing to introduce. In principle I can see no objection to this fixed property tax. I agree that abuse will be easy. I agree that special vigilance will be needed on the part of the revenue authorities to see that people do not drive either one ox wagon or two or three through it, but what are you to say of the case of a man who buys a property very cheaply and sells it at an enormous profit?

That does not happen—that only happens in theory.

I know that it does happen.

There are no eonrmous profits made.

If that man’s business is speculating in properties then the income tax authorities say to him: “Your business is speculating in properties,” and they make him pay, but I am dealing with the profit which a man makes if he has only one or two transactions—then he does not pay. [Interruptions.] I shall be obliged to hon. members if they will keep a little bit quiet. I am trying to deal with some very complicated points and I cannot possibly do so if there is this continuous interruption and noise going on. Take the case of a man who buys a farm at a low figure and who sells at a high figure— he puts the profit into his pocket and even today he does not pay anything to the Government.

Well, what about shares?

Yes, I agree. The same argument applies there. The point I want to make is this, that every penny of income I make, in whatever way, is very carefully scrutinised and brought into the net by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. But there are instances where profits of the kind I have referred to are not taxed. So I say the time has come when I think the Minister is bound to introduce a tax of this kind. The only question is whether, just as he has given slight exemptions in other respects, he should not fix a slight abatement to protect the small man, whether he should not allow a certain basic profit before he begins to impose this tax.

What will that help?

Well, that is a matter which we can discuss in Committee, but I think this tax could be improved if a certain basic exemption were agreed to. But now I want to speak about probably the most contentious item, and that is the trade profits special levy. I want to say straight away that I do not often find myself in agreement with the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), but on this occasion I do, and I want to give my reasons for that. The original mistake the Minister made was including the professions in the net of the excess profits duty.

Why should the professions not be included?

I am not going to appear this afternoon as holding any special brief for the professional man. I do not claim that he should be in any way exempted from burdens put on the rest of the community, but I say in its very framework the excess profits duty was never properly applicable to the professional man, and I shall tell the Minister why. A business, an established business, earns profit in its stride, almost by its own momentum. An established business in its daily buying and selling in the ordinary way makes profits and runs on its own momentum. But the professional man only earns his income by doing various acts of service to the public, and it is open to that man to do or not to do so according to his inclinations. A doctor can say: “Well, if all my income over £3,000 is to be taken, I shall take good care that I do not wear myself out and that I do not earn more than £3,000.”

Not very patriotic.

A barrister may say— I don’t say he will say that, but he may say: “After I have provided for the needs of my family I shall take no more briefs, or otherwise I shall simply act pro deo.” A professional man can do that, and I believe that in England professional men actually do it. The position there is such that if a man earns, shall I say £30,000, or would have earned £30,000 at the Bar, he is not allowed to keep more than £3,000 or £4,000 of that. And the result is that the days of big professional incomes in England have gone— they are no longer earned, and if you are not careful you will dry up professional incomes in the same way in this country. You cannot dry them up in a business which has so much staff and so much stock, which must carry on. But if you say to a professional man who carries on a one-man business: “We are going to tax you in such a way,” and especially if you say it to him and him alone, there is a danger that these higher incomes will dry up. I can speak to the House this afternoon—I shall take the House into my confidence. I have never earned a professional income of £3,000 a year, and I am never likely to. And therefore this particular tax does not affect me, but I cannot conceive of anything more unscientific than these proposals. What does the Minister do? He arbitrarily assesses the capital value of a professional man at £25,000. And then he says: “On that I shall allow him 8 per cent.” That brings his permissible income to £3,000 per year. You may have a rentier or a merchant whose income is £10,000 per year. No such arbitrary assessment is made in his case. The professional men of South Africa are told that their capital value is assessed at £25,000 and their permissible income at £3,000. I cannot see any logic in such a proposal. In almost every other country whose income tax I have studied a difference is drawn between earned income and unearned income. In England a difference is drawn, in Australia it is, and in New Zealand it is; I have not looked at Canada. And the difference is this, that earned income is taxed more lightly than unearned income. But here it is proposed to reverse the process. It is proposed that the rentier drawing £10,000—and some earn more from fixed investments, shall not be touched. They are allowed to go on earning that money, but it is proposed to say to the professional man who is earning that money by his own assiduity: “We shall tax you.” My hon. friend, the Minister, uses the argument that the income of the rentier class tends to be reduced. Surely that begs the question. If he has less income he won’t pay, but we are dealing with a man who has the income and still will not pay. I want to make my position clear. I am not asking the Minister to release the professional man from this new tax but I am asking him so to frame this tax that there is equality of sacrifice all round. I do not regard a tax as a good tax if it taxes A and omits B and C, when they all have the same taxable capacity. The Minister has given as his reason for the introduction of this tax the fact that the excess profits duty hits only one portion of the commercial community. That is so. That is an argument against the excess profits duty. It is a bad tax, you cannot defend it except on the ground on which the Minister does defend it, and that is, that it is a wartime necessity, and as such I accept it. And I also accept the necessity for the balancing tax, but my difficulty is that it does not balance. The excess profits tax is imposed at the rate of 13s. 4d. in the £, but this new tax is imposed at the rate of 6s. 8d., and you still will have the cry of disparity. The new man will say: “I am taxed at the rate of two-thirds, and the old established business only at the rate of one-third. The Minister referred to Australia. When I was there, I specially enquired into this. They had it there in the last war. The commissioner for taxation reported on the excess profits tax in these terms—

Well, now, that is the reason why Australia, as the Minister has said, made a clean sweep and said: “We shall bring everyone into the net.” “Private individuals we shall bring into the net by one of the heaviest income tax proposals anywhere in the world.” “Companies we shall bring in in two ways—the first by the ordinary tax which I believe is about 4s. or 5s. in the £, and then by the war time company tax, the principle of which the Minister has explained, which taxes all profits made by companies after a basic rate is allowed.” That basic rate used to be 8 per cent., and now it is 5 per cent., and the tax increases on the stepping up principle, until at 78 per cent. practically the whole of their profit is swallowed up. I think the Minister agrees with me that if we could start from scratch in this country he would be inclined to tax here on that basis. The trouble is that we have started with an excess profits duty which is unfair and unequal in its incidence, and that is why this new tax has been introduced to balance matters. I say again that this new tax will not meet the cry of inequality in regard to persons who suffer from the excess profits duty. Now, I want to come back to the professional man. In no country is the professional man asked to pay excess profits tax, and I believe his liability here arises simply from the fact that the definition of the word “trade” in the Income Tax Act includes “profession”. And, therefore, when the Minister introduced his excess profits duty he felt compelled to bring in professions. I do not make a plea for the professions as such, but I do repeat that the professions as such, that professional incomes as such, are not fairly assessible for excess profits duty. Now, when the Minister is seeking to restore the balance, he finds once more that he has to deal with the case of a professional man, and he can only deal with that by arbitrarily fixing a certain amount of assumed capital in his business, and fixing on that a sort of basic professional income above which he will be taxed. There is no answer as far as I can see to the case of the four men put up by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). You have four men each with an income of £10,000 per year. One of the four will pay, and the other three will escape, and that is to my mind the weakness of the present proposal. The Minister has said in justification of the tax as a whole that trade profits in time of war are particularly susceptible to increase. That is true. But can it be said that professional profits fall into the same category as trade profits?

Yes.

Can it be said that the professions as a whole are making greater profits than they did before the war? In any case this proposed tax presupposes the same income as before the war and after a man has exceeded his £3,000, the excess profits tax is imposed. No, with all due respect to the Minister, I cannot see that the tax is a right or a fair one. I again repeat that if it is proposed to tax all incomes above £3,000 let it go, but if it is proposed only to tax professional incomes above £3,000 then I cannot accept the tax as a fair one.

Who pays the tax?

I am asked the question, “Who pays the tax?” Does the hon. member mean that the professional man does not pay it?

It is passed on.

I take it that the man who pays it is the man who earns it. Assuming a doctor earns £5,000 per year —he has to pay his excess profits tax on £2,000. He will have to pay that himself.

No, the patient will have to pay it.

Indirectly, in the same way as the consumers pay most taxes.

Cannot he put up his fees?

Does the Minister suggest that as an escape from this tax the professional men would band together and put up their fees in order to meet this tax? Surely that cannot be a serious suggestion. Surely the Minister himself would be the first to reprehend such a practice. No, the professional men will pay, and they will go on paying, but they will feel, and they will go on feeling, that they are being treated most unfairly. I take the case which I gave in my Budget speech of two doctors, one holds a staff appointment under the Chamber of Mines, and gets £5,000 per year. The other earns £5,000 by private practice. I am inclined to think that the first doctor does not work half as hard as the second one. Take No. 1 who holds this appointment. He gets his salary, he sits “pretty,” he pays nothing, but No. 2, who has to earn every penny by the sweat of his own body, and the blood of his own brain, has to pay one-third of the excess between £3,000 and £5,000. If he is ill, his employer will take care of him, he goes on drawing his salary just the same, but there is not a professional man in this House who does not know that the bugbear of professional life is illness. If you are laid aside by illness your professional income ceases from that moment. That person does not occupy a privileged position, but your rantier does, your salaried man does, your merchant who has a sufficiently high capital investment in his business bringing him in £8,000 or £10,000 per year, is protected to that amount. I am bound to reaffirm as strongly as ever the opinion which I stressed before, that this tax is partial and unequal in its operation, and will bring on the Minister very severe criticism in the future. I am afraid I have devoted an unusual amount of time to this particular tax. May I reaffirm that the general scheme of taxation has my entire approval. The raising of £8,000,000 has my approval. All these various taxes have my approval, but what I do not, and cannot approve of, is the inclusion of one class of earner and the omission of another and perhaps more comfortable class of earner. Before I sit down I should like to appeal to the Minister. Nothing gives the hon. member for George greater joy than if he can stand up and attack the mining industry, and suggest that they occupy a particularly favoured position in regard to the taxation or the public life of the country.

Well, don’t they?

I have entered one disclaimer already. Let me enter another one now. I do not own, and as far as I can recollect, I never owned a single mining share in my life. I am not connected either as a director or in any other way with any mining company, and I have always occupied a position of entire independence as regards the mining industry. But I would say this, that we as South Africans can be proud of that industry; we can be proud of the way it is run, proud of the men at its head, and proud of the standard it sets as an employer of labour. And let me remind the hon. member for George, when he talks of who pays for all these things, that it is the mining industry which pays for most things in this country. Who pays the Parliamentary salary of the hon. member for George, and all of his friends, but the mining industry of South Africa?

Excuse our laughter.

Let me now say a few words about the speech of my hon. friend. He says he has only been able to get the figures for the mining industry up to last year. If he had read his paper this morning he would have seen that the President of the Chamber of Mines yesterday gave certain illuminating figures. He showed that in the year under review the tonnage milled had increased from 64,500,000 to 67,250,000, that the yield of fine gold had increased from 14,000,000 to 14,375,000 ounces, in round figures. And the revenue of the mines had increased in the year under review from £114,000,000 to £117,000,000. And on the other hand—and I am sure this will rejoice the heart of the hon. member for George— the working profit had fallen from £47,500,000 to £45,750,000, and the dividends to shareholders had fallen from £20,000,000 to £19,250,000. So that the figures for this year—and that is before the new taxation had taken effect—show that so far as it is a super profit making institution the mining industry of the Witwatersrand is having a very bad time indeed, while other industries under war conditions are flourishing. The returns to mining shareholders are going down. Hon. members talk a good deal about the capital invested in that industry. Surely the position is this, that if I was lucky enough to buy shares in a mine when it started and those shares have gone up 300 or 500 or 1,000 per cent. in value, because of the rise in value of the mine, that is, profit not to the mine but to me and today if I want to buy shares in that mine I must buy at the ruling price, a price which is very delicately calculated in accordance with the yield of the mine. When they talk of the industry they must not forget that the industry is not something suspended between heaven and earth. It is a very real thing. And the great majority of these shareholders are South African shareholders, and live in South Africa.

Not the majority.

And they are spread over all classes of the community.

Not the majority.

I believe it is the majority. May I, in conclusion, for the edification of the hon. member for George, and some of his friends who complain of the burden of the war taxation when they pay an infinitesimal portion of it, read what the heaviest taxpayer in South Africa has to say about the Government’s proposals. Mr. Lawrence, speaking for the mining industry yesterday, said this—

And then I want the hon. member to listen to what he goes on to say—

I want to endorse that warning. As one, sir, who has only that interest in the mining industry which every representative of Johannesburg and the Rand must have, I want to endorse that warning. You cannot, as the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) thinks you can, go on piling burden after burden, and tax after tax on that industry. I have shown, and the Minister has endorsed my figures, that between pre-war times and to-day the yield from taxation on the mining industry has risen from £9,500,000 to £24,000,000. That industry is very near the point, sir, when the last straw will break the camel’s back.

I should like to express a few thoughts in connection with these taxation proposals. In the first instance I want to deal with the tax on the sale of property which is proposed here. However one may argue about it, it is going to affect the farmers very much indeed; it will to a very great extent, as I have indicated previously in a speech in this House, deprive a large section of the farming community which longs for and struggles to get hold of land, of that privilege. If the Minister had imposed this taxation in large cities where the gambling spirit has become rife, I could have forgiven it, but in levying this taxation on land which is frequently required for agricultural purposes, he will definitely not render a service to the country, and it will be a direct setback to a large section of the agricultural community. I would like to ask whether the Minister will not consider the question of allowing a percentage profit on agricultural land which changes hands before the date on which he applies this farreaching tax. If he is prepared to do that he will undeniably render the farming community a service thereby. With regard to the speculation tendency in fixed property, I maintain that the Minister’s motion, as it stands here, is an impossible motion, and will not render the agricultural community a service. The second point with which I should like to deal is this. The excess profit tax, as it will affect the farming community today, will be equally burdensome.

The excess profit tax? There is nothing about an excess profits tax in this motion.

I refer to the tax on trades. Today the farmer takes into account two bases; the one is the cash basis and the other is the increase in livestock. Now it happens in these times in which we live that it is frequently necessary for a farmer—sometimes circumstances compel him to do that—to reduce his stock in certain circumstances and to increase it in other circumstances. This tax which is proposed here will result in a large section of the farming community, which the State has rehabilitated to a certain extent since 1933, by means of far-reaching measures—this tax will result in that effort simply being neutralised now. I would like to give an example. It frequently happens that one has a drought season such as this year, for example, and then the farmer may decide to reduce his stock in order to give his land a rest. He may sell 2,000 sheep or 300 cattle. It is not profit which he makes then. It is his capital which is incorporated in that livestock; and under this measure the State will claim such a great portion of it that the person concerned will be paralysed. It is nothing but capital confiscation. I want to ask the Minister to go into this aspect of the matter, because it will affect the farming community very greatly indeed. I know of a farmer who recently invested nearly all his capital in livestock. Recently, in order to give his land a rest, he sold his livestock at a public auction. The amount which he collected was between £7,000 and £8,000. What is the position of that person? He did not make a profit of £7,000 or £8,000; this represents the man’s capital, and if the State intervenes by imposing this tax, it will simply confiscate a large portion of that man’s capital. I just want to draw the attention of the Minister to these points, and to ask him whether he cannot think out ways and means of abolishing the tax in so far as the farmers are concerned. The Minister may argue that that person can deduct a certain capital amount in respect of the animals with which he started, but one cannot determine precisely how much capital he invested here and there. Over a period of years he invested a certain amount of his capital every year. Why should the State now confiscate a certain portion of this capital? I would like to suggest that the Minister should discuss this question with the Prime Minister. I am certain that the Prime Minister knows what the circumstances are which sometimes exist amongst the farming community—I do not want to say that the Minister of Finance will not do it—but I think that he should consult the Prime Minister in connection with the matter. I repeat that this is nothing less than capital confiscation. I further want to point out that hon. members have from time to time compared these taxation tariffs with those of Australia, with those of Canada or with those of New Zealand. Hon. members do not understand that one cannot compare South Africa’s position with that of other countries which have had many years of peace and progress behind them. South Africa is placed in a different position and it is no criterion to make a comparison between South Africa and other countries. South Africa has experienced nearly a century of shocks and setbacks. South Africa is still undeveloped in comparison with those countries, especially in the agricultural sphere, and for that reason you cannot make a comparison between South Africa and New Zealand and Australia, where not only the climatic circumstances, but also the economic circumstances differ widely from the conditions in this country. Those countries ought not therefore to be taken as a criterion in order to justify taxes in this country.

I would have liked to say something about the land tax. I should like to propose the adjournment of the debate with the leave of the Minister, if he will accept it.

I am prepared to accept it under certain conditions.

I move, therefore—

I second.

May I just say then that I am prepared to accept the adjournment on the basis indicated by me at an earlier stage when the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) was talking; in other words, that when the debate resumes tomorrow and is completed, there will be no objection to our going into Committee immediately, and that my hon. friends will then lend every assistance so that we do not complete the Committee stage later than Thursday. I have no objection to the adjournment.

I am not a lawyer, but I do want to ask the hon. Minister whether he does not think that as a result of these provisions the owner of a motor will be placed in a particularly difficult, position when he insures under the provisions of this Act. In the first instance, when is a person under the influence of liquor?

The court must determine that.

Although we take it that the court does its best to give the correct judgment, the court is surely not always right. The question arises, when is a person under the influence of liquor? How is that determined? If one smells of liquor are you under the influence of liquor then? If you take one glass of wine, are you then regarded as being under the influence of liquor? Assuming you take two glasses of wine, are you then under the influence of liquor? It is extremely difficult to determine when a person is under the influence of liquor. It is determined on the evidence of people who met the person concerned immediately after the accident. But I want to go further; when the owner of the motor does not drive the motor himself and someone else drives it while he is under the influence of liquor, is the owner then exempt from compensation? I want to put it in this way. A person approaches you and asks you whether he can get your motor car. He is perhaps really in difficulties, and you give him your car. It may be a person who normally does not drink excessively, but on this occasion he drinks too much. There is an accident; is the owner of the motor car protected under these provisions in such circumstances? What I especially feel is this, that in passing this legislation we put an onus on the owner of the car, a compulsory burden. Let us at least give him the necessary protection in imposing further financial obligations upon him. Let him be protected so that he will be protected in the same way he is protected today when he insures his motor car. The majority of owners of motor cars who insure under this Act, do not study the Act, and it is only when they cause an accident that they discover for the first time that they have to pay a large amount of compensation. In accepting this compulsory insurance, and since we afford the person who is injured in the accident every protection, I do feel that in these circumstances we should not altogether overlook the owner of the motor car. I want to make an appeal to the Minister. I want to say that I am sorry that he has withdrawn Clause 12, but since he has withdrawn it, I want to ask to put something in the place of Clause 12 which will afford adequate protection to the owner of the motor car in such circumstances. We know that sometimes a person who is not a drinker is under the influence of liquor. He takes a little too much alcohol; he causes an accident, and then he discovers that he is not protected under this Act. If the clause remains as it is, the companies— I do not want to say all of them, but some companies—will try to evade the obligations assumed by them. I want to ask whether the Minister will not be prepared to take this matter into consideration.

We have already decided to delete Clause 12. Now we have to put something in its place. What we propose here is to give a very limited right of redress to the companies. The proposal of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) gave a broad right of redress to the companies. We only give the companies the right which they reserve to themselves today.

[Inaudible.]

They can simply repudiate their liability. Under the policy which is issued today they reserve that right to themselves.

What happens when your driver is under the influence of liquor?

I think my hon. friend will find that his policy will not protect him in those circumstances.

No, I am protected.

But you will find that the company reserves certain rights to itself, and under those circumstances the company will repudiate liability. All that we give the companies here is the right to recover in certain circumstances a right which in many cases will simply be worthless. The company is not in such a good position at all, therefore. But I think it is quite fair that where a person is under the influence of liquor, the companies should have the right of redress against him.

But when his car is driven by someone else?

But he should see to it that that does not happen.

But he is not present perhaps.

He must at least exercise a certain amount of control over his car. I think the owner of the motor-car should see to it that a person under the influence of liquor does not drive his car.

Why not the man who was drunk?

That is quite a different aspect of the matter.

There is another point in connection with the amendment which is not clear. I should like the hon. Minister to explain what he wants. I refer to (a) which reads as follows:

I should like to hear what the Minister’s intention is?

An amendment has been moved which I am prepared to accept. It reads as follows—

Sub-paragraph (a) will then read—

In that case I am satisfied.

I don’t understand the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser). He said it is difficult to prove that a man is under the influence of liquor, but that is the difficulty of the company, and not the difficulty of the owner. If the company is in a difficulty the owner will benefit by it, because the difficulty of proving that the man was under the infleunce of liquor is oh the company. These words are in existing legislation. The state of being under the influence of liquor is becoming a well recognised part of many statutes, and from the hundreds of cases that come before the courts, it is always a difficult question of fact which the magistrate has to decide. Cases have come under my own observation in which it has been difficult to prove that a man was under the influence of liquor, and especially is this the case when an examination by a doctor does not take place a short time after the accident. As a rule, if a man is charged with being under the influence, and if he knows that it is not true, he goes to his doctor, and the sooner he goes the better chance he has of proving his innocence. It seems to me the point raised by the hon. member has no substance. There is nothing more dangerous to human life than to have a man in charge of a vehicle who is under the influence of liquor. There you have a powerful weapon of destruction in the hands of a man who does not know what he is doing, and it is no better than putting an instrument of destruction in the hands of a lunatic. Every precaution should be taken to see that such a man is not placed in charge of a car. There is no guarding against such a man. Every precaution should be taken to see that such a man is not placed in charge of a car. It is one thing that should be rigorously guarded against, irrespective of consequences. Many of the accidents that take place on our roads are due to the fact that people under the influence of liquor drive cars.

Just let me point out that I do not advocate at all that a person should go unpunished if he drives a motor car whilst under the influence of liquor, but there is already legislation in that direction, whether a man causes an accident or not. Let us punish the person concerned, but not in this way. When a person who is under the influence of liquor does not cause an accident, he is not punished at all. When he does cause an accident, he is punished out of all proportion. I feel this is especially so when you car is driven by someone else. That is my main point. I could still understand it when it is the owner himself, but even in that case it is not fair. Surely he can be fined or his licence can be taken away from him, but he must not be called upon to pay compensation in this way. It sometimes happens that a person asks for your car and you simply cannot refuse it. Then that person causes an accident perhaps and you find yourself in an extremely difficult position. In this case you do not punish the person who was drunk, but you punish the owner of the car, who was not drunk. You might ruin him. It is for that reason that I feel that only the person who was drunk should be punished, and not the owner of the car.

I would like the hon. Minister to give me his attention for a moment. I would just like to tell him that if a person is charged with having been under the influence of liquor, he is brought before the court because he was drunk. That is quite a different matter. Here you say, “If he causes an accident while he is under the influence of liquor.” Some people, when they take one glass of wine, are under the influence of liquor, and other people can drink a whole bottle and still not be under the influence of liquor. In law that expression has not yet received the meaning which is alleged. It has not received the meaning which the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), says it has got. I feel that if a person is drunk and causes an accident, he should be punished, but then his condition must be the cause of the accident. Now you simply say, “If he is under the influence of liquor.” In other words, if he has taken a glass of wine and there is an accident, damages can be claimed against him. It does not seem fair to me, and I shall move an amendment in a moment which I think is acceptable.

Move the amendment in the report stage.

Then I move as a further amendment—

Then you express the Minister’s intention. Here you do not say so in the clause. It seems to me it is important that it should be stipulated. I should like the Minister to understand our difficulty in connection with the person who borrows your car with your permission. If anyone drives my car today under the ordinary law, in the course of my business and with my permission, and he causes an accident, then I am responsible for it, but if anyone borrows my car and goes out with it, not on my business but on his own business, and he causes an accident, then he is responsible and not I. But this clause makes me responsible if he takes out the car and causes an accident while he is drunk. It is only when anyone causes the damage in my service that I am responsible for it. Then I also want to tell the hon. Minister that when I insure, I cover myself. If I cause an accident the insurance company cannot claim compensation against me, whether or not I make a false declaration and whether or not I was drunk. Now the right is given in this clause, if I make a false statement in connection with the accident, to claim compensation against me even though I am insured. What is the use of the insurance then? It seems to me that if they want to hold the insured person responsible too, then they must do so under every circumstance, and not only in certain circumstances. What has the false declaration to do with it? Put me in gaol if I commit perjury; but this provision does not seem fair to me. The point is that it does not punish the person who possesses nothing, because the insurance company cannot get anything from him. The person who has something is the man who insures. The Minister’s intention is that if a man drives a motor car and he is so drunk that he causes an accident, he must be punished. We cannot simply insert the provision, “If he is under the influence of liquor.” He takes a glass of beer perhaps, and in the opinion of some people he is then under the influence of liquor. It seems to me that the provision is too loose, and for that reason I move my amendment. We must understand that the court will interpret the words in the section and for that reason we should make the position clear.

I really think it would be better if my hon. friend were to put his amendment on the Order Paper for the report stage. I don’t think his amendment is really necessary. To my mind the wording which is used, namely, “under the influence of drink” is a wording which is recognised by the court, and I do not think therefore that it is necessary to accept his amendment. I am prepared, however, to go into the question if he will put his amendment on the Order Paper for the Report stage. Anyhow I cannot accept it now.

I am prepared to do so.

I think I must move “to delete sub-section (c).” This sub-section refers to people who give false information about an accident, knowing it to be false. We may have this position now, that a man in a car by himself may have an accident with another car containing three people. That man will find it difficult to prove that he has not made a false statement.

The company has to prove that.

But the company will use the evidence of the people in the other car. Now I also want to say this: when a number of people stand watching an accident —they have nothing to do with it—has the Minister ever noticed how many different statements are made by people who see an accident happen when they are not personally concerned in it?

My hon. friend has apparently not noticed the words “knowing it to be false.” The company has to prove that the man’s statement is false and also that he knew it to be false. That is quite difficult enough, and I think my hon. friend can leave it as it is.

Does the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. S. E. Warren) want to withdraw his amendment?

I am prepared to withdraw my amendment and to put it on the Order Paper because I do feel that the Minister will agree that something has to be inserted—either my amendment or something else. The judge will interpret the clause as it stands here and that is why we should make it clear.

I should like to move the amendment printed on the Order Paper on pages 276 and 298. I move—

These amendments are consequential to what we have decided on new Clause 3, and I do not think I need say anything further in explanation of them.

I move—

This Bill is introduced in order to give effect to a promise which I made earlier on this session in the House. As hon. members will recollect we passed a Bill last year in regard to insurance against war damage. In that Act war damage was defined in such a way as to include damage caused by people committing public violence, or by measures for the suppression of public violence. According to the legal conception of public violence it only includes cases where it can be clearly proved that there was organised action. The matter was raised in regard to certain bomb explosions which have lately taken place. It was raised by way of a question put to me on the 28th January to which I gave the following answer:

That is the undertaking I gave and I want to give effect to that undertaking now. The result of the acceptance of this Bill will be that the definition of war damage will be extended as promised by me at the time. It will mean that people who are insured today under that Act will be covered against damage caused by this kind of violence, and as it can be made retrospective to the date of the coming into force of the Act it will also apply to people who were insured before that date when I made the statement. Hon. members will also know that we have gone further, and where there were cases of people who were not insured we appointed a special committee to go into all claims put in and to make recommendations in regard to ex gratia compensation to be made by the Government to cover the costs of such damage. That is outside the law, and any amount spent in that way will have to be approved of by Parliament afterwards. Meanwhile our intention is only so to extend the definition of “war damage” that it will also cover that damage which I have referred to.

This amending Bill, as the Minister has explained, is intended to distinguish between public violence and what is called in this Bill “other violence.” In the original Act we have sub-Section (d) in which persons committing public violence are referred to. This Bill refers to persons committing any other acts of violence, who in the opinion of the Minister have acted as members of an organised group of persons, who are influenced by a feeling created as a result of war conditions. Insofar as that distinction is made between public violence and ordinary violence there would be no objection, but this Bill now refers to any other violence which in the opinion of the Minister is committed by persons acting as members of an organised group of persons. We on this side of the House fail to see why it is necessary to insert this provision about an organised group of persons. The Minister himself admitted in a speech that the difficulty according to legal advice was to prove in cases of public violence that the individuals were members of an organised body. The Minister told us what this Bill more specificially referred to, but it may also happen that ordinary violence, not public violence, may be committed by people who are not really members of an organised group or body. What we have in mind, and which the Minister knows, is that numerous instances have already occurred in this country of acts of violence having been committed by soldiers. Acts of violence have been committed on trains and elsewhere which do not really constitute public violence. Those soldiers cannot be described as members of an organised body; on the contrary, when acting in that manner they are acting in an unorganised manner. There have been numerous cases of that kind and similar instances may occur in future. I therefore feel that the Minister can achieve the same object which he has explained in his speech if he is prepared to accept an amendment which I want to move in the Committee stage. My amendment is to delete all words after “and” in line 9 so that the clause will read as follows; with the insertion of certain other words after the word “and”:—“Or persons committing any other violence and acting in the opinion of the Minister as members of an organised group of persons actuated by feeling arising out of the existence of a state of war.” That will make the Bill have a wider application and will make it applicable not only to persons where the Minister is satisfied that they are members of an organised group, but it will also include the other cases I have mentioned. The Minister will admit that there have been numerous instances of that kind in South Africa. We are not really very taken up with the words “who in the opinion of the Minister,” but unfortunately the original Act throughout places the onus on the Minister and he is given the power, and if we want to amend that wording now then the original Act will also have to be amended. We therefore propose leaving that position as it is. I hope the Minister will keep that aspect of the matter in mind, and that during the Committee stage he will be prepared to accept an amendment in that direction. That will make the Bill of wider application and it will make the Minister’s task easier if he has to express his own opinion. We particularly have in mind the damage already caused and which still may be caused by soldiers who cannot be described as members of one or other organised group.

I wish to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). Our difficulty is the word “organised.” People may belong to a group which is not organised. That group of persons causes damage without being organised. It is difficult to prove that a group of people are organised. People may get into an argument about matters arising out of the war. Feelings run high and a crowd of people cause damage. They do not constitute an organised body, and if those people cause damage the Government does not acknowledge responsibility, whereas it does if organised bodies cause damage. I am convinced that the Minister did not mean that, but that what he meant was that if feelings in connection with the war were the cause of a crowd of people doing damage, that damage would also be paid for under the Insurance Act in regard to war damage. I feel that the Bill as it is before us does not go far enough. If a body like the O.B. causes damage the man is paid out. We feel that the Government should also pay if a soldier does damage, but in spite of that one wants these things to be clear, so that anyone who suffers damage as a result of war conditions, and the feelings caused by the war, may be insured against such damage. I think that that is what the Minister meant, but by putting in this word “organised” certain classes are going to be excluded. There are such things as public violence and private violence, and I take it that the Minister wants to see to it that provision is made in the Bill before the House so that it will be acceptable to all of us.

I should like to appeal to the Minister in connection with this matter —particularly in regard to the charges made. At present the charge is 1s. per month per £10; at present it is felt that this charge is too high in regard to the risk which we have to run in this country. I understand it is similar to the charge made in Great Britain, where, of course, the danger is infinitely greater and more real.

The charge is much higher there.

I was told it was 1s. per £100 there.

It was 10s. at one time.

At any rate this seems a very high charge. The reason why I mention this is because of the valuation in the different Provinces. If you look at the Annual Year Book it will be seen that the valuation of the Cape Province is about £150,000,000; the Transvaal is about £200,000,000 and Natal about £50,000,000.

What do you mean by that?

That is the municipal valuation; that includes the land, but you are now taking the risk on goods stored in buildings, which may increase the value of the land. Now, if you take £400,000,000 of property and reckon out the rate at 1s. per £100 it would work out at about £200,000 per month, which is what the Government would receive if everything was insured. If the Government were going to return this money to the people who insured, afterwards, or the balance, there might be something in it, but many people feel reluctant to insure because they think the rate is too high. The other day I had occasion to speak to a man whose property was bonded with an institution I belong to, and I asked him whether he was going to insure his property against war damage. He said, “What is that?” So I explained it to him. He said, “How much is it?” So I told him. He sat down and put his hands through his hair and said: “God help me; I pray to God to protect me from getting a bomb on my property.” I think many of us will hope for the same thing and also pray to God.

You should not do business with these people.

Unfortunately you have to do business with all sorts of people—we have even to do business with Nationalists. But still we get on fairly well with them, and we get on with all sorts of people. Is it not possible to reduce this charge, or at all events give people a rebate in case the amount is found to be too high?

In connection with this Bill I would also like to add a word to what the hon. member who has just spoken has said—I want to say that there is a difference in the risk between the coastal area and the interior. There are many places in the interior where the risk is practically nil, and to charge a flat rate throughout the Union seems manifestly unfair and quite regardless of the relative risk in the various areas which are insured. I also wish to say that I agree with the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) that the word “organised” seems unduly to restrict the discretion which is vested in the Minister. Surely it is sufficient to say that if the damage is done by members of a group of persons … the Minister should compensate for such damage.

Why put in a group?

If you are going to say that it must be an organised group of persons that seems to unduly restrict the Minister’s discretion. I would ask the Minister to consider whether the word “organised” should not be deleted.

In regard to the rating of premiums the position at the present time is that in respect of war damage everyone is automatically covered up to the sum of £1,000. If they wish to, they can insure to cover damage arising from Section (d)— that is, damage done by persons committing public violence and the further provision of sabotage in the Bill before the House. I think there is an anomaly in the rating which should be corrected. If you go to an insurance company and take out a war damage policy they charge 1s. per £100 per month or 12s. per month on £1,200. But the policy gives £1,200 cover against public violence and only £200 against war risk, because people are covered automatically to the extent of the first £1,000 against war risk. So the whole matter, I feel, calls for adjustment. Then secondly, I wonder whether the Minister will not consider altering Section 3 of the Act and making the £1,000 free cover—cover in respect of war damage—also include public violence, and eliminate the present distinction which exists. I think the Minister might well consider this point and also the rate of 1s. per cent. charged, which I think amply covers the risk.

This debate has run the risk of becoming a general debate on the administration of the principal Act, whereas we are merely dealing with a Bill, the simple object of which is to give effect to an assurance which I gave on a previous occasion in regard to an amendment of the definition of war damage. We have already discussed this question of rates. We were told that we were charging too high a rate. Well, in spite of that, we have had a very considerable influx of persons applying for insurance during the last few weeks. So the rate cannot be as wrong as we have been told it is. We had been told the rate is so high that no one will insure. Hon. members must not forget that the Government is carrying a very heavy potential liability. It is very easy to come here and say that the rate must be reduced, but what would happen if, as a result of possibilities which we all hope will not eventuate, damage running into millions is caused?

Put on another tax.

That is not the way of looking at an insurance scheme. This charge is calculated on such a basis as to enable us to have a reasonable prospect of meeting our liability, and it is not appropriate for members to come here and plead for a reduced rate. As far as the point raised by the hon. member for Pretoria, City (Mr. Davis) is concerned, where he said that the risks are greater in the coastal cities than in the interior, perhaps he will appreciate the point that this particular Bill to some extent alters that, because the risks which this amending Bill covers are greater in the inland cities than in the coastal towns.

†*The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) wants to move an amendment. He will have the opportunity of doing so when we are in Committee, and I do not intend asking the House to go into Committee today. He will therefore have every opportunity of moving his amendment and of discussing it. I want to say this, however, that our object in this Bill is to confine ourselves to the spirit of the principal Act, although what we want to cover here is perhaps not strictly public violence in accordance with the Act as originally passed. The hon. member wants to get away entirely from public violence.

Your amendment gets away from it.

No; the object today is to bring within the definition of war damage the kind of violence which we have in mind. What we have in mind are instances where public violence cannot be quite proved, but where the Minister is convinced that it was public violence. That is the object.

Why do you give it a different name then?

We cannot define it in any other way. The clause says—

The kernel of public violence is that it must be organised.

And if one person acts on his own, but is a member of an organisation?

If, in consequence of the actions of the organisation as a whole, he does such a thing, it would come under this.

How are you going to prove that he is a member of an organisation?

Order! Hon. members will perhaps discuss that in Committee.

Anyhow, what we have in mind here is acts which, in fact, amount to public violence, and it is intended to bring such acts within the scope of the Bill.

May I have the privilege of speaking for half an hour? The vote which is now to come before the House is one of those votes which we don’t like discussing in the way in which it has now become necessary to discuss it. One does not like to discuss it from a political point of view because it is a national vote and it should not be necessary for the Opposition to find fault with the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. Unfortunately, the way in which these matters are being run, and the way postal and telegraphic matters and the radio service connected with that service are being controlled, makes it necessary for us not only to criticise the Minister’s vote but also to express our deep indignation at the way the Minister carries out his duties. I want to show our indignation in a practical manner by moving—

The reason why we do so is because notwithstanding the many efforts that have been made from this side of the House to see that Afrikaans has its rights in the Post Office, our efforts have been like a cry in the wilderness. It should not be necessary in this country for us to have to ask the Minister to maintain the policy of bilingualism, and I want to point out to him that we as Afrikaans speaking people have never yet raised any objections to having English speaking people as Ministers of Posts and Telegraphs, but when it comes to a question of our rights, then we expect the officials in the work they are doing, in the policy they are applying, to see to it that complete bilingualism is maintained. The Minister knows that all the forms and all the documents that have to be filled in—not those which are issued across the counter, but those which are dealt with behind the counter, are all in English. Not only are the forms filled in in only one language, but the Afrikaans speaking section of the Post Office staff, and also people who have any dealings with the Post Office, are afraid to fill in anything in Afrikaans because everything has always been unilingual so far, and they are afraid that if they use the other language they will be looked down upon, or they may be persecuted, or they may not get their promotion. That is why everything in the Post Office behind the counter is done in English. Secondly, we want to find fault with the fact that more and more work is continually being thrown on the very depleted staff of the Post Office. The Minister in replying to questions has admitted that many of the postal officials have joined up and gone to the front. And instead of the Minister of Posts protecting the people who are still here, he keeps on increasing the work which has to be done by the officials. More and more work is continually being loaded on to the postal officials. As soon as the Government gets anything into its head in regard to the war it is pushed on to the Post Office. The Minister says that he does not get any complaints. Of course not. The people are afraid to complain because they do not want to get into the Minister’s bad books. I asked the Minister whether a deputation had called on him to interview him. My question was this—

1. (1) Whether a deputation from one of the South African postal unions has requested an interview with him; if so,
2. (2) whether he has granted such request and whether it was in connection with the additional work caused by the petrol coupon system; and, if not,
3. (3) whether he will state in what connection they interviewed him and what his reply was.

The answer was—

1. (1) Yes.
2. (2) and (3) I intend to see the deputation but have not done so yet. The request for an interview is primarily on another subject.

The Minister says that the deputaation asked for an interview but that they had not yet been to see him, and that that was why he could not answer the question. Now I want to ask the Minister to tell us what the deputation of postal officials came to ask him? And now I want to refer to another position which not only constitutes a heavy burden on the postal officials, but also causes the public a lot of inconvenience, and discomfort. One gets places, often small dorps, where there are many troops, and naturally the work of the post office is greatly increased. They have to serve the troops, too, and when one calls at a post office on the day when pensions are paid out it is simply impossible to get attention. The position is almost hopeless. One cannot blame the clerks, because there are very few of them, and the staff is hopelessly inadequate. On the days when pensions are paid, there is a hopeless accumulation of work. I am astounded at the staff being able to do the work they do on those days, but it is the Minister’s duty to protect the people of his department, and to see to it that there is sufficient staff properly to attend to the public. The public are greatly inconvenienced by all this work being loaded on the postal officials. They do their best, but they simply cannot attend to everything they are supposed to attend to. Everything is pushed on to the post office. Now, again, they have the additional work connected with petrol coupons. One also finds that quite unnecessary work, additional work, is imposed on the post office. The Minister in his enthusiasm to make war propaganda has issued an additional lot of stamps, war stamps. Some people only want the old stamps, and others buy the war stamps. Every night the officials have to complete their returns to show how many stamps they have sold, and so on. By having two sets of stamps that work has been unnecsessarily doubled, and I want to ask the Minister to put an end to it. The Minister, I suppose, because he does not think sufficient war stamps are being bought, has given instructions that war stamps must be used for general postal work. I know that it is so.

No.

I know that instructions have been given for war stamps to be used. Surely the Minister will admit that these war stamps are very poor propaganda. Not a single man will be induced to join the Army as by seeing these war stamps, which show the head of a woman or the photo of a soldier. It is unnecessary extra work on the depleted postal staff. I therefore ask the Minister to cut out this extra work, but I go further. While I am dealing with the question of stamps, I want to ask the Minister whether he does not think the time has come—he must not regard this as discourteous or as an insult—to use the stamps which we use for postal purposes also as revenue stamps. Why must the King’s head still be shown on our revenue stamps, whereas our other stamps are typically South Africa? There is something else I want to ask the Minister, and that is this—it is something which he as an English speaking Minister can do more easily than anyone else—that is, to get rid of the “On His Majesty’s Service” envelopes. Why cannot we have on “South Africa’s Service” or something like that? We don’t say this just because we want to get rid of the King. I am not talking about my personal feelings now, but why should we not allow everything that is Afrikaans to get what it is entitled to? The King’s head is no longer shown on our stamps. Now, I come to the numbers of advertisements, the propaganda material that is posted up in the post offices. Wherever one comes, at every little post office, one finds posters stuck up with the headings “Do your bit”, and all that sort of thing. The Minister will admit that it is a waste of paper and money. Those pamphlets are not going to induce one single man to join the Army. Proof of the fact that the Government does not attach much value to that sort of propaganda is to be found in this, that men like the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) are sent specially throughout the Union to try and get recruits for the war. The Minister himself believes that these posters and things are not going to achieve anything. The post offices are pasted all over with this sort of stuff, and nobody takes notice of it. It is a waste of paper, and there should not be such waste. Furthermore, it disfigures our post offices. In this connection I also want to ask the Minister, in view of the fact that the staff of a post office has already been so much depleted, not to allow the post offices to be combed over for more recruits.

If more people are taken away the service will become even more unsatisfactory. I want to put a direct question to the Minister —whether he will give the House a guarantee that he will not allow the post offices to be searched and combed for more recruits. Now we come to another question about which we have a serious grievance. As the Minister always tells us, a lot of money is wanted for the war, and every penny we can spare has to be spent on the war. Economies have to be made, retrenchments have to be made, because we have to see the war through, and that is why no further post offices, many of which are badly needed, are being built today. Everything has to stand over until after the war. But while the Minister refuses to build the necessary post offices on the platteland, he proceeds to build a large post office in Cape Town, in spite of the fact that the war is on. When this question came before the House for the first time, the estimated amount of the cost for the new post office was £488,000. That was what it was to cost, but when we asked the Minister the other day what was the cost of the post office in Cape Town he mentioned an amount of £838,000, just about twice as much as the Minister’s estimate. We asked the Minister at the time why it was necessary to make the post office so much larger than was originally intended, and the Minister replied that Cape Town did not need such a large post office, but in view of the fact that the Old Mutual had erected a large building alongside he also had to build a large post office.

No.

But I still have my question on that point and the Minister’s reply. The Minister said that otherwise the post office building would be lost by the side of the big Old Mutual building. I want to ask the Minister if that was a sound reason, Is that a good reason for putting up such a large building when it is not needed? On the platteland no post offices can be put up but in Cape Town a large post office has to be built, which costs twice as much as the original estimate and which is not needed. I want to assure the Minister that we are not looking for faults just because we are in opposition. If the Minister does his best not merely just before the Budget but right throughout the year we from our side will give him whatever credit is due to him, but now it is impossible to do so.

What is impossible?

To give the Minister credit for being a good Minister. Now I come to the censoring of letters.

I don’t like interrupting the hon. member but there is nothing on my vote in connection with censorship; I have nothing to do with the censoring of letters.

I have moved a reduction of the Minister’s salary by £1,000, and the department of the censor surely comes under him. I asked the Minister a question in regard to the censorship and he replied to that question. I have the question here.

The Minister says that he has nothing to do with the censoring of letters; on what item does the hon. member want to discuss it?

On a point of explanation, if I post a letter I entrust that letter to the custody of the Minister or his officials for safe delivery to the person to whom I have addressed it, and if the Minister does not do so, and allows other people to open my letter, he breaks the contract he has with me to transmit the letter safely. He allows somebody from outside to come into his office and open that letter, and he allows the contents to be seen by other people. By doing so he breaks his contract with me, and I am entitled to hold him responsible.

The Minister says that he has nothing to do with the censorship.

He may also say that he has nothing to do with the thief who comes there to steal my letter. But the Minister remains responsible to me if my letter is stolen, because I have handed it to him for safe custody. It is a contract between him and me that he will deliver my letter in the way I handed it to him, and the Minister breaks that contract. Whether the Minister says that he is not concerned with those who come in and take the letters is no excuse. That has nothing to do with me. The Minister breaks his contract with me. He practically allows a thief to come into his office and take my letter, and I have to hold him responsible.

May I just read the question which I myself put to the Minister about the censorship of letters? I asked the Minister whether letters were still being censored and he, as Minister of Posts, replied: “It is not in the public interest …” That is what the Minister replied.

I understand that it comes under Defence.

I don’t want to be dragged into this, I cannot discuss it because I have nothing to do with the question of the censoring of letters. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) says that letters are handed to the post office and that it is the duty of the post office to deliver them. They do deliver the letters, but we have no control over the people who take possession of the letters for the purposes of censorship.

You allow them to take the letters.

We cannot prevent them. I cannot prevent them as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I am not going to object to this discussion, but so far as I am concerned I can do nothing about it, and I cannot deal with it.

The PostmasterGeneral has been given a military post. I asked the Minister a question about it and I asked why he had to be given a military post. He is a brigadier or something like that. Now we can understand why he had to be given a military post. He now has to give orders in his military capacity and he has to have letters censored. Now I want to proceed to deal with another point, namely, the listening-in to telephonic conversations. Possibly we shall get the same reply from the Minister about this. Private conversations over the telephone are listened in to. Is the Minister again going to tell us that he cannot do anything about it?

I have nothing to do with that.

If any people are suspected by the Government of not being good citizens, of not being loyal, take their telephones away from them. Surely the Post Office guarantees us that telephone conversations are private and I pay for my telephone and I think it is private. If people listen in to my conversations it constitutes an interference with my rights. It means that the Post Office is breaking its contract with me. Now I want to deal with the position of the Broadcasting Service. This also comes under the Minister and the broadcast service is a matter which gives us a lot of offence. In the first place, however, I want to confine myself to the secret transmitter— that dirty station which broadcasts. I want to tell the Minister straight out who is in contact with him in that connection.

What!

I shall mention a name, Montgomery. He is one of the khaki knights and a person who gives the Minister information about the broadcasts of the secret transmitter. The Minister pretends that he knows nothing about it. He pretends that they cannot find out where, or who the secret transmitter is. I asked a question from the Minister on that point. The Government knows where it comes from. This secret broadcast has descended to such a low and dirty level that it is a disgrace for any white man to have to listen to it if one happens to tune in to it. I put the following question to the Minister—

1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to information given by a certain person in a Rand weekly paper to the effect that the “Freedom” radio station would shortly recommence broadcasts and to the fact that the name and address of such person were given in that paper; and, if so,
2. (2) whether he has taken and steps to enquire as to the facts upon which this person gave such information and to obtain any further information he may have which will be of assistance in locating the station; if so, what was the information so obtained; if not, whether he will immediately take the necessary steps if not, why not.

What was my reply?

The reply was as follows—

1. (1) Yes.
2. (2) Yes; no information is yet available.

Now, I want to ask the Minister whether he can inform the House what he has found out about this person? This is not the first time we have put a question to the Minister on that subject. The first time the programme of the secret transmitter was advertised in a paper on the Rand we asked the Minister whether he would find out from the paper who the advertiser was. The Minister replied that the paper refused to give the information. Why did not the Minister get the information under the Emergency Regulations? He could easily have done so. Is the Minister going to allow honourable and prominent Afrikaners to be slandered in this scandalous way? What are foreign countries to think of us if they hear for instance what is said over the radio about the Leader of the Opposition? How can the Government allow such a filthy station to broadcast? The Minister has a name and an address there and he could have obtained the information. But there is something peculiar in that regard. At the beginning of the war the Afrikaans broadcasting station in Pretoria had to be removed. The military authorities suddenly required the station to use it for military purposes. The peculiar thing is that if this filthy station broadcasts, that radio station is not used for military purposes, but it is perfectly quiet. This fitlhy station is on the same wave length and it appears to me that that station is used by this filthy radio transmitter. The lowest and most filthy and dirty things are said about Afrikaners there, but the Minister says he cannot find out who the advertiser in the newspaper is. When this side of the House offered to assist him in finding out where the station was, the Minister said that he was not going to avail himself of that assistance. Why not? It is his duty as Minister also to protect the Afrikaans speaking people against such dirty slander.

In the short space of time at my disposal I want to come back to the secret transmitter, and I want to tell the Minister that we accuse him of knowing who the sender is and that it is happening with the Government’s approval and that the Government deliberately through him, as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, is slandering the names of Afrikaners on this side of the House over the radio, and that he refuses to take any steps to stop the secret transmitter. I now want to come to the broadcasting service itself, and I want to tell the Minister that we have seen big changes in connection with the radio under his vote since he has been Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. In the beginning we had a broadcasting service which kept itself outside of politics, which did not use the people’s radio to make political propaganda on behalf of one party against other parties. I also put a question to the Minister on that subject. The Minister bluntly refused to use his influence to have the policy now followed by the broadcasting service changed. That is why we are so bitterly disappointed, and we are entitled to criticise the Minister. We are entitled to tell him that he is abusing the radio service. We put the following question to the Minister—

The second question which I put to him is as follows—

Certainly not.

There is a son of England barking again. The Minister’s reply was as follows—

Where can one get a more impossible show than this V sign campaign? Even the Government’s biggest supporters realise how ridiculous this V sign campaign is in South Africa. They ridicule it, and that is a subject on which the Prime Minister gave a speech over the broadcast. The reply goes on as follows—

Where is Cairo?

The hon. member asks where Cairo is. Let me tell him it is not on the home front. Let him go to Egypt to find out where it is. I continue to quote from the reply—

Hear, hear.

I am pleased to hear members opposite say hear, hear; but I want to ask them whether they will allow our leaders on this side of the House, who hold contrary views, to talk about these matters? What did the Minister say? This was the Minister’s reply to the second part of the question—

He is not prepared to give people who hold contrary views the same rights to talk over the radio. Do hon. members know why not? He does not want to allow them to do so because the things they will talk about will look so bad in the eyes of the people that they are afraid the people will hear it. The radio does not belong to a political party, it does not belong to a Minister, it belongs to the people of South Africa. We should get educational talks over the wireless and not such inane stuff as the V sign campaign. We get nothing of educational value over the radio. Instead of that, we get talks about the kind of subject which I have mentioned. Then there is another matter I want to touch upon. We find that letters get lost in the Post Office. I am not casting any reflections on the officials, but there are bundles of letters or pamphlets which get lost. They are taken away by the Minister or by the Minister of Finance, or I don’t know by whom, but we want to ask the Minister, if we post letters and other people come to his post office to take those letters away he should notify the sender or the individual to whom the letter is addressed, of this fact. I know of letters dealing with Nationalist Party meetings having been lost in the Post Office. The result is that when those meetings have to be held nobody has received notice of them. We want to ask the Minister to have the people concerned notified if such letters are stopped. It is all very well for the Minister to say he can’t stop it. We know that the Minister of Defence is the autocrat in that Government, and that the Minister of Posts has to concur with everything he says. [Time limit.]

I just want to raise one point. Those who can cast their minds back over the last few years must have been impressed by the change which has taken place in the discussions which are raised in this House. At one time we used to spend a lot of time on the subject of the relations between the staff and the Administration. The position has now been changed, and everything is dealt with by the Post Office Departmental Committee and the Public Service Advisory Council, and these matters no longer have to be brought to Parliament for discussion. I won’t say that all grievances have disappeared. That would be too much to expect. But many of them are dealt with in such a way now that they do not have to be raised across the floor of the House. There is one serious grievance, however, which still exists. I don’t say it is the Minister’s fault that that grievance has not been settled. Rather does the fault lie with the Public Service Commission. I am referring to the unhappy class of 1933 recruits. There is always a feeling of unrest and uneasiness when there are men in the same department doing the same class of work as other men, but getting different rates of pay. Before these £8 per month were recruited, the men were better off. Afterwards, when the reasons for the employment of these low grade men had disappeared, men were taken on again at £10 per month but the position today is that you have in the same department men who have been longer in the service that others who have been employed since that time, but the men who were employed earlier have never been able to reach the men who were subsequently employed and who started at a higher rate of pay. It is a running score in the minds of many of these men—it is always causing a feeling of friction. We have been to the Minister, we have sent deputations to the Minister, and the reply has always been “The Public Service Commission has decided this, and therefore I can do nothing.” Surely that is not the final reply. The matter should be put right; it is a just claim, it should be brought before the Public Service Commission again, and if it is turned down again by the Public Service Commission, I want to ask the Minister to bring it before the Cabinet, because as we know, the Public Service Commission have not the last word in a matter like this. They have the last word so far as the Minister is concerned, but not as far as the Cabinet is concerned.

How many are there?

I don’t know what the exact number is today. Men have gone away, fallen by the wayside, and left the service. But what we are asking for is a simple act of justice for which these men have been clamouring for many years. And it is a matter which should be dealt with. It is not only the men themselves who are asking for this to be remedied, but it is regarded as a just grievance by the other men in the Postal Service, too. They are all asking for this injustice to be remedied. These men should not be working at this low rate of pay when others doing the same work are getting more money. I am not raising this matter this year on my own volition; I have been asked to do so by the South African Postal Association, the organisation which represents these men and their colleagues, and I would ask the Minister to put the matter again before the Public Service Commission, and if it is turned down once more to bring it before the Cabinet because the Cabinet can see that justice is done.

I should like to avail myself of the half hour privilege. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was probably of the opinion that his vote would have an easy passage, because he probably thought that for all the requests that came from this side of the House he would be able to give the answer that his department has no money to spend, but by this time he must realise that if we cannot have his money we are going to have his blood.

Or his life.

Before I treat with more sanguinary matters I should like to make a few remarks with regard to our sea mail contracts between South Africa and England. Now this contract is a very old contract which was drawn up in 1912 or 1913, between the Union-Castle Company and the South African Government. And it was drawn up by people who placed the interests of South Africa first, and the interests of the UnionCastle Company very much in the background. And a contract was drawn up which was very favourable to South Africa indeed. Now, since 1912 that contract has been amended. It has been amended on various occasions and except with regard to one item—the transport of pedigree stock to South Africa, which is a very small matter indeed, it has always been amended in favour of the Union-Castle Company and not in favour of the Union of South Africa. There was a time when our fruit was transported to England at 45s. per metric ton. Now, most of that fruit is transported at a rate of 65s. to 75s. I might also point out that since the inauguration of this contract the subsidy which is being paid to the Union-Castle company has not decreased; where the company is making profits which have increased every year so also has the subsidy of the Union Government to the Union-Castle Company increased. I must mention one other thing—the Minister will probably say that this is a great concession to South Africa, and that is that the time which the mailships must take between South Africa and England has been reduced from 16½ days to 14½ days. That is not a concession to South Africa, that is a matter of business. South Africa demanded that the period should be decreased by two days, but whether we demanded that or did not demand it, the Union-Castle Company in its own interests had to decrease the time, because there were competitive lines running between South Africa and Europe in 13½ days, so they had to reduce the time. So it is no concession, but whatever concessions there have been have been concessions by South Africa to the Union-Castle Company. We have allowed them to increase their rates and we have increased their subsidy. If the Union-Castle Company were a struggling company, if they were carrying our mails and giving services at a loss to themselves, no one would have had any complaint to make, but that is not the case. From the inception of this contract, with the exception of a few years during the period of depression, the UnionCastle Company have steadily increased their profits, and while their profits have increased our Government has been steadily busy increasing the subsidy, and the advantages which the Union-Castle Company have gained from South Africa. Now they are contracting to carry our mails between South Africa and England, but even though it is a bad contract which the Minister has made we would not complain if the Union-Castle Company carried out their contract. But they are not doing so. It has not been possible for them to do it, but we from our side are helping the Union-Castle Company where they are not helping us. This year we are voting them a subsidy of £190,000 or something like that—and they are not doing what they should do. There is another strange clause in the contract which says that we shall pay the Union-Castle Company £225,000 to carry mail between South Africa and England, but if these mails are taken and carried by our own aeroplanes or other aeroplanes, there is no provision to pay them proportionately less. We still have to keep on paying them that for ten years even if they do not carry our mails at all. The contract says that the Union-Castle Company must run a weekly service to South Africa, and if they do not do so there are various penalties provided for. The Union-Castle Company is not running a weekly service, it is not even running a fortnightly service. I maintain that we should pay that company for what they are doing and not for what they are not doing. We should not pay them a large subsidy where they are not fulfilling their part of the contract. So we have the fullest right to demand that the contract shall be taken into review. They are not fulfilling it and we have the right to revise that contract and start afresh and get a new contract which will be more in the interest of South Africa and less in the interest of the UnionCastle Company. Another matter I want to deal with is the question of the appointment of new people to the post office service. I thought that where a civil servant or a prospective civil servant wrote the various civil service entrance examinations that he would be granted—that he would be appointed from the successful candidates in the order of merit. I find that that is not the case at all. If you will allow me I should like to quote from a speech which the Hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs made a short while ago—a speech which will probably be news to South Africa—showing the methods employed by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in carrying out his duties. This is what he said—

Now, what enquiries are made? Surely a man is appointed on his ability?

His political persuasions.

No, in the post office a man is not appointed on his ability. If he were we would have another Minister of Posts.

Very cheap.

The Minister went on to say this—

Yes the Minister is very frank, sometimes he is too frank for his colleagues—

What takes place in this: If a man applies for a position in the Post Office then the Minister sends one of his political lackeys out to go snooping to see what the man’s envirornment is. If the man’s environment is suitable he will be immediately appointed. If he comes from Parktown or from District Six he passes with honours, but if the unfortunate applicant comes from Stellenbosch or from Humansdorp he cannot gain admission to the Post Office. This is a very serious matter indeed. It is something which is so alien to the whole spirit in which South Africa has been administered in the past, and so alien to the whole spirit of our Public Service, which is a spirit that holds that no matter what a man’s political convictions may be, the only question which is asked of him is that he should serve the Government faithfully — and I might say that probably in no Civil Service in the world will you find more faithful service from the public servants to the policy of their Governments than is found in South Africa, no matter what the political convictions may be of any of these servants. But the Minister says—

That was Dr. Malan’s policy.

The Minister then goes on to say—

Now, he expects postal officials to give loyal service to the Government. So do I. No matter which Government is there, I expect that, but I would ask the Minister this—are the Nationalists in the Postal Service not giving loyal service to the Government?

There are none.

Is the Minister going to answer my question. Is he going to nod “yes” or “no” or is he going to ignore it? Are the Nationalists in the Postal Service not giving loyal service?

Yes.

Very well. We have it now, the Nationalists in the Postal Service are giving loyal service to the Government.

Are you quite sure of that?

I wish the hon. member would keep quiet. Then I want to ask the Minister why he won’t employ youths who apply for employment in a Post Office if they come from a Nationalist environment?

Well, he shouldn’t.

Oh, shut up. Will the Minister tell me that. That sphinx like look on the Minister’s face will not convince anyone. Now let me quote a little further from what the Minister said—

It is not a case of may be, there will be.

If it is immaterial to the Minister, what their views may be, why are Nationalist candidates refused employment in the Post Office.

Who says they are?

The Minister reminds me of a story told of Henry Ford. In the olden davs the old Fords were all painted black, and the selling agents wanted a diversity of colour to attract buyers and they petitioned Ford to paint his cars in various colours, but he refused. Well, they kept on, and afterwards Ford agreed to meet the salesmen, and after parleying he said: “Well, I have decided to give in. “You can give them these Fords in any colour you like so long as it is black.” It seems to me that the Minister feels that the man can have any bally politics he likes so long as he is Sap, and when I say Sap I mean Sap in the South African connotation of the word—and also the American. In fact, if a man is not as big a Sap as the Minister is he has no chance of employment.

Order!

Oh, I also mean it in the South African meaning—as well as in the American meaning.

Principally the American meaning.

Now let us see again what the Minister says—

So long as they are Saps—

Let me again put the question: Why don’t you appoint a man if he is a Nationalist?

Who says that?

You say that. If he comes from an environment hostile to the Government he is not employed.

No, no.

May I read again what the Minister said—

That is exactly what we compalin of. These are the Minister’s own words. Not only his own words, but his own words which he has acted on subsequently, which he has gone over again and endorsed again. And then the Minister goes on—

Now I should like a direct answer from the Minister. He says he will employ a youth, no matter what his politics are, he only expects that youth to be loyal to his employers, but on the other hand he says that if the youth comes from Nationalist surroundings he has precious little chance of being employed. This matter is very serious. Is this going to be laid down as a precedent? Are we going to have the American system which they have in the Post Office Department and in other departments, that as soon as there is a change of Government there is also to be a change of personnel? If he lays it down that a Nationalist is unacceptable and cannot serve the South African Party Government faithfully, then the corollary also holds good that a South African Party supporter is incapable of serving the Nationalist Party Government faithfully. And, Mr. Chairman, if we were to carry out the precedent laid down by the Minister we would start with a change of Government by not only firing the Minister and the Secretary of his department, but probably firing half of that department. Is that what the Minister would like to see introduced into South Africa? Surely not. Why does he not carry on the old tradition, the old South African tradition in the civil service that a man is appointed no matter what his political convictions may be, and the only thing asked from him is that he serves the Government faithfully.

What about bilingualism?

Well, what about it? Before I close, I would like to refer to another matter which was referred to by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), and that is the so-called freedom radio station. The hon. member for Mossel Bay used very strong language about this freedom radio, and, Mr. Chairman, I must say that this is the most filthy radio station probably anywhere in the world, and when I say filthy I use the word advisedly. I can see by the look on the face of the Minister of Finance that he has never listened to it, and he is probably the better man for that.

Are you a worse man for listening to it?

Probably. Mr. Chairman, one cannot listen to the slime and filth which is vomited out by that station without recoiling form it.

The hon. member is using strong language.

You may say my language is too strong, but I can assure you if you were to listen to that station you would agree that every word I say is true, and that the broadcast is not only vile and filthy, but pornographic as well.

The hon. member should remember that we are in Parliament now, and that such language is unbecoming.

Yes, we are in Parliament, and other members will bear out what I say. I could not in polite conversation repeat the things that are said by it. I say it is vile and filthy and pornographic. I say that advisedly, because I want not only the Minister, but the whole country to know what is being broadcast, I may say under the auspices of members of this Government. It is common knowledge that the funds which are used for this radio station are funds collected under the patronage of members of this House. I hold the Minister responsible for this filth. I don’t know whether he likes it, but he is responsible, and the spate of filth is spread over the whole of South Africa. There is one man that can stop it, and that is the Minister; he can stop it quite easily. Technically, it is possible to find out …

[Inaudible.]

There is somebody who likes wallowing in filth. Technically, it is possible to find out where a radio station is situated. With modern apparatus you have no difficulty at all to find out where that station is situated, and not only is the Minister able to find out where that station is situated, but evidence has been given to him, evidence has been brought to his notice by people who know about the activities of this station, and who were advertising the activities of this station in a Rand daily newspaper. And what is the excuse of the Minister? The newspaper, he says, would not tell him who these people were; they would not give evidence. Under the Emergency Regulations hundreds and hundreds of innocent South Africans are clapped in prison because they don’t want to give evidence before the courts under the Emergency Regulations. Has the Minister taken any steps to stop this filth which is being poured out, and which he can stop? Has he taken any steps against these people? He knows that radio station is broadcasting under the patronage of members on that side of the House, and that is why he won’t take steps. I hold him responsible, because he can put a stop to it, the necessary evidence is being brought to his notice and under the Emergency Regulations he can put a stop to it at any time. But, Mr. Chairman, he does not; but as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs I hold him responsible for this filth that is spread abroad by that radio. The people of South Africa, everybody knows, it is a public secret, where the funds came from which are used for that radio. It is there for no other reason than to make propaganda for this Government. Mr. Chairman if that is the sort of propaganda which this Government is going to use, all I can say is that anybody who has anything to do with this Government is worse off than he was before. I know the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has not listened to this, I know the Minister of Finance would be shocked if he knew the things which his colleagues are not putting a stop to. I say this, that the country holds the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs responsible for allowing in South Africa one of the most disreputable radio stations in the whole world, and something, Mr. Chairman, which is not only degrading our public life in South Africa but it is something which is making anybody who listens to it feel contempt for the methods that are used in South Africa.

I hasten to reply to the speeches of the two previous speakers, and I will deal, first of all, with the remarks that both of them made in connection with this Freedom Radio Station. Whether hon. members believe it or not I am just as much against that Freedom Radio Station as anybody on the other side of the House.

Why don’t you stop it then?

I said so last session, and I have done all that has been possible to stop it. It is not functioning now. A question was asked by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) as to whether we would obtain the facilities available to try and locate this station, and the reply given was in the negative, because the station had closed down, and I say without hesitation that if there is any attempt for this freedom station to start again, then steps will have to be taken to try and stop it.

Have any attempts been made?

Yes, several attempts. Nothing that I have seen has been left neglected. The “Rand Daily Mail” had in a little paragraph that the Freedom Radio Station would again operate. The editor was communicated with in connection with the matter, but he could not give us any information, he said this thing had slipped in. That is the reply we got.

Who paid for it?

I think it was the “Sunday Times,” and not the “Rand Daily Mail.” In “Barlow’s Weekly” there was a reference there to this radio, and a request was made to that paper by the Postmaster-General in connection with this matter.

You could compel them, and not request them.

It is difficult to talk about compelling them. There was a subsequent reference in “Barlow’s Weekly” by Mr. Perl who writes the weekly notes. He was sent for by the Postmaster-General and interrogated.

Did you put him in prison for seven days?

I am not going to use the strong language the member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has used, but I say frankly that is not propaganda in the interests of the Government or this side of the House.

Then why don’t you stop it?

I have told you that I cannot do more than I have done. Some of my colleagues know the attitude I have taken up in connection with this matter. It has got to stop, and if necessary, if the authorities that exist could check this kind of thing cannot do it, other means will have to be employed. The hon. member for Humansdorp dealt with some remarks which I made in another place in connection with the candidates for the post office service. I am not going to repudiate what I said there, but I would like to amend those remarks to this extent, that what I intended to convey was that the information has to be given by a candidate for entrance to the post office. A circular is sent to the postmaster in the area where the candidate is. The postmaster or some suitable officer visits the candidate at his home with a view to establishing that the antecedents of the candidate are unquestionable. There is not one word here as to his political convictions.

You said …

I know what I said, and I want to tell hon. members what I had in my mind. No one who is connected with the sabotage that has been going on or with subversive activities is a suitable candidate for the post office service. I want to be perfectly frank and candid. Here is the form they have to study, and they have to get the signature of two persons who are not relatives of the candidate, and who have known the latter for at least twelve months. Besides that all the requisite forms have to be completed, and then the candidate can be admitted. People are not automatically appointed. I want to make that clear to hon. members, who can see this list.

Since when was that instituted?

I cannot give you the date, but it has been in existence for some considerable period. Here is a list of candidates who have been appointed since September 1st, 1940. You can look through that list, and I say without hesitation that over 80 per cent. of them bear Afrikaans names. Then the hon. member for Humansdorp dealt with the Union-Castle Company’s contract. As he rightly pointed out, this contract was negotiated in 1913 at a figure of £225,000, of which the post office is debited with £195,000 for carrying the mails. At that time there was a freight contract, but later on the freight contract was divorced from the mail contract. The Fruit Board took over the control and made their own arrangements, and the complaint the hon. member has made with regard to increased freights for fruit had nothing whatever to do with the post office. One need only mention the period of the existence of the contract from 1913 to 1942, and the growth of South Africa in that period, to realise that the freight which the Union-Castle Company is carrying is about four times the amount that this contract was originally created to cover. It is quite true, as the hon. member pointed out, that the mails are not running weekly. That is due to the war, but I want to point out that there are penalties in the contract, and although we are due to pay them £198,000 in the year, we have already debited—that information has been given to the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. R. A. T. van der Merwe)—we have already debited the UnionCastle Company with £153,000. Although we are paying them £198,000, we are able to recover from other countries a good proportion of that, and the actual amount we pay the Union-Castle Company, or the amount the Union Government is responsible for prior to the war, is in the region of £45,000. The hon. member for Cape Town Castle (Mr. Alexander) has dealt with these 1933 recruits, and all I can say is that he knows perfectly well I sympathise with the case that he has made. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) said in his opening remarks that no politics should enter into an appointment, and I entirely agree with the views he expressed there. When I brought in the Broadcasting Act of 1935, the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Havenga, said “You are making a mistake, you are putting a rod in pickle for yourself.” And these words of his will be perfectly true, because hon. members know most of my time on my estimates is devoted to the question of broadcasting. Hon. members know that there is a board to control broadcasting, but I have the power to take over in an emergency the control of broadcasting. I might do so if I felt that I could improve on the present position. I want hon. members opposite to realise that we are at war, and the radio is a means of propaganda that the Government intends to use in connection with the matter. All the speeches and broadcasting that has taken place, and which the hon. member has referred to, have been in connection with the war effort. We have only used the radio for that, and I don’t think the board would approve of my using the radio for a purely party political propaganda.

What does the party pay for broadcasting?

They are getting it for nothing.

I am not making myself as clear as I would like, but do hon. members wish the Government to take it over and use it Simply as a means of Government propaganda?

You are doing it now.

Nothing to the extent which would be done if we were to take it over.

You told us what a wonderful man the Prime Minister is. Is that propaganda?

No, it is the truth.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay referred to the terrible scandal arising from the fact that the internal correspondence being conducted in the department is in one language. Well, Mr. Chairman, this is a thing which has been in existence long before ever I was a Minister, in the days of the old Nationalist Government. It has never been altered, and I am not going to do it in a time of stress like the present, when paper has got to be looked after very closely. The other point the hon. member asked me about was whether I would give him an undertaking that nobody else would be released for service from the post office. Now, Mr. Chairman, I certainly will not give that assurance, but I want to tell hon. members that there are hundreds. I was going to say thousands of men in the Post Office, who are dying to leave to go to the front to fight. We cannot let them go because we have to carry on the service. Many of them have actually resigned, joined up and sacrificed all their benefits. Unfortunately we had to treat them as resignations, and when the war is over and they come back, we will have to consider the position. The hon. member complains of the extra work placed on the post office officials. It is quite true that the post office is the only department that can undertake this additional work, but he is not correct when he wants to make out that all this work is placed on postal officials at particular periods. Pensions are paid out at particular times, the pearol coupons are issued between the 6th and the 16th of the month, and we had to stipulate that we would not grant them after the 16th, so that they would not interfere with the payment of pensions. In another place I gave the figures of the amount that the post office handles in connection with these matters, and I say without hesitation that the post office officials have acted magnificently in carrying this extra and additional responsiblity. The one trouble we suffer from most in some of the smaller places, is the accommodation that the post offices have been called upon to provide. We endeavour, wherever possible, to increase the accommodation, but in many cases unfortunately we have not been able to do so. We have investigated the position of the postmaster at George. Quite definitely the place is inconvenient, but it is the only place in which he can carry on. The hon. member referred to the question of revenue stamps. I am not going to alter the revenue stamps that have been in existence since Union, and I am not going in for alterations of a system that has been established for many years. As to the question about envelopes, I am not responsible for the issue of those envelopes, that is a matter under the control of another Minister. The hon. member complains about the notices posted up in post offices. Well, the post office is a place that most people go to, and we have not hesitated to allow our post offices to be used for propaganda purposes, and we shall continue to do so. As to the reference to the Cape Town Post Office, the figures the hon. member gave are perfectly correct. But for the war many reasonable and legitimate complaints would have been remedied by now. With regard to Mossel Bay, we have got money on the estimates to erect a modern post office there, but unfortunately owing to war conditions we cannot get the material. There is another one at George, and at Beaufort West there is another case. The hon. member for Pretoria East (Mr. Clark) has given me the opportunity for saying something I want to say, and that is that as long as I have occupied this position I have endeavoured to provide accommodation and facilities, no matter whether it is in an opponent’s constituency or in a Government supporter’s constituency. The post office does not know politics, notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. member for Humansdorp. I thought I would intervene early. I don’t want to stop this debate.

You have a hope!

I wanted to reply at once to the remarks of the two previous speakers. There is nothing they have said which is new or unexpected.

There are a few matters I would like to bring to the Minister’s notice. The first is in regard to public telephones. We know that practically no private telephones are being installed today, and I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the public telephone service is very unsatisfactory, especially between the Rand and Pretoria. Sometimes it has taken me as long as twenty minutes to get a connection. One has to dial nought, and when one gets a reply one has to give a number, because there is no automatic telephone in operation to every part of the Rand and to Pretoria. I want to say a little more about that. I have had some peculiar experiences with these public telephones. One may dial the right number; in Pretoria I rang up and got connected with a totally different number. I dialled again, and again I got another number. It happened to me when I tried to get into touch with the Minister’s former secretary. We pay our money into these public telephone boxes, and we expect proper service. In another instance I dialled somebody in Pretoria. The line was engaged. I rang somebody else about the same matter to try to get what I wanted in a round about way, and when I got a reply I could talk to both numbers. I was talking at the same moment to two places. I don’t know how these things happen, because I have not got the necessary technical knowledge, but these things did happen, and I hope the Minister will give the matter his attention and will see to it that the telephone service from the Rand to Pretoria and vice versa, but especially to Pretoria, is improved. In regard to telegrams, we know that in war time the lines sometimes have to be cleared for use by the military authorities. But surely that does not happen every time. I have sometimes sent a telegram away from here at half-past two in the afternoon and it has only been delivered on the Witwatersrand at half-past ten the next morning. Even when we mark our telegrams urgent, which means that we pay double rates, they are not sent through.

I suppose your friends have cut the wires.

No, that only happened once, and I did not send any telegrams in that direction. One gets these complaints from all sides, and there are members here who will confirm what I say. I also have two instances of telegrams which have never been delivered. Nor have I been notified that they have not been delivered, although in actual fact they have not been delivered. If it has happened twice to me, how many other people may not have had the same experience? The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) spoke about telegrams which get lost. That complaint also comes from various quarters—one gets complaints about letters disappearing without any trace whatever being left. That hon. member, or the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), said that no notification whatsoever is given if letters are not delivered. I don’t think it’s fair to the public generally if they have paid postage to allow letters or pamphlets to disappear without leaving any trace. If the authorities are not prepared to deliver certain types of mail, the least they can do is either to send it back to the sender or to let people know. I know of pamphlets which have been sent from Pretoria—not once, but several times —the one week after the other—which were never delivered. What becomes of them? Have we got a Censorship service in South Africa, to stop letters and pamphlets, and to consign them to the waste paper basket? Is it fair to expect the public to pay postage for things which are never delivered, and then not let the people know that they have not been delivered? So far as the service across the counter is concerned, even that is not quite in order, and there are many complaints. In many of the small post offices —I am not talking of the small outside post offices now—but even those on the Rand— one finds the public waiting at the counter in queues—there are even notices to the effect that they have to queue up, and they have to stand and wait until they are served. I have seen several people turn away, and, as a matter of fact, I myself have repeatedly walked off. One simply cannot get attended to and, what is more not only are inexperienced girls or women appointed to attend to the counters … women are more and more used to replace men who have to find other work … but I also find that pensioners are employed and many of those women as well as the pensioners are apparently unilingual only. If one talks Afrikaans one is answered in English. What is to become of that section of the people which does not know both languages? The position is becoming entirely impossible. If the Minister wants to employ women, let him, at any rate, employ women who are bilingual. I must say that I have never yet come across a unilingual Afrikaans speaking official; I have only come across unilingual English speaking people. So far as the radio service is concerned, I want to add a little to what the two hon. members over there have said in regard to this secret transmitter. I think the way they have pressed themselves is quite strong enough. The Minister has now assured us that if the secret transmitter comes on the air again he will try to stop them. That is what I understood him to say; and I hope we can depend upon that. It is really not to South Africa’s credit; but so far as the ordinary radio service is concerned, I particularly want to refer to the early morning service at 7 o’clock. I wonder whether there is any station in the world which sends out such a poor news service as the South African stations do at 7 o’clock in the morning. It lasts four minutes, at the utmost five minutes, and one gets a few news items— they are hopelessly one-sided. The people on the platteland like listening in at that time of the morning as they want to hear the news. To many of the farmers that is the time they have an opportunity of listening in. They are not in the towns or the dorps, where they get an early morning paper to study for the news. They like to know what the principal war news is. If one listens to London at 8.15 a.m. one does get a sort of summary of what has happened in the past twelve or twenty-four hours, even if it is only one-sided, and only represents the English point of view, and has been sharply censored. The news is really very unsatisfactory. [Time limit.]

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the kind of service which his department is giving to the native and coloured members of the public, and also the terms of employment in his department of non-Europeans. It has been increasingly the policy of the Post Office of late to divide our post offices into divisions for Europeans and non-Europeans.

Why not?

I am not concerned at the moment with the principle of that, except in passing to say that in certain parts of the Cape Province that policy has never been indulged in before. And it is causing considerable resentment. But my point is this: the Minister knows perfectly well that it has been laid down by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court that where a division is made between non-Europeans and Europeans in post offices equal facilities have to be given. That was laid down in Rasool’s case in the Appellate Division. And in that portion of the country where I represent the non-European population, several cases have been brought to my notice where that has not been done.

I wish you would bring it to my notice.

I have brought such cases to the department’s notice. I shall do so in one case now. In the De Aar post office the space set aside for non-Europeans is quite inadequate. Also there is no separate clerk to attend to the non-Europeans. I have brought this to the notice of the department already, but I have not yet received a reply. The effect there is that the non-Europeans almost invariably have to wait until European customers have been attended to. I had a similar case of this kind brought to my notice at GraaffReinet. I brought the matter to the notice of the Minister’s department and they replied, I am glad to say, that they would appoint a separate clerk to attend to the non-European people. There was no denial of the justice of the complaint. The point I want to make at the moment is this: that it should never have been necessary for me to complain about the Graaff-Reinet case at all. The law is quite clear on this point. There are instances where the law allows discrimination but this is not one of them. The native and coloured people in this country have a right, which has been laid down by the Appellate Division, which should be observed by the Minister’s department, and I hope that where such instances exist they will receive attention. Another point is this: In most towns the native, and in some cases the coloured location, is a considerable distance from the town, and therefore there is a case, having regard to the population, at any rate for a small post office to be established in such places. In some cases that has been done, but in many cases there is no delivery to the location. I mention Prieska as one instance, but that is not the only place. Now, with regard to the appointment of native and coloured clerks in the Post Office Department, I understand that it is the Minister’s policy to appoint natives or coloured men as, what are termed, “sub-postmasters”—the Minister will correct me if my phrase is wrong—where there are post offices in native areas or other nonEuropean areas, villages, locations, etc. Now I want to ask the Minister how many of these appointments have been made, because on the estimates I cannot see the designation of “sub-postmasters” at all. I should like to know what they are called on the estimates. Incidentally, if in a particular place there is a justification because of the size of the place, or the population, for the establishment of a post office, I cannot see why a postmaster should not be appointed, and why such a post should not be given to a non-European. There may be some reason why full postmasters should not be appointed, in which case I shall be pleased if the Minister will tell us what it is. Also, in these cases where a post office has been divided up, or where a separate post office has been established for non-Europeans, why cannot the celrks also be non-Europeans to serve the non-Europeans? That is not an unreasonable request, it is in accordance with the professed policy of this country in regard to segregation. That policy is said to mean that the native or coloured people will always, where possible, serve their own people. That is the policy laid down by Gen. Hertzog when he was Minister of Native Affairs. I do not know what pay is going to be given to sub-postmasters and native clerks in the department, but the pay of the labourers that are employed in the Post Office Department is certainly not encouraging, because even having regard to the level of wages of unskilled labourers in this country the pay is miserable. I notice that native linesmen are paid from 2s. to 4s. per day. 2s. per day paid by a Government department when the latest wage determinations lay down a minimum of 5s. or 4s. per day for private employers. Even 4s. per day, the maximum paid to the department’s labourers, is lower than what recent wage determinations have made binding as minima on private employers. This pay by the Post Office is as bad as what the Railways are paying, which is saying a great deal. I notice also that there is provision for post boys. They start at the princely wage of £2 per month and can go up to £7, which presumably is after many years’ service. I hope the Minister will take into consideration improving these rates.

We have listened to the Minister’s reply to the charges levelled against him by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), and also by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). The Minister has protested his innocence, and he has told us that he is just as much shocked as we are by what is going on, and that he has done all in his power to stop the illegal transmission. Now, let us test the Minister’s attitude by his own remarks, and by his own replies to questions put to him. In April last year the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill) asked the Minister of Posts whether a radio transmitter on the 50 meter band broadcast anti-Nazi propaganda on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Sundays, whether the stations had been identified, and where it was situated. This, of course, was a disguised advertisement for that radio station. Every one realised that at the time. Now what was the Minister’s reply? At the time this question was put to the Minister the station had been operating for some time. The Minister said—

As I have said, at this time the station had been operating for some time. His attention is directed to the station. He does not know anything about it. We are supposed to have an up-to-date and modern Post Office Administration, and we are supposed to have the necessary experts. They are supposed to keep their eye—or, rather, let us say, to keep their ear on the air, to see if there is any illegal transmitting. Here is this transmission going on for some time. It has been brought to the Minister’s notice and he tells us he knows nothing about it. Nor do his experts. This transmission continued throughout the year. This question was put to the Minister in April. In January I also put a question to the Minister, and I asked him, inter alia, to whom was entrusted the duty of allocating unlicensed transmitters, and whether the official so responsible was advised of the information conveyed to the Minister by the hon. member for Bezuidenout in April last year in regard to an unlicenced transmitter broadcasting on specified days, and on a specified wavelength. What was the Minister’s reply? No definite reply. No reply which one would expect from a Minister, who is supposed to be very much concerned about this illegal transmission. He says—

One would have imagined that as soon as this matter was brought to his attention, be it by way of an advertisement or otherwise, that he would have immediately taken up the matter. It is a serious matter. He said he knew nothing about it and a year afterwards this transmission has been going on regularly twice a week, at the same hour on the same wave length and when the question was put to him, whether the officials had the matter brought to their notice all he could say was: “I am advised he was informed.” In other words, the Minister who now protests his innocence had taken no trouble whatever in his capacity of Minister of Posts and Telegraphs as the man responsible for his department, to take any steps to locate this transmitter. We have had a further admission from the Minister this evening in his reply to the hon. member for Humansdorp. I took his words down as he spoke them. He said this—

Why did the Minister not take these steps long ago? Why now give the House the assurance that if an attempt is made to start again steps will be taken? In case the Minister may not have realised what he was saying he repeated something similar later on and he said this—

May we ask the Minister, in view of the fact that this illegal transmission had been going on throughout last year, why he did not think then of taking other steps? Why did he not think of taking other means? I wish to associate myself with the remarks which have fallen from the hon. member for Humansdorp, and also from the hon. member for Mossel Bay in regard to the filthy language and the filthy sort of propaganda which was put out by this illegal transmitter? I agree with the hon. member for Humansdorp, that nowhere in the world has anything so disgustingly foul been put over the air as was put over by this transmitter which the Minister was not aware of, and which he did not take the least trouble to put a stop to. The Minister has now realised to what extent it has gone on, and he has realised that people even on his own side have recated, and now he comes and tells the House that he is going to do his best. In the question which I nut to the Minister. I put this further point to the Minister. I asked the Minister whether he would be prepared to make use of outside assistance? I asked if he did not have the necessary people in his department with the necessary qualifications for locating the unlicensed transmitter, if we were prepared to give him outside assistance whether he would accent such assistance? And all he says is that in view of the fact that the transmitter had stopped, it would not be necessary in the circumstances. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) also put a question to the Minister, and no doubt he himself will deal with that. And again the Minister gave a most unsatisfactory reply. I want to put this to the Minister: if an unlicensed radio had been operated by the people of the other political complexion, had there been a Nationalist radio, sending out Nationalist propaganda, I am prepared to wager my last penny that the Minister and his department would have managed to locate that radio long ago. But nothing of the sort has been done. He knew what was going on, and he was warned by questions from this side of the House, and meanwhile this filthy stuff was going over the air. The reputation and characters of members on this side were being besmirched in a foul manner. I sincerely hope after what has been said, and after the publicity that has been given to this matter, that we shall be able to rely on the Minister’s assurance, and that we shall not have a repetition of what has been going on for the past year.

I had not intended intervening in this debate but now feel I must in order to reply to the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), and also to a remark made by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). The hon. member for Mossel Bay when criticising our radio activities and the work of the radio on behalf of the Government, in an interjection said: “Yes, all the wireless tells us is what a wonderful man the Prime Minister is.” I am a bit surprised at a remark like that from the hon. member for Mossel Bay. Apparently the wireless does occasionally put over news which may sink in as far as he is concerned, but thank goodness the majority of the people in this country do not need to be told by anyone what a wonderful man the Prime Minister is.

Is that all you have to say?

The hon. member for Mossel Bay was followed by the hon. member for Humansdorp. We had another violent attack on the Minister, and it really boiled down to this—it was an attack on the Minister because of the activities of the freedom station.

Do you defend it?

I was a bit surprised that the Minister paid so much attention to this attack on himself by these two gentlemen. Because in my opinion in this country there is far too much freedom of speech allowed, not only to members inside this House, but to people outside.

Is that what the Captain says?

Well, I realise that these speeches came from two very temperamental men—and they were temperamental speeches—probably ninety per cent. was temper and ten per cent. mental, and the Minister paid too much attention to them. Now let us come back to this freedom station. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) said that the characters of members on the other side had been besmirched, but surely the besmirching of characters is the technique of the Opposition. The characters of members on this side of the House are always being attacked—we are never left alone …

That is all we should do— leave you alone.

Let me say that I have never listened in to that station yet, but one incident was repeated to me, and possibly in that instance the character of an hon. member was inveighed against. I have never heard a reply to the query which was put over by that station. It appealed to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) and asked him where he got nine one hundred pound notes from.

Sis.

Hundred pound notes are unusual in this country. I have only seen one.

On a point of order. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) is now saying slanderous things about the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, and I ask you to call on him to withdraw, and to apologise. He will never dare repeat these remarks outside. This is a slanderous story broadcast by that radio service, and he is now repeating it.

What has the hon. member said?

Is that a point of order?

What did the hon. member say?

I made a statement that it had been broadcast by this freedom station that nine one hundred pound notes had been paid in; but I was not allowed to complete my statement before hon. members opposite got up on points of order. I wanted to say that the freedom station said that nine one hundred pound notes were paid in to the bank by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad—and I go further now. I don’t know whether it is true or not. I sincerely hope it is not …

On a point of order. The hon. member added that he wondered where it came from: “Where did it come from?” I contend that it is a slanderous allegation which he dare not make outside the House. He is repeating a slanderous allegation which was made outside by this secret radio.

What did the hon. member say?

I personally did not make any insinuation. I am not making any insinuations at all.

The hon. member must not make any imputations against the character of members. If he says he is not making any imputations he can proceed.

I personally am not making any imputations.

You must withdraw.

I have said nothing. I am prepared to consider withdrawing any reflections, but will the Chairman tell me what I have to withdraw.

If the hon. member has made an imputation he must withdraw it.

I have not made any imputation.

The hon. member must not repeat ah imputation made outside the House.

Very well, if you will allow me to finish what I was saying …

I think the hon. member should not repeat what the radio said.

May I ask whether the hon. member has withdrawn it?

You have ordered him to withdraw and he has not done so.

I said the hon. member must not repeat an imputation made outside the House.

On a further point of order, is the hon. member entitled to repeat anything that is libellous in this House?

The hon. member for Rosettenville said that he was not making any imputations and he undertook not to repeat what might be taken as an imputation. I told him that he must not repeat it, and if he does repeat it I shall call him to order.

On a point of order, he should withdraw, he repeated an imputation which was made outside.

The hon. member may proceed.

Have you asked him to withdraw or not, Mr. Chairman?

The hon. member says he does not make any imputation.

But the hon. member repeats it.

If the hon. member repeats again I shall call him to order.

Then I ask that Mr. Speaker’s ruling be obtained.

This is not a matter for Mr. Speaker’s ruling. The hon. member may proceed.

I now want to refer to the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). I may say I am sure he won’t ask me to retract this, because there will not be anything to retract. He made a statement— you were not in the Chair, sir, at the time— when he was defending the servants of the post office. He said there were no more loyal servants of the Government than our present civil servants. There I am with the hon. gentleman. I was very pleased to hear him say that, very pleased indeed, because it is this side of the House that has always to defend our officials. The attack always comes from the other side. More than once have I had to sit here and hear attacks from that side of the House on our officials, when these poor unfortunate officials are not here to defend themselves. I hope this portends a change of policy as far as the officials are concerned. Only a few days ago, during a debate we had, there was an attack on a very senior official by a prominent front bencher on the other side. I hope that this is a change of attitude as far as the Opposition is concerned, and that more consideration is now going to be shown our officials than has been shown to them in the past.

What has that got to do with the matter?

The hon. member asks, what has this to do with the matter? Well, we on this side are pleased when an opportunity occurs to get something off our chests which has been sticking there for some time.

It does not come out of your head.

I want to make an appeal to the Minister about the post office at Cullinan. Has the Minister ever been there? I am confident that if he went there he would go past the post office thinking he was passing a little shop or a little room. That post office has to serve thousands of troops up there, and how on earth the postmaster and his staff manage to stand behind the counter is a puzzle to me. If four people who wanted to do business there went into that office, it would have to close its doors as it will hold no more. [Time limit.]

After the vain effort on the part of the hon. member who has just sat down, to repeat those filthy propaganda methods, I shall not take up the time of the House to reply to it. I want to deal immediately with the Minister’s reply. He expressed his complete powerlessness to put a stop to what he himself described as undesirable propaganda. The hon. Minister reminds me of a young boy who was asked: “Who made the world?” He replied: “I did, but I shall not do it again.” That is precisely what the hon. Minister did. He admitted that he was guilty of a gross neglect of duty because he did not put a stop to this sender. He said this in his reply, that he was powerless to compel witnesses to give evidence. It was suggested to him by various representatives here that he could compel those witnesses to give evidence in terms of the emergency regulations. And we want to know why he did not do so; and then we want to know whether he will do so in the future. The result of the manner in which the hon. Minister acts is that honourable people are behind bars, and crooks are at large in the country. I want to protest strongly against the attitude which the Minister adopted here. He said that he would allow the post office to be used as such, as much as it may be necessary, for that war propaganda. I want to ask him where he gets the right to allow the post office to be used for that propaganda? The money which is put into that department is not the Minister’s money, nor is it the Government’s money; it is the taxpayers’ money, and nevertheless the Minister makes the statement here this evening that he will use the department as much as he likes for war propaganda. The whole department is a machine for war propaganda. When you walk into the post office, you can see that it is nothing but a machine for war propaganda. Numbers of these officials sit there with uniforms on, wearing red tabs. I say that when the Minister allows that in a civil service department, he is shamefully discriminating between official and official. Hence I am not surprised that he made a slip of the tongue in another place, and said that he would not appoint people who come from an area which is opposed to the Government. I think it is sad enough that the Minister said that, and the least he can do is to admit it. In another place, he advanced a proposition which he had to repudiate in this House this evening. I think he dropped a brick in the other place. He said there what the actual position is, but under the attack made upon him this evening, he tried to cover the thing. I also want to bring another matter to the notice of the Minister. Things are not faring too well in his department. There is bungling in his department. I want to mention a specific case now. I refer him to the case of the Kruger Day celebration at Klerksdorp on the 10th October. The 10th October is a day of particular import to the Afrikaans speaking community. It is a day in which we commemorate one of the greatest men South Africa has ever produced. What happened this year? The programme of the Kruger Day celebration was sent through the post. The speakers who had to take part —I happen to be one—received a letter from the secretary in which he said that he was forwarding the programme. The letter arrived without the programme, however, the programme had been taken out. The pin mark was clearly visible; the names of the speakers were taken out, and only the letter arrived.

Why do you tell me that only at this stage?

Similar cases have been brought to the notice of the Minister previously. I want to tell the hon. Minister that when he is attacked here, then he does take steps; but such cases have been brought to his notice previously and no steps were taken. I object to this thing. I say that it is nothing but deliberate plotting which took place there. Every single day the post arrives we receive propaganda pamphlets from this country, and sometimes from overseas, about every doctrine which the world has ever known, and that passes through freely, but when it comes to the Kruger Day commemoration, those things are removed from the post. There are also cases where letters simply disappear. I personally had cases where letters were sent from Bloemfontein which did not arrive here. The other day I had a case where a letter was missing for nearly fourteen days, and then it appeared that that letter was censored. I want to ask the hon. Minister to keep better control over his department and to see to it that his department is used for the purpose for which it was instituted, namely, to provide the people with a proper postal service. I am not surprised that those things take place if we listen to the Minister himself; he was prepared to use the Department of Posts as a machine for war propaganda purposes. I want to tell the Minister that he should come back to his civil service. He is not an official of the war department; he is an official of the postal service and of the people, and we expect him to give his attention to this case, and to see to it that the Department of Posts is not used for war purposes. I just want to make a few remarks concerning the radio services. The Minister admitted in so many words that the only people who supported the Government, inter alia, Ministers, were allowed to broadcast, while the Opposition has not the use of the radio. I am not surprised that that happens. If the Minister wants to adhere to what he said this evening, namely, that his department will be used for war propaganda, then I am not surprised that he first waits until a professor A. C. Cilliers, for example, is prepared to declare himself a war supporter before he gets an opportunity to give radio talks.

That has only happened since he supported the Government.

The hon. member says that those talks by Professor Cilliers have only taken place since Professor Cilliers declared himself a supporter of the war policy.

Since he has become a S.A.P.

Yes, since he has become an avowed S.A.P. I understand that those radio talks are issued in pamphlet form, and sent through the post.

Officially.

They are then sent through the post officially. I want to tell the Minister that he has not the right— he has not the moral right or the official right to use the Department of Posts for that purpose, and we want to make an appeal to him and to ask him to make a promise to this House, before his vote is disposed of, that he will return to his own function and use that department for the purpose for which it was created.

When I sat down I was speaking of the post office at Cullinan and showing the Minister how small it was. I know the Minister’s reply will be that it is only a temporary arrangement, but surely with the development of the Defence Force of the Union it is more than likely that this large base camp will remain as a permanent feature of the Defence Force. The most tragic part of the position there is that the telephone exchange is situated alongside the post office, also in a small room and actually, Mr. Chairman, if a member of the forces at Cullinan wants to get through to Johannesburg or Pretoria, he is very lucky if he can get through within two hours, and the distance to Johannesburg is only about 70 miles. If he can get through in that time he pats himself on the back. The trouble, I am told, is that at Cullinan they have not a trained staff. They have no living accommodation there and they cannot get an expert staff.

It is a question of traffic.

The Minister says it is a question of traffic, but I would ask him if the traffic is less from the Johannesburg side than from the Cullinan side when they are both trying to get each other. If a subscriber wishes to get through from the Johannesburg side, he can get through in a matter of about two seconds, but if you want to get through from Cullinan to Johannesburg you have to wait anything up to two hours, and sometimes very much longer. You have thousands of troops out there, and if the Minister can do something to improve matters there he will earn the undying gratitude of the troops stationed there. Another point before I sit down is the shortage of telephones in the military camps in this particular area. I would hate to see the officers of the various units in that camo should take the lead that has been given to the Australian Government by the Americans stationed there. They commandeered the public telephones and in this way overcame the red tape that existed there, and I would not be at all surprised if the troops in the camp in the Cullinan area were to do the same thing if the Minister does not provide more telephones.

After listening to the innocence pleaded by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs here this evening, we want to go into the matter in order to see whether his department is really as innocent as the Minister pretends. There are people in the internment camps today who tried to make transmitting sets. Two days ago I heard of the case of a man whose house was broken into during his absence, only because they suspected that he was making a transmitting set. Here we have the Freedom sender in the country who transmits. I do not want to say this evening what has been broadcast by that sender: the language used would ill-become this House, and nevertheless the Minister and his department are unable to get hold of them, or to ascertain their whereabouts in the country. This evening the Minister told us that the transmitting station is quiet at the moment, and that he will have to take steps if it comes on the air again.

He should prosecute them now.

Eleven days ago the Minister replied to a question put by me that he was making investigations. Which of the two is true? What he told us this evening or the reply he gave eleven davs ago? One does expect that when a Minister tells one something, he will be consistent. I very clearly asked the Minister—

What is the reply of the hon. Minister? The man who testified to his powerlessness in the House this evening, cannot put his finger on one person who can give him a clue so to get hold of that sender. What is his reply? He replies—

He does not want to receive information. Now, I want to challenge the Minister this evening. I want to give him certain informa-, tion, and I challenge him to investigate this information. There is a certain person named H. W. Haupt. I will give the Minister his full address: care of the newspaper “Vryheid”, 84, St. Andrew’s Buildings, Johannesburg. This person is a proxy who acts in the place of a namesake—according to the Minister of Justice—who is a director of the newspaper “Vryheid”. This person went to the heads of advertisement agencies and to the heads of practically all the big businesses in Cape Town. The Minister need not therefore go far in order to get people whom he can compel under the Emergency Regulations to give evidence. He goes to these people and tells them that he represents the newspaper “Vryheid”. In this way the head of the business allows him to negotiate. Then, in the first place, he asks for an advertisement for the newspaper “Vryheid”, but he adds that all profits which are made go to the “Freedom” sender. Furthermore, this person definitely uses another name at each one of the businesses to which he goes. It seems to me that there are plenty of these names, and then we get a chain. He tells these people that he was sent to talk to them by a certain Mr. Louis Esselen. Well, if one looks a little further, one ascertains who the directors are, for example, of the Union Unity Fund, on which Mr. Louis Esselen is, one finds the names of Mr. Higgerty, Mr. Louis Esselen, Mr. Max Sonnenberg, Capt. Hare, and Senator Conroy. I say that this reveals a chain; there are more people in this country, and also in this House who know more about this “Freedom” sender than the Minister wants to make us believe. As I said, I challenge the Minister this evening to use this information which I have given him here, notwithstanding the fact that he replied to me that he did not want information, and that he himself was making investigations; and he said here this evening that he was doing nothing. Now, we would like to know …

Wait a moment; he is getting advice now.

We would now like to know, in view of the fact that the Minister officially replied that he was making investigations, what he is going to do. I have assisted him now. I have given him the name of Mr. H. Haupt of the newspaper “Vryheid.” I gave him the further information concerning the connection between Mr. Haupt and Mr. Louis Esselen, and also the connection between Mr. Louis Esselen and his own Cabinet. We hope that he will now investigate this matter further, and put a stop to the freedom station which contaminates the air of South Africa as it has never before been contaminated. I just want to say a word or two in connection with what the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) said, in connection with people who get posts in the Department of Posts, according to the statement of the Minister in anther place. Here he shows that he is discriminating as between the races in South Africa, and he is discriminating between people on the ground of political convictions. I want to give him an example from my own constituency. The Minister came to me in a friendly way and told me he had installed a public telephone at Mount Leonard. Who asked for it? Not my predecessor, Senator Raubenheimer, nor I; but it is the five supporters of the Government who got that telephone, while ten miles further on the main road from Upington there are 30 people and they cannot get a public telephone. But at this place where there are no people, except the five supporters of the Government, they get a telephone. I should like to know from the Minister who applied for that telephone? I say that that proves to us that here too the Minister is discriminating between people according to their political views. There are other parts of the country where telephones are vitally essential for the development of the country. These people apply for it but they do not get it. The Minister tells us that his difficulty is to get hold of material. Now I want to ask the Minister, if Reivilo is prepared to build a post office with its own funds, on its own ground, and if it were to let it to the Minister at a reasonable rental, in order to get a decent post office, which they have not got now, will he be prepared to take such a proposal into consideration?

I should like to take the opportunity this vote gives me to draw the Minister’s attention to the difficulties that prevail in the various suburban post offices in Johannesburg. In Jeppe, sir, at certain periods of the month, a person has to stand from twenty minutes to half an hour before getting served. I quite realise the Minister’s difficulties, but it is hardly conducive to the good conduct of business when people should have to wait so long for an ordinary post office service. In my own experience, I wished to send a telegram at the post office in Yeoville. It was one morning about 8 o’clock, and from the time I joined the tail of the queue to the time I reached the counter and was able to send my telegram was 22½ minutes. The staff there was doing its best to cope with the business, I am not imputing any negligence to the staff, but the position is that the work is more than these suburban offices can cope with, and I would like the Minister to realise that, and to see if something cannot be done to increase the staffs at these suburban post offices. They have had an enormous burden placed on them owing to the war, and they are providing the public with all sorts of extra services, and in my view the increase of staff is not commensurate with the burden of the work, and the public is seriously inconvenienced.

The Minister promised that in future he would take steps against the so-called freedom sender. I take it that the Minister will take steps in the matter and do his best to put a stop to that freedom sender. But I want to tell him that there are people in his own post office who are in touch with that sender. I shall tell him why I say so,. I had a conversation in Bloemfontein over the telephone with two people in the afternoon, and a week later …

The Minister knows very well who it is.

A week later the freedom sender made use of that conversation, although it was distorted. That is celar proof that there is someone in Bloemfontein who listens in to the telephone conversations in order to give information to the freedom sender. Insofar as that is concerned, there can be no misunderstanding. I said certain things over the telephone which were distorted and then broadcast. That shows that there are certain people in his department who are in touch with the sender, and I want to ask the Minister whether he will make a point of putting an end to this freedom sender. I also want to draw the attention of the Minister to the Budget. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that in the Budget provision is made for three under-secretaries, each at a salary of £1,200, which increases annually by £50 up to £1,350. The Minister will remember that when he became Minister of Posts, he appointed Mr. Redlinghuys, who was Assistant Postmaster-General, to the position of under-secretary. He appointed other people along with him, to undersecretaryships. On our side we immediately protested against the fact that Mr. Redlinghuys, who was the senior, was placed on an equal footing with other under-secretaries, and the Minister then told us on the floor of this House that Mr. Redlinghuys remained senior to the other person. This evening we notice in the Budget that all three under-secretaries receive precisely the same salary. In other words, the other persons who were the juniors of Mr. Redlinghuys, are now on an equal footing with him. We level the accusation against the Minister that this is a move on his part and on the part of the Postmaster-General, that it is a deliberate plan which is carried out with premeditation, in order to prevent Mr. Redlinghuys from becoming the next Postmaster-General. In the post office, Afrikaans speaking people are treated shabbily in a scandalous way. There is no other department in our civil service where the Afrikaners are as shabbily treated as in the post office. Another department where the same position exists, is the Department of Public Works, which also falls under this Minister. The Minister tells us that he does not want to differentiate on the ground of race and political conviction of people in the service of the Department of Posts, but then I want to tell him that he should take steps through the medium of his inspector to put an end to this unfair discrimination which takes place in the post office, as between English speaking and Afrikaans speaking persons. What was the position with regard to Mr. Redlinghuys? If the position of Mr. Redlinghuys had not been altered he would now have been the second highest official in the postal service, and he would have been the next Postmaster-General. But now we had this policy of the Minister to make him an under-secretary along with two other persons. As Assistant PostmasterGeneral he occupied an important post. He dealt with the staff and promotion. But he has now been rendered harmless by the Minister. The other two persons have been placed on an equal footing with him and he has been placed in a section where he cannot exercise any influence in relation to promotions in the postal service. We cannot leave it at that; the Minister must rectify this thing. I also want to ask the Minister why such a deficient news service is broadcast over the radio in the mornings. The morning news service is of the greatest importance to the platteland, where people do not get their newspapers in the morning, and they would like to have their news in the morning. In the big cities people can buy newspapers in the mornings before going to work, but in the platteland people cannot do so, and they would like to have a radio news service which in broad outlines will give them the news of the day. Why is such a brief service given? In the evenings a complete news service is given, and why cannot that be done in the mornings too? The Minister must explain the reason to us. Only a few items are broadcast, and the platteland is complaining about it. Perhaps the Minister has an agreement with the Press not to transmit a full news service in the morning. I can think of no other reason. I hope that the Minister will give his attention to these few matters.

I want to ask the hon. Minister why, seeing that we are 5,000 or 6,000 miles away from the theatre of war, the principle has been introduced that weather reports are not to be published? I don’t know whether the Minister is aware of it, but this is a valuable and important service to which the farmers in the past used to look forward. I am not going to say that the whether predictions were always 100 percent. correct, but they were certainly of great value to the farmers. It was most valuable to the farmers to know twenty-four hours ahead more or less what weather he could expect, and, instead of the Minister helping them by supplying the weather reports, not only for twenty-four hours, but even for longer, we find now that since the outbreak of war the sending out of these weather reports have been stooped. We know that weather conditions fluctuate, but I understand that it is possible to make weather predictions more than twenty-four hours in advance, and if the Minister realised how much value those weather reports were to the public he would review his decision in regard to the sending out of the weather reoorts. If the war were close to us there might be some reason for the department’s statement that it cannot send out these weather reports, because it does not want to supply information to the enemy, but surely in the circumstances, with the war so far away from us it seems very improbable that the enemy could get anything out of those reports which might help him. The Minister should review this matter, and should start sending out the reports again. If the enemy should come near, then it would be another question. Now, I also want to say something about the delivery of telegrams. I have a telegram in my pocket which was despatched from Victoria West at 9 o’clock this morning. It arrived in this town at 11 o’clock. At half-past twelve I put through an urgent telephone call to Victoria West, and this telegram was only delivered to me at 3 o’clock. People incur the expense of sendiing a telegram, and surely they have the right to expect it to be delivered within a reasonable time. I hope the Minister will see to it that telegrams are more speedily delivered in future.

It took five hours to deliver it.

Yes, there was a five hour delay in this town. I understand that the excuse is that they have not got enough people to deliver letters and telegrams. If the wages are not sufficient to attract people to undertake that type of work than the wages should be increased. But it is an impossible position if one has urgent telegrams despatched to have them delayed five hours in this town before they are delivered. Now I have another matter of more general importance, a matter which I have already discussed with the Postmaster General and which it is somewhat difficult for us to understand. The PostmasterGeneral was very sympathetic and I must say he has always been very sympathetic when I have raised any subject with him, but I want the Minister to give his attention to this matter, and I want him to see whether he cannot remedy the position, because the public do not understand it. As matters are today we find that where a farm telephone is connected up to a station which serves as an exchange, they have to pay for that privilege by paying for calls as if they go through an exchange. Now I want to tell the Minister what happened in my own district. I can quite understand that if a telephone is connected with a station, the station staff has to do the work of the Exchange. The Railway Service is used in such cases, and if the calls are free the railway staff would perhaps be worried too much, but after 5 o’clock in the afternoon the exchange is closed and the telephones are put through to the town, and then we find that the people have to pay 3d. per call if they want to be connected with another farm line. This is an injustice to them. Assuming I am on line 17 and the other man on line 18. He is in the position that in the day time he is connected with the station, and for that reason he has to pay his 3d. after 5 oclock to be connected with line No. 17, although both use the same exchange. I hope the Minister will realise that those people are not getting any special privileges. They have to pay for every call they put through and I hope he will take steps to ensure that those people at least get the same privileges which other people in the district have, that is that after 5 o’clock in the evening, when they have all to go through the same exchange, they will all be treated alike. We know that at the moment there is little or no material for the extension of telephone connections, but I should like to know from the Minister whether he expects new stocks to arrive shortly and I should also like to know whether many orders have been placed? I further want to know whether if new stocks come in the extension of the telephone system will be carried on with. I also want to tell the Miniser that if there is any extension of the telephone service he should realise that there are areas where telephones are very badly needed, especially now that petrol is being rationed. We have this position, that in a small place there may perhaps only be one garage, and it will be beneficial to all the farmers in the district, and not only to the benefit of that garage, if such a place can have a telephone. I want to know from the Minister whether there is really such a shortage of material that it is impossible to instal telephones in cases where a telephone is very urgently needed? I hope the Minister will give his special attention to such cases where it is not only in the interest of the individual but where it is in the interest of the whole district for a telephone to be installed. I notice that the Minister is a little more awake now after the bloodthirsty attacks which have been made here, and I hope he will make notes of the points we are raising, and I trust those points will have his attention. We on the platteland do not enjoy many of the privileges which the towns have. In addition to that our means of transport have been taken away from us to a very large extent. The Minister should realise the position of the farmer whose farm is sixty or seventy miles away from the nearest town—the Minister should realise what that man’s position is now that petrol has been rationed. If that man has to drive his car to fetch a doctor his 400 miles are practically used up. If he can ring up a doctor, or if he can use a telephone, in connection with urgent business, it is most valuable to him. I hope the Minister will make a special effort to come to the assistance of these farflung parts of the country.

I want to tell the Minister that I have always been proud of our Post Office. Our postal service has been a good one and it is a service which was given to the country by these servants of the public. I feel sorry having to complain now of the fact that the Service is getting worse and worse every year. We are no longer getting the service we used to get, the public are no longer being catered for in the way they used to be. I don’t know what the reason for it is. The public are becoming dissatisfied, and the officials are becoming dissatisfied. The clerks who hold political views different from those of the Minister are nervous because they are afraid of victimisation. I want to get a definite reply from the Minister, and I want the Minister to tell us that so long as an official in the Post Office does his duty in the way he should, and does not concern himself during his service with political matters, that that man will have the same chances of promotion as the Minister’s own supporters have. I expect that from the Minister, but I want him to give us an unambiguous statement so that our minds can be put at rest, and so that the officials in the Post Office can also have their minds put at rest. It may appear to be a small thing to the Minister, but we who live among those people and associate with them know that they are very uneasy about the position. It is no use my giving them the assurance, and others giving them the assurance that it is not the Minister’s money and the PostmasterGeneral’s money which is paying them their salaries, but that it is our money and that they cannot be victimised. The feeling is there and I want the Minister to make a solemn statement in connection with the postal service so that those people may know that they are safe. Now there is another question I want to put to the Minister. I am told that the Postmaster-General is an officer in the army, a colonel or something like that. I do not object to that. If he wants to give his services to the army, by all means let him do so, but what is the position now? If the Minister gives an instruction to the Postmaster-General as the head of the department, and the Postmaster-General gets an order from his commanding officer which is in conflict with the order he has had from the Minister, whose instruction is the Postmaster-General going to carry out? If he wants to be an officer in the Army let him be an officer. If he is so patriotic let him join the Army and leave the Service while he is an officer. If he does not give up his position in the Service we are going to have confusion. That is one of the causes which has given rise to the fact that the officials in the Service are not sure of their positions. That is why I am asking the Minister to make a statement as to whose orders the Postmaster General will carry out in the circumstances which I have described. Now I come to another matter which my hon. friend next to me has already raised, namely the telephone service on the platteland. Telephones on the farms are no longer used simply for people’s pleasure. They are a necessity. They are no longer there for pleasure, or simply for convenience. They are a necessity for the farmers’ work—the farmer needs a telephone for his business. It is so to a greater extent where the farmer is concerned than it is where the people in the towns and the dorps are concerned. Last year telephone costs in the town were reduced. I used to pay £7 10s. for my telephone, and I was notified that in future it would only cost me £5. In my business I used to pay £10. The farmers need their telephones just as much as the townsmen do, and I want to know why the cost has not been reduced so far as the farmer is concerned. I want to make an appeal to the Minister, and I want to ask him to try and meet those people. He should realise that the price of products has been fixed on such a low basis that the farmer cannot make any profit out of the war. The cost of living is going up; the implements which the farmer requires have gone up in price; the cost of labour is going up; the cost of fertiliser is going up, yet the farmer gets more or less the same price for his products. Now, that being the position I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot see his way to grant these people some relief so far as their telephone service is concerned. The Post Office is making large profits. It is making a lot of money, and the Minister should avail himself of the opportunity to help these people. There was a time when the Department was very keen on the farmers taking telephones. Today it is impossible to grant any extensions on account of the shortage of materials, and that is why we want the Minister to come to the assistance of the people in the way I have suggested, and these people do need help. The Minister of Finance wants to keep down the cost of living, but it cannot be done. The cost of living is going up although the prices which these people get for their products have been fixed, and we ask the Minister to try and meet these people in that respect. Now there is another matter in connection with which I should like the Minister to tell us what his policy is—I am referring to the Telephone Exchange. Why should there be two or three Exchanges in a district like Robertson? Why cannot the telephone system be so arranged that we have only one exchange in the town? It would serve us much better because the telephone will be used to a much greater extent. The whole system could be better organised then. Today the position is that if I want to ring up a certain part of my district twenty fives miles away from the town, there is only one exchange, but if I want to talk to a place five miles away from the town I first of all have to go through another exchange, and if I talk to a place ten miles away there is yet another exchange. That sort of thing is not fair. It is unfair to the various subscribers and I think the system should be so arranged that they can all be treated alike. It is only a question of money, but the people who are connected with the Central Exchange in the town get a night service while the others who are not connected with the town have no night service. If we change the system, and if we have one exchange, the same hours can apply to all, and all will have the same service. That is why I should like to know from the Minister what his Department’s policy is in connection with the exchange. Now I have another point I want to raise. I have made requests to the Department several times on behalf of the farmers in the Koo. These people live some distance away from town, in the Montagu district. They get their mail twice a week and the telephone exchange is at the home of one of them. That man is not friendly with his neighbours round about him. They want a change to be made so that all of them can be attended to, and I should like to know why they should not all be attended to.

I want to raise a question which I have repeatedly brought to the Minister’s notice. He will remember that on one occasion he was very hospitably received in the North-Western part of the Free State in the little dorp Bothaville. On that occasion he promised Bothaville that the post office would be rebuilt. The main street of Bothaville is one of the nicest one can find in a platteland dorp, but in that same street there is a post office which is really a disgrace not only to the Department of Posts but also to Bothaville, and to the whole Free State, as my hon. friend here remarks. I should greatly appreciate it if the Minister of Posts and the Postmaster General would remember to carry out their promise to the public of Bothaville. They should remember, if they delay and if they leave that building there any longer, that they are in danger of the public burning it down, or getting somebody to do it, because I can give hon. members the assurance that if the Minister wants to keep the public of Bothaville as a peaceloving community and does not want them to commit some act of violence against this post office building, he must do something for Bothaville and put up a building worthy of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, worthy of a progressive dorp like Bothaville. The Minister made a promise as far back as 1934 and I am quite convinced that if the Minister would only instruct the PostmasterGeneral, the zealous secretary of Public Works would very quickly see to it that the people of Bothaville were satisfied. There is another question I very briefly want to touch upon. It strikes me as peculiar that the Department continues to follow the old policy towards those postmasters who are not on a fixed establishment, and that the amount on the Estimates keeps on increasing from year to year so far as those people are concerned. This seems to be an anomaly which should be done away with as far as possible. I realise the difficulties of the postal authorities, and I know that they need postal agents of that kind occasionally. On the other hand, we have this position, that these postmasters have been in the service of the State for the last twenty, twenty-five and every thirty years. They have faithfull served the State. Sometimes they are buried in those far distant districts, they are not transferred, and they have no chance of promotion. It is really high time the Minister and the PostmasterGeneral revised their policy and the Department’s policy in regard to these people. I feel that if a person has faithfully served the State for ten, fifteen or twenty years as postmaster, he should be appointed to a fixed establishment and he should be considered for promotion and for transfer. After so many years service I do think that the postal authorities should be sufficiently aware of the merits of such an official. It should be impossible for a man to be in the service for fifteen and twenty years and still find himself in the rediculous position of not being on a fixed establishment. I strongly want to urge the postal authorities to revise their policy in this regard so that these people may be placed on a different footing. I do feel that we owe it to those officials, that the State owes it to those officials, to place them on a sound basis in the service.

In passing I want to say a few words about the matter which has been raised here, namely the secret transmitter. The Minister made a very poor excuse, namely that he knew that there was a secret transmitter which was broadcasting, that his Department had already made attempts to discover the transmitter, but that so far they had not succeeded in doing so, and then he raised his hands in innocence and told us that hon. members were attacking an innocent man like himself. He told us also that he was powerless to take any action against the particular paper which had published letters about the secret transmitter. There we have a Minister who is a member of the Government which possesses special powers today, such powers that the Prime Minister today in actual fact is the dictator of South Africa. Yet a member of that Government declares that he and his Government have not got the power to compel the Editor of the paper to disclose the name of the individual who has written that letter! I have the letter before me. At least I have before me one of the letters that was written on the subject. It appeared in the “Sunday Times” of the 16th November of last year under the heading “Freedom Radio”. In that letter it is stated that the difficulty which had existed had been overcome, and that they would broadcast again on the 16th November at 6.45 over wave lengths 50 and 83. The letter was signed “Fighters for Freedom”. This letter emanated from a person who used the freedom radio. I asked the Minister a question in that connection and the Minister replied that he had read the letter and that he had asked the Editor of the Paper to inform him of the name of the writer, but that he had not the power to compel the Editor of the paper to disclose the name of the writer, and that in this particular case the newspaper had refused to disclose the name. Now I want to put a question to the Minister, a pertinent question, in the way the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) usually puts his question: If the letter which was published in this paper had been a letter from a person who had a radio transmitter, and who was hostile to the Government, would the Minister in that event have done nothing? Assuming a letter of that kind had appeared in one of our Nationalist Papers, a letter announcing that a certain secret transmitter which was hostile to the Government was going to broadcast at a certain time over a certain wave length? Would the Minister not have taken steps to obtain the name of the writer of such a letter, if the sender had continually broadcast propaganda against the Government? Would the Minister not have taken steps to arrest the particular individual, and to stop the transmitter? Would the Minister not have had the power to obtain the individual’s name and address. I take it that the Minister would certainly not have hesitated in that particular case to compel that paper if necessary under threat of imprisonment to disclose the name, and he would very quickly have put an end to the secret transmitter. The Minister tells us that if it happens again he will perhaps take steps. I assume that the individual who during the past twelve months has been responsible for the broadcasts by the secret transmitter has contravened the law. Any radio transmitter not licenced by the Government is prohibited. In other words, the people who are connected with the secret transmitter are criminals, but the Minister refuses to take any steps against them. They have been breaking the law for months, but the Minister says he is not going to do anything about it. If it happens again, however he will take steps. I think the Minister is just as guilty, and the Minister of Justice should give instructions to have him arrested. The Minister is an accomplice to the crime, and the Minister of Justice should take steps. Now there is another matter I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. On Friday, 27th March, the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) put a question to the Minister in regard to the non-delivery of the periodical “Stryd” of the Youth Bond of the Transvaal. Two issues of that periodical which were posted in the usual way were not delivered to the subscribers, and the question put to the Minister was whether those two editions had been destroyed by the Department, and whether the Minister would, if that was the case, consider compensating the publishers. It is the official organ of the Youth Bond of the Transvaal. What was the Minister’s answer? That the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had no knowledge of the matter. In other words, we had another display of the Minister’s lack of knowledge of what is going bn in his own Department. I want hon. members to take note of the fact that we are dealing here with a periodical of which thousands of copies are despatched every month to regular subscribers. In two instances these copies were not delivered and the publishers were never informed of the reason for the nondelivery. Representations were made to the Post Office and to the Minister, and now the Minister comes here and tells us that he does not know what happened to them. I want to know from the Minister tonight why this periodical was confiscated? Was it done on the instructions of the Department of Defence, or on the instructions of the Board of Censors?

The Minister’s own secretary probably ordered the Minister to do so.

Quite possible, because his own secretary is a high military official, but what has happened to these periodicals? Is the Minister going to tell us that the contents were such that they were calculated to undermine the safety of the State? Was that the reason? I read every one of them and I can tell the Minister that very little political matter was published in the paper. Only facts and announcements in regard to party political matters, similar to what we find every day in our papers. Only the ordinary news reports which we find in cur papers every day, but in a most inexplicable way two issues of this periodical disappeared completely, and nobody can account for it. The Minister owes us a reply and should tell us what happened. If he does not know he should order an investigation to be made, if he finds that the books, the periodicals, have been confiscated, he should pay compensation to the publishers. The organisation has not got a lot of money and the publication of the paper had to be stopped because they did not know whether the subscribers would receive the books in future.

I should like to know from the Minister what the policy of the Department is in regard to attending to Europeans and coloured people in our various post offices. Are the officials in our various post offices obliged to serve Europeans and coloured people over the same counter? I may say that certain cases have been brought to my notice where this has happened and I have brought the matter to the notice of the Minister and his Department. In dorps on the platteland one sometimes finds one room, and not a large room at that, put aside for postal work, and coloured people as well as Europeans have to be attended to there. The work of the post office has increased tremendously of late. Pensions and similar things have to be attended to, coloured people have to be paid out, and on certain days of the month the post offices are full of coloured people and it is impossible for the Europeans to get into the place. I wrote a letter to the Department about the condition of affairs in one of the dorps in my constituency, and the reply more or less amounted to this, that as soon as things were better and something could be done the matter would receive attention. I ask the Minister whether it is fair to leave these matters over? It conflicts with the feelings of the Euroepans that they have to be served across the same counter, and I don’t think it unreasonable to demand that an immediate change be made.

Which place are you referring to?

Uniondale. It is a fairly large dorp, and it is impossible for people to be attended to during certain times of the month because the place is full of coloured people, and it is almost impossible to get near the counter. I hope the Minister will give the matter his attention. There is just one other point I want to raise. In some of the dorps of the platteland the post office is closed on a Wednesday afternoon. I don’t want to object to it because I admit that in most cases on the platteland Wednesday counts as a half day, and shops and everything close, but the objection is to the telegraph office also being closed. The Telephone Exchange is kept open for the use of the telephone, but if anyone wants to despatch a telegram on Wednesday afternoon he cannot do so. One only sends telegrams if it is urgent, and it often happens that an urgent telegram has to be despatched on a Wednesday afternoon, but the office is closed then. I think it could easily be arranged for telegrams on Wednesday afternoons to be sent to the Telephone Exchange, because there is always somebody on duty there to attend to the despatch of the post. It can easily be arranged so that telegrams can be despatched on Wednesday afternoons in that way. It is definitely necessary.

When hon. members ask the Minister for extension of services we are always told that there is no material and that there is no labour available to extend ordinary services during the war, but now I want to ask the Minister what the reason is that at Dasville, where a farmer’s commercial business has been set up, a postal agency was first of all granted which was afterwards taken away again. A postal agency was asked for, and a fine building was placed at the Minister’s disposal free of charge, and a staff free of charge was arranged for, and transport of the mail to the post office at Grootvlei was also provided for. It would have cost the Minister nothing and the postal agency was started for the convenience of the farmers in that area. The Department approved of it, but without consulting the Department the Minister suddenly gave instructions that the agency was to be closed. I want to ask the Minister what was the reason for closing that agency? And the same applies to the telephone there. The Department allowed a telephone but said that they did not have the necessary material to establish the necessary connections. We pointed out that there were two lines in the area which had been given up for years and were not being used and the farmers were prepared to take out the poles, to carry them free of charge, and, if necessary, put them in again under supervision of the Department. That, too, was refused. We also applied for petrol. We approached the Minister of Commerce and Industries and convinced him that it was necessary for us to get a petrol pump there. The Minister of Commerce and Industries sent out a man and immediately consented to a petrol pump being put up there. But after twenty-seven days the postal agency was suddenly closed. In the twenty-seven days it was open it took £30, but the Minsiter refused after twenty-seven days to allow it to remain open. And now I must mention something which made a very bad impression on the public there. The Jew at Grootvlei—that is where the post office is—told the public when we got our post office that he was going to spend £2,000, but he would get the postal agency closed. And the postal agency was closed, but the Minister has not said why it was done. He did not even consult his Department; he simply gave instructions that it was to be closed. Hon. members will realise the impression this sort of thing made on the public, especially as what the Jew said would happen actually did happen. I called on the Minister and he promised that he would come out himself. If an agency is of such importance in busy times like the present that the Minister himself has to go out to investigate matters, then it creates a lot of doubt in one’s mind, but I hope the Minister will give us an explanation why this agency cannot be kept open for the benefit of the farmers? The Minister has written to me and told me that his information is that practically speaking the only people to benefit from the agency are my relations. There are 131 shareholders in the Co-operative Farmers’ Shop an all the people in that area got their mail there. Now the Minister says that it is only my relations and my people who got their letters there. I hope we shall get a more satisfactory reply.

The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) made certain revelations in regard to a Mr. Haupt who went round the country to get advertisements for the paper “Libertas.” One Minister and several members of Parliament are on the Board of that paper. The paper is financed by the Union Unity Fund. Where do the finances of the Union Unity Fund come from? I want to draw the attention of hon. members to a communication dated 21st December 1929 on behalf of the Union Unity Fund to the General Managers of Insurance Companies in Liverpool. They wrote a letter to the Insurance Companies in which they stated that on the 20th December, 1939, a meeting was held at Cape Town where Mr. Sutter, M.P., had met the representatives of various insurance companies and gave them an interview in regard to the activities of the Union Unity Fund.

We have had that story before.

It will do you good to hear it again. In the letter sent to those insurance companies which have their head offices outside of South Africa, we have the following—

And what does the memorandum say? It says this—

And they go further and say—

And then they go on to say that it was important to combat the neutrality propaganda. Here we find the link, Haupt comes to canvas for advertisements for the paper “Libertas.” The Board contains a Minister and several members of Parliament. The paper is financed by the Union Unity Fund. The Union Unity Fund applies for money from outside companies in England. Now it is clear to us why the Minister cannot stop this freedom radio. He is afraid to stop his own Prime Minister; he is afraid to stop the Minister of Lands; that is the position. I now want to accuse the Minister of being afraid to call his own Ministers to order. I go further, and I say that the Minister knows perfectly well where the freedom radio is. Let him ask Haupt; let him ask the Minister of Lands, or he can ask other people. He can compel them to talk and to say where the freedom radio is. They have collected £500,000 and they have used that money to establish the freedom radio. The Minister can compel those people to tell him, let him start with Haupt.

I move—

I second.

I have not got up to object to the motion but only to try and prevent what happened yesterday happening again in the future, namely that we should be asked suddenly, without proper notice, to discuss proposals imposing a burden of £9,250,000 on the people of this country. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell), made a good suggestion yesterday when he asked the Minister whether it was not possible in view of the importance of taxation proposals to inform the House in good time, a week or so before the time, that on a particular day the taxation proposals would be discussed here. Everybody on this side of the House and on the other side of the House would then have an opportunity to prepare himself properly and we could have a thorough discussion. I would like to know whether the Minister will consider that suggestion and whether he can give us some assurance in that respect.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) suggested yesterday that we should give notice in advance that a motion was to be proposed on a particular date for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means. Under the Rules of the House it is impossible to do so. All I can do is to inform hon. members informally in advance that I intend proceeding with the matter more or less on a certain date. I cannot tie myself down to do so a week in advance. It very often depends on circumstances. We have to take into account the drafting of the Bills. We always keep this motion back until the Bills are almost ready to be introduced and we often do not know until a few days before time when the Bills will be ready. But I shall be pleased to promise that I shall do my best to give members notice privately when we intend coming to the House with the proposals although I shall not always perhaps be able to give a definite date.

I first of all want to say a few words about the taxes on profit on the sale of immovable property. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that not only is the amount he proposes taking, namely 13s. 4d. in the £ an impossible tax but to all intents and purposes it is a capital levy and it takes part of people’s capital away from them. If I bought a property before October and I sold it the day before the Minister made his Budget speech, and I made a profit on that transaction, I have to pay 6d. 8d. in the £, but if I sold it the day after, I have to surrender 13s. 4d. in the £. The Minister must not blame me for not believing that the tax has been introduced merely with the object of preventing an uneconomic rise in land values. No, it has been introduced for the purpose of getting revenue. I have always felt that a man who makes a profit on shares or on the sale of land should be taxed on that profit, that he should pay ordinary income tax on it, but here we are asked to agree to a levy amounting to one third of the profit. The war is not the principal cause of the rise in land values. There is a scarcity of land and the Government is not allotting land for settlement purposes, and we have been told clearly that it is the Government’s intention after the war to allot land only to soldiers. The result is that people are now trying to buy land. It is impossible for them to secure land in any other way. The Government is not prepared to help them. What is the Minister going to achieve now? What right has he to take 6s. 8d. or 13s. 4d. off the profit which one makes on land when he is not doing the same thing in regard to the gold mines? Why does he not take 13s. 4d. in the £ off the increased price of gold? The increase in the price of gold was brought about by our leaving the gold standard as a result of legislation passed by this House. The gold mines had nothing to do with it, but they made tremendous profits out of it. Why does not the Minister tax the gold mines in that way? If I buy property because I can look further ahead than my neighbour, and I make a profit on it, I have to surrender two thirds of my profit by way of taxation. If a poor man needs land and wants to buy it he simply cannot get it, and the only result will be that people will try to evade the provisions of the law in some way or another. The poor man will suffer from it. If somebody really needs a house in town, if he needs an erf, and he has to buy because he cannot rent a place, he will find himself in an impossible position. The man who has money will no longer invest it in houses or in land, but he will invest it in hotels, or in boarding houses. And if I have a property worth £1,000 and somebody approaches me and badly needs my house, and if he wants to give me £1,500, then if I have to give up two thirds of my profit to the State by way of taxation, I am going to sell that house for £1,500 plus the two thirds tax which I have to pay the State. The Minister knows that that happened in the past and that that is what is going to happen again. The only result will be that the value of land will go higher in consequence of this form of taxation. I fail to understand where the Minister gets the idea of imposing a tax of this kind. If the Minister had said that income tax must be paid on a profit of that kind I would have understood it, but now it is not income tax, it is a capital levy. If I use capital to buy land and I make a profit on it, I have to give up 6s. 8d. or 13s. 4d. And now I want to ask what equity there is in a proposal of that kind. If I had sold on the 26th February I have to surrender 6s. 8d. But if I sold on the 27th February I have to surrender 13s. 4d. of my profit. What fairness is there in that? Parents have to buy land for their sons. They won’t be able to get land. It is becoming very difficult to get any land at all in consequence of the Government’s declaration that the land which is available, Crown land which is available, will be kept for returned soldiers. Other citizens of the State cannot get land for settlement purposes. A father will have to see to it that he gets a farm for his son but as a result of this taxation proposal the price of land will actually go up further and it will make it impossible for people to secure any land at all. It is an unfair tax and a bad tax. I want to ask the Minister why I must pay this tremendous tax on any property I sell, while I do not have to pay it if I buy cattle, and if I speculate in cattle. If the Minister taxes people who speculate in food, vegetables and other farm products, and if he imposes a capital levy on these people if they make tremendous profits, he may perhaps be doing the right thing. One sometimes finds that fruit is sold on the market at 1/per box. The fruit is carried across the road to the Parade where it is sold for 5/-, so those people are making a 400% profit. If the Minister took 75% of the profit made by those people it would be a different thing. If the Minister imposed an income tax on the profits which people make when selling land, I could understand it, but what the Minister is imposing now is not an income tax, it is a capital levy. Whether one makes £100 or £500 or £5,000 profit, one has to give up 13s. 4d. in the £. It is an unfair tax and the Minister cannot justify it. In regard to the estate duty I want to emphasise that in imposing an estate duty one should always remember that the wife and children of a man leaving the estate should not be exposed to the danger of being thrown on the streets afterwards. A sufficient sum of money should be left over for them. I a man is old and gets to the end of his days and he has no one dependent on him and he leaves an estate, an estate duty is quite fair. But my experience is that where there are a number of small children and the man dies, often not enough is left to provide for the education of the children. The dependants who are left behind should not be taxed unduly. There should be no estate duty at all on small estates, unless there are no dependants who have to live on what they have left. Where there are dependants, where the are children who have to be educated, sufficient should be left in an estate tot provide for such purposes. Otherwise it is a very serious thing to increase the estate duty. If the Minister prevents dependants from being unfairly affected I have no objection to the estate duty at all, but provision must be made for the dependants. Then may I say a few words about the tax in regard to the use of stills? We are trying our best by means of the Excise Act to see whether we cannot curtail the illicit liquor trade in some way or another, and the idea is that the people who distil small quantities for their own consumption are to be allowed to get brandy at cost price. They cannot sell what they distil themselves, unless they sell it illegally. The proposal has now been made that the people who distil small quantities of brandy themselves will be supplied with brandy at cost price or at the same price as what the wine farmers get it. I believe that in that way the use of stills which exist in the Transvaal and Free State today will be reduced. If they distil fruit they cannot sell the product, they can only keep it for their own use. The grape farmers, the Board of the K.W.V. now propose to supply brandy at cost price to those people who have their own stills. In that way you will get a healthy article and furthermore the illict liquor trade will be restricted. We are as much opposed to the illicit liquor trade as anybody. The illicit liquor trade is not in the interest of the wine farmers; we are anxious to see it stopped, and we are prepared to assist by supplying brandy at cost price to the people who have the right today to do private distilling. If that effort succeeds there will be no need to impose this 2s. 6d. licence. I do not know whether I should raise this matter now.

No, the hon. member can raise that when the Bill is before the House.

I should like the Minister to think this matter over. We want to help him to combat the illicit liquor trade and if he will accept the suggestion and the proposal which we are making it may be necessary to impose this tax. Provision is also made in the Excise Act for a rebate of 5% on methylated spirits distilled in Natal. I don’t think that can be justified. It was allowed under special circumstances, when the wine farmers were allowed to distil all kinds of poor brandy. I think the Minister will agree that that was the position, but I think that the drinking of methylated spirits should be stopped and the rebate is no longer justified. I hope the Minister will go into that question too. There is just one further remark I want to make and that is about the way we are asked to do our work here. We sit in Select Committee when the bells start ringing for the sitting of the House to start, and we have to come in at once and deal with legislation that is before this House. We only stopped at 11 o’clock last night when I had my first opportunity of studying these taxation proposals. I do not think that that is the correct way of dealing with matters of this kind.

In the first place I want to controvert the argument used by the Minister as well as by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) in justifying the tax on fixed property. It seems to me that their argument is devoid of any foundation. The hon. member for Kensington is altogether too keen on drawing our attention to the taxes in existence in Australia. Well, I have before me the taxes that are in force in England. There an unmarried man with an income of £1,250 has to pay an amount of £506 in taxation. If people jump into the fire there, that is no argument why we should follow suit here. The example of other countries is of very little use to us. I want to oppose the Minister’s taxation proposals as strongly as I possibly can. The Minister during the recess went out of his way to try and prevent inflation. Wherever possible the Minister tried to stop inflation, and on every occasion, as an excuse for whatever he did, he said that if he did not do this, that or the other there would be inflation. That argument is also being used now in regard to the tax on the profit made on fixed property. I do not know whether the Minister does not realise that when he imposed a tax of 6s. 8d. and 13s. 4d. on the profit on the sale of land he immediately caused the value of farm property and erven to go up. [Quorum.] I am sorry the Right Hon. the Prime Minister is not here for the simple reason that I would have liked to have drawn his attention to the fact that we are dealing here with the most important legislation of the whole session; we are busy imposing taxes amounting to millions and millions of money, but there is no quorum in the House. That is due in the first place to the fact that while we are sitting here Select Committees are sitting upstairs carrying on their duties; we should not be sitting here under those conditions. I cannot think that the absence of a quorum can possibly be attributed to a lack of interest, The Minister, as I have said, is continually telling us that he wants to prevent inflation, while in actual fact he is causing inflation; by the levy of 6s. 8d. and 13s. 4d. on the profits made on the sale of land he causes the price of land to go up. I have already been told by some people that as a result of the tax their property has gone up in value by one-third or by two-thirds. The reason is very palpable. If a man has a property worth £1,000 in a town and he has bought it before the 1st October, 1939, and he wants to make a profit of £100 on it he has to ask a higher price to make it possible for him to make that profit. The untaxable value of property has gone up to just under £1,300. I say that the Minister is causing inflation, although he has been trying to stop it. The value of property has gone up tremendously and that is the very thing the Minister wants to avoid. Now let me say a few words about the actual conditions we come across among the farmers on the platteland. The Minister knows that there are bonds to a value of £100,000,000 or £120,000,000 on the farms in this country. I want to deal with some instances that have come to my own personal notice to show the Minister what he is doing at the moment. A farmer buys a farm for £10,000; he puts down £2,000 so that he takes a bond for £8,000. Now, what is the Minister doing at the moment? If that farmer sells the farm for £13,000 the Minister of Finance takes £2,000 in the one case and £1,000 in the other case. Let us take the worst case, where the Minister takes £2,000 out of the £3,000. That farmer has a bond of £8,000 so he has only £1,000 left towards reducing his Bond. In other words the Minister comes along and takes £2,000 from the farmer which could have been used to reduce his debt. Consequently the farmer only retains £1,000 so that there is still a debt of £7,000 which he still has to pay off. I really feel that it is unfair, and that it will be most detrimental to the country. When we go into Committe I feel we should get an amendment passed so that the Minister, if this tax has to be imposed, will only have the right to take part of the profits if the farmer’s capital is not invested in bonds, because in this case which I mentioned we find that the farmer has incurred debts to buy the farm, in spite of which the Minister takes the major portion of the profit. I shall also be glad if the Minister will be able to tell us as soon as possible how he is going to calculate the profits. It is one of the most difficult things in the world to determine how much the farmer has actually spent and if the Minister has any practical experience of farming he will know what a tremendous proportion of his revenue the farmer puts into his farm again. Very often he does not only spend the amount he gets in, but a great deal more. He is compelled to invest more than his income in his farm. He cannot do anything else. If a farmer has bought a farm for £5,000 and he sells it again for £7,000 how is the Minister going to determine, or whom is he going to appoint to ascertain and decide what the farmer has invested in his farm, or how much his actual profit is? I hope the Minister will not go so far as to say that the man has bought the farm for £5,000, that he has sold it for £7,000 and that he has therefore made a profit of £2,000. If the Minister does a thing like that, the farmers in South Africa will rebel, no matter if they are party men or not. I am talking from a point of view of farming. Now, let us take another case. The Minister has not given us any indication yet of what he is going to do in that regard. We have this position here in South Africa, that the farmer as a general rule leaves his land to his son. The son inherits the farm, but as the farm is all the farmer has and he perhaps has four or five children the other children have to be provided for. The result is that the son gets the farm at a certain fixed price and he has to pay out the others. For that reason the farmer puts the value of the farm as low as possible to enable the son to stay on the farm. In other words, a farm with a market value of £8,000 is perhaps put down for the son at an amount of £5,000. Now, the son may, after a few years be compelled to sell the farm. What is the Minister going to do in that event? Is he going to calculate the purchase price of that farm at £8,000 which was the market value, or is he going to put it at £5,000 which the son has had to pay for it, and is he going to regard everything above the £5,000 as profit? That would be an unheard of state of affairs. I hope the Minister will take into account the fact that there are a thousand and one cases of that kind, all of which should be regarded as exceptions, and I hope he will make arrangements so that all circumstances and all conditions will be taken into account before special cases are finally decided upon, and that he will have the right to grant exemptions, yes or no. I feel that there are going to be some very hard cases and if the Minister is going to apply this Act as a law of the Medes and Persians then many people will be ruined. Now let me say a few words about the estate duty. The value of property is fairly high today in South Africa, perhaps higher than in ordinary circumstances. We have had instances before the Select Committee on Public Accounts of farms which were bought eight or ten years ago during the druoght and the depression at values at least 50% lower than what they are today. Now we have this position in regard to the estate duty that land will be valued fairly high. The farmer on the platteland has practically no cash, because he has his mortgage bond interest to meet. The farmer invests his money in land and when he dies the land is valued. Now, on what scale, on what basis, is that land going to be valued? Assuming there is a reasonable valuation, and under the circumstances prevailing today the market value is put at £2 per morgen. Now the Minister comes along and values the land at £1 16s. per morgen. In two, three or four years’ time we have another drought and another depression, and the value of the land drops to £1 per morgen—and that sort of thing does happen here in South Africa— then the position is that money will be out of that estate to which the Government is not entitled. I don’t know whether the Minister realises the danger of an estate duty. Take the case of an estate where the land is valued at £20,000. Perhaps there is not a penyy cash in that estate. On such an estate of £20,000, estate duty to an amount of £2,000 has to be paid. What is the Minister going to do in that case? It is an estate of £20,000. There is not a penny cash, and the Minister wants £2,000 out of it. Where is that £2,000 to come from unless it is to come from a bond?

Do you say that an estate of £20,000 has to pay £2,000?

Yes, because I interpret the estate duty to mean that estates of from £15,000 to £20,000 have to pay 10%.

Where do you get that? It is ½% on the first £2,000.

I find that under the Estate Duty. That it is 10% on estates of from £15,000 to £20,000.

The first £15,000 are free.

Anyhow, even if it is only above £15,000, my argument still holds. It means that on such an estate, estate duty will have to be paid on £5,000, and calculated at 10% it amounts to a duty of £500. There is no cash in the estate. So where is the £500 to come from? That is on a small estate, but take estates of £40,000 and £50,000. The difficulty is much greater there. There is no alternative in such cases but to take up a bond, and we know that bonds in South Africa are like millstones acting as obstacles against progress of any kind. The bonds on farms in South Africa are the millstones round the farmers’ necks, and if the Minister can give us an assurance that this estate duty is not going to mean the passing of additional bonds I shall be satisfied, but I know that the Minister can just as little give us that assurance as I can give it. Those bonds will have to be passed when the estate duty has to be paid, and I want the Minister to give the matter his serious attention, because I feel we cannot go on in this way. Now let me say a few words about taxation proposal No. 4, the tax on people who get a little more than £250. The Minister himself used to be a student at the university, and he knows what it costs to keep a young fellow at the university. I can assure him that I can speak of concrete cases which come to my notice every day. We do not even have to talk of people earning £250. Take people who earn £500 and £600 per year either in salaries or in wages; let them have three or four children, as often happens, whom they have to send to the university; we find that they cannot come out on their salaries if they want to do the right thing by their children. It is impossible for them, and I hope the Minister will admit that higher education at our universities is a necessity so far as our people are concerned. Our experience in South Africa proves it. A man has been farming ten or fifteen years in South Africa. He has had experience but he has had no book learning. Put another man next to him who has been educated but who has had no experience of farming, and I can assure the Minister that the man whose brain has been developed will in most cases make a greater success of farming than the man who has only had experience. I can mention any number of cases which we cannot get past. I am mentioning this to show how important it is that these people should not be taxed in this way and should not be prevented from giving their children a proper education. Those people cannot bear those taxes. We should give them the opportunity of giving their children a good education. They should be able not merely to send them to our high schools but also to the universities. That is the only way in which we can ever hope to solve our problem of poverty in this country. We must have our people taught, and I want to tell the Minister that these taxes which he is now imposing will contribute considerably to making it impossible for those people to do their duty by their children. The Minister goes still further and he is going to make the man who has an income of £250 per year pay a tax of £5 per year. I want to suggest to the Minister that he should grant exemption to people who have children. If an individual has no children and the tax is necessary, then let him be taxed. We are going to fight these, taxes because we are opposed to them, but if taxes have to be imposed as a result of the Government’s war policy, then we ask the Government as far as possible to exempt those people who have children who have to be educated. I don’t know whether the Minister realises how hard these taxes are hitting the country; I don’t know how he can realise it when he tells us that the country is perfectly satisfied, particularly if he compares the position here with the position in other countries, such as Canada and England. I want to tell him that we cannot possibly draw those comparisons, for the simple reason that ours is a country with many fluctuations, ours is a poor agricultural country. That is why we cannot draw any comparisons. The only way to keep the people on the platteland is to tax them as little as possible. If the Minister is going to impose such heavy taxes on that section of the population they will find it impossible to carry on in days to come. I also want to emphasise what has already been said about the land tax which the Minister is now proposing. No matter how much the Minister has pondered over this matter, and has set his brain to work, he cannot get away from the fact, as one of his own papers told him, that many ways will be found to evade payment of the tax. The Minister has been specially asked to apply his great intellect to seeing whether the Bill cannot be designed in such a manner that those weaknesses, those openings for people to evade it, may be removed. We know that with the best will in the world the Minister cannot stop people from evading these taxes. So what is he going to do now? He is going to introduce this land tax which is only going to have the effect of making people dishonest. That is all it will do, one cannot avoid it. There are so many instances of people having to pass bonds, and they will press so heavily on people that I say that the Minister is simply making people dishonest. That being the case, I hope the Minister will realise that this is not the right type of taxation to impose. He is going to make crooks because any number of dodges to evade payment of the tax will be tried. I again wish to raise my voice most emphatically in protest against those taxation proposals which the Minister is now asking us to pass.

I think one of the most surprised members in this House yesterday afternoon must have been the hon. member for. George (Mr. Werth) when the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell), who, on certain occasions, has said that the hon. member for George knows very little about finance, and that all his financial ideas are wrong, started to tell a story about Procrustes, which he had obviously dug out just before he came to the House, and in the course of his speech he found that he had to get into the same bed with the hon. member for George, which was, of course, a little embarrassing. But I must confess that listening to the hon. member for Kensington’s speech, I am not too sure whether he was supporting the financial proposals as a whole, or whether he was making a special plea for a section of the community. Now, the hon. member for George did give some cases, which, on the face of it, are very unsatisfactory. But the hon. member for Kensington made a very strong plea that in all questions of taxation there should be an equality of sacrifice, and as far as possible taxation should bear equally and fairly on all sections of the population. Now, of course, a theory —I may perhaps say an abstract theory —that is alright, but are you going to carry that right through to its logical conclusion, and tax every income of the individual in this country with exactly the same amount of taxation, irrespective of where the income comes from; if, for example, you have an income of £3,000 a year, you should pay exactly the same tax on that income as another individual who has an income of £3,000 a year from another source? That is strictly equality of sacrifice. But this House has from the beginning recognised that today war and other conditions have rendered it impossible to adhere to rules which may be right in theory, and which will be hopelessly out of place when put into practice. The hon. member for Kensington made a very strong plea on behalf of professional men, and if I did not misunderstand him, particularly on behalf of the legal profession. I do not know how far the hon. member for George would support that, but what I would ask the hon. member is this, did he want the Minister definitely to exclude all professional men in whatever class they fall, from this new proposed form of taxation? Is he prepared to go further and say that, apart from the question of the legal men he spoke of—and he mentioned in passing certain medical men—is he prepared definitely to advocate that the Minister should exclude from this taxation all professional men, no matter in what category they fall?

Why should they be excluded?

I do not think the House realises what this really involves, because obviously if the plea is going to be accepted, and there may be a certain amount of sympathy for certain of the views put forward, but if that plea is to be accepted, well, then let us ask the first question I find here. In dealing with professional licences under tile Consolidating Ordinance of 1925, there were 14 professional licences. Those licences were granted to accountants, architects, attorneys, consulting engineers, conveyancers, dentists, translators, land surveyors law agents, medical practitioners, notaries, and quantity surveyors. Since that date, too, we know that many laws have been tightened up in regard to other persons who consider that they have professional qualifications, and who call themselves professional men. Take the position of chemists, for example. Every chemist has to pass a very stiff examination, and they do, in fact, consider themselves professional men. Now, if that is the case, I do not quite see on what basis you are going to differentiate; are you going to ask that all the chemists in this country are to be excluded from this form of taxation? They deal not only with medicine and other items which fall within their qualifications, but they go right outside that.

What do you consider a test for the definition of a professional man?

That is the difficulty. Would any member in this House be able to give the Minister a clear-cut definition of a test for a professional man which is going to be fair to all men?

Anyone precluded from advertising.

The hon. member says anyone precluded from advertising. I would like to suggest to the hon. member who suggested that, that there are many ways of advertising, beyond advertising as a merchant does. There are many other forms of advertising.

Even a uniform.

It does seem to me that whilst admitting that there may be many hard cases with regard to this tax, the difficulty is always to know how to differentiate. The hon. member pointed out the difference between what he considered a man who goes into trade and a professional man, and one rather gets the impression from listening to debates in this House, that all a business man has to do is to sit in his store or in his shop and to sell the goods; you don’t want any brains; you don’t want any capacity, and you simply make profits. Well, my experience has been that you find that there are not so very many really successful business men. If you take the proportion of business men who are successful and you compare it with the professional men who are equally successful, you find that the proportion is just about the same in the two of the really successful men who get to the top. But in making this plea on behalf of the professional man, have hon. members thought that the bulk of the business people in this country are men who are not earning £3,000 a year? Their businesses may be earning a few hundred to keep themselves going. In the majority of cases these men who, when they get to the point laid down in this Act for excess profits duty, have already been called upon to pay excess profits duty at the source. A very large number of business firms are going to be called upon to pay excess profits duties on comparatively small sums, small compared with the minimum laid down for professional men. It does seem to me that if the Minister is going to consider a plea for exemption of professional men, and he has to go right through the whole category, an equally strong claim can be made out to have a similar exemption for the smaller business man. And can you do it? Is it fair?

Why exclude the big salaried man?

I am going to refer to that. I admit there is a difference. But rentier incomes of the bulk of individuals have already been taxed at the source. It is only those men who may be investing in gilt edged securities—and the number of big men who do it is not so great. The bulk of these investments are in the trust companies. But let me take a man who gets a big income from dividends. In every single case that dividend has been taxed at the source by excess profits and company taxes, and the balance he gets is the balance remaining after the Government has taken its tax, he may still have an income of £10,000 left of which the hon. member spoke, but then his income originally would have been some £15,000 or £16,000. It is not fair to put that person’s gross income down as £10,000. His gross income is probably £16,000. There is another point which I do not understand— there is another matter which is just as unfair—this distribution of the profit of a private company. Under the new law the profits are distributed. In theory the provision is sound, but in practice there will be hard cases. But then, how can you distinguish between hard cases. I know of a case where people owned shares in a private company. For many years the company did not pay dividends at all—for ten or twelve years. During the last two years they started paying dividends—they made big profits. In spite of the losses of the last ten or twelve years they are making a distribution now. Full profits were not distributed and under the re-allocation of profits shareholders are being called upon to pay income tax which is more than the dividend distributed. It is difficult to see how you can meet that position. We know that various means have been employed to evade taxation. There are today many hard cases, but I venture to say that on the whole it will work very fairly. Having dealt with the professional taxes there is the question of the salaried man, and that, one frankly admits, is causing a certain amount of heartburning.

Very much.

But on the other hand you have this fact, that the salary is fixed and it is only in certain cases that the salary rises in accordance with additional profits made, and there the income tax collector steps in. But unless you are going to alter the whole basis of your taxation, unless you do away with the whole basis of the excess profits tax, and give a definite basis, a flat level, and tax everyone above that level, I do not see how you are going to avoid that position. And then strong complaints would be made if it were found that as a result of this change persons who had made big profits as a result of the war were retaining the whole of these profits in the same way as the man who has the same salary as before the war. I do not think that trade on the whole feels that these taxes are unfair. There has been a certain amount of feeling about this new trade tax. Many people in trade feel that it is unfair to have introduced that tax, but one must also understand this, that in regard to the excess profits tax which was imposed on all business over their pre-war standard rate, or 8 per cent., that a number of businesses have been very badly hit, and I take it that it is with a view to removing some of these inequalities that this new form of taxation has been introduced. Everyone will admit that it is going to cause a certain amount of hardship but there is one thing which this tax will definitely do—it is going to reduce the dividends which people have been getting from these various industrial concerns. It is all very well talking about the rantier who is sitting pretty, but as a result of this tax, that £10,000 per year will not be £10,000, it will be considerably reduced, and that individual will feel that he has been contributing largely towards this new tax. Much as one regrets the method of collecting this new tax it is difficult to devise some other means which will be equally fair, or some other means which will give complete satisfaction, because whatever tax you introduce the individual will always look at it and ask “How will it affect me?” And if he is not badly hit he will not worry. But you find this, that taking these taxes as a whole they are falling on that section of the population which can afford to pay. I think that is rather overlooked. The Minister has fixed an amount of £3,000 in regard to professional men. I don’t think one can say that that is an unreasonable minimum, and on the whole I think the Minister has been fair and I regret that in a way the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) was forced to say that in certain respects he shared the views of the hon. member for George.

I just want to say a few words about one of the taxation proposals and I do so at this stage because it is perhaps still possible to soften the Minister’s hard heart and to induce him before the introduction of the Bills to make some small amendments here and there. The Minister has been fairly considerate occasionally, and I do trust that especially after the speeches made by members on his own side, to wit the speeches by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) he will make one or two amendments. The proposal to which I wish briefly, to confine myself is that in regard to the profit on the sale of fixed property. We do not know the details of that tax yet; we shall of course see the details when the Bills come before us. Therefore we mostly have to guess what the exemptions are going to be, and what the conditions of the tax are going to be, but the Minister said that in the main he was anxious to avoid speculation. Apart from the money he is going to collect by this tax he wants to prevent speculation. That is the reason he has given for this tax, but as has already been said there are many other forms of speculation which the Minister does not touch. One of the main avenues of speculation is speculation in shares. We have had a lot of experience in this country of the serious consequences which speculation in shares may lead to. That is not going to be in any way curtailed. It is going to continue as before, and now the Minister comes here and tells us that speculation in land must be stopped at once. I remarked in an interrumption that so far as property was concerned there was not a great deal of speculation going on. I want to repeat it. I admit that there has been a considerable amount of speculation in land. Since the announcement of this Budget the property market has dropped considerably. There is no doubt about that, but there has been a pretty considerable amount of speculation in land. I know of land which before the war stood at 5s. per morgen and which last year was sold at prices from 15s. to 20s. per morgen. I admit an end must be put to unhealthy speculation. To a very much smaller extent there has been speculation in properties in towns, speculation in houses, and flats. But cheaper types of houses. One cannot, for instance, speculate very successfully in houses from £1,000 to £1,500. One may perhaps have to sell from thirty to forty houses of that kind in a month to make a fairly decent profit. There is practically no speculation in the cheaper classes of property. There may be speculation to a certain extent in blocks of flats, from £30,000 to £40,000, where a profit of £3,000 or £4,600 can be made, but I do not believe that there has been any real increase in the property market as a result of speculation. There naturally is a considerable demand for property but that has been caused by two things. First of all, it has been caused by a serious shortage in houses, a shortage which has existed, and still exists today. In the second place, the demand for houses has been caused by the fact that people who have money lying idle in the banks have tried to find an investment for their money. In this instance I can speak from a certain amount of experience, and I am not just speaking from a theoretical knowledge of the subject. I have gone very carefully into this question, and I find that the rise in the property market is, firstly, due to a serious shortage of houses; and, secondly, to the fact that people want a safe investment for their money, and I find that as a rule when people look for an investment they look for an investment which will give them a decent return on their money. In other words, the class of houses which they want has to give them a decent interest on their money, and one cannot speculate in that type of houses. But I further want to contend that this tax to a large extent is very unjust. It is not only the rich man who will come under it, but to a large extent the wage earner, the man who is interested in a house which has cost him from £1,000 to £1,500. Perhaps he is compelled for some reason or other to sell it, or he may want to sell it to make a small profit. That is the man who is hit. He can never make more than £100 or £200 profit on a house like that. I ask the Minister what profit can be made on a £1,000 house? If it is £100 it is a lot. And on a £2,000 house the profit may perhaps be £200. That £100 or £200 profit does not cause unhealthy speculation, but now we find that the man who makes £100 profit will have to surrender 13s. 4d. in the £ to the State. The man who makes larger profits, the rich man, can still claim certain rebates which do not apply to the small householder, and the result is going to be that while there already is a shortage of houses, that shortage is going to be accentuated. People who can sell houses will not sell, and people who want to buy houses will not be able to get any. But there is another very serious aspect of this matter. It is generally known that there are a large number of building contractors who build houses for the purpose of selling them. They build to sell, and it is usually the type of house which is worth £1,500 or £2,000 which they put up. While the contractor builds such a house he can draw a salary for himself, but when he has finished building, he tries to make a profit of £100 or £200. That is an encouragement to them to build houses, and there is a lot of it going on today.

We take that into account in the Bill. You will see that when the Bill is before us.

The result will be that the house shortage will be accentuated to a degree, because those people will not want to sell. There will be no encouragement for people to build houses. The private individual will not be encouraged to have a house built for the purpose of letting it. If a man has a little money he is looking for a safe investment. If in ordinary circumstances I have, say, £1,500 or £2,000, I may perhaps take the money out of the bank and put up a semidetached house with the object of letting it. I would regard that as a safe investment, but now I have to take into account the fact that I may be compelled to sell that house in a year or so, and if I do sell it I cannot make any profit on it, because the State will take the major portion of the profit which I can possibly make. In addition to that, we have the provisions of the Rent Act, and also the provisions of other Acts, so that there will be no encouragement for anyone to build houses. The number of houses in South Africa will remain unchanged, but we know that the population in the large towns is continually increasing, and the shortage of houses which is already there will get worse and worse. There is another aspect of the matter, too. There are thousands of people today making a living out of the sale of houses. There are thousands of property agents in the country today. There are some big ones, and there are large numbers of small house and estate agents, and the effect of this Bill is going to be that the property market will collapse, and it will deprive particularly the small house agents of their livelihood. What I want to suggest, and what I should like the Minister to consider is the granting of a small rebate, or otherwise I would ask him to confine the provisions of this tax to properties of, say, above £3,000. It will be more just then. It will not encourage speculation, because, as I have said, it does not lead speculation if a person can make a profit of £100 on a house costing £1,000 or £2,000. I don’t think it is fair in a case of that kind to expect a man to give up two-thirds of his profit to the Government; I seriously want to ask the Minister to consider fixing the value of the properties to which the tax will apply at least £3,000. Otherwise the Minister could allow a rebate before taxing the profit made on the sale of properties. The Minister can make it fairly low, say, a profit of £200 or £300. The measure as now proposed will cause i the property market to collapse entirely, and it will deprive large numbers of people of their existence, apart from the fact that; the house shortage will increase, and the fact that no houses will be built also prevents money from coming into circulation in the proper way, a matter which is of the greatest importance to the country. I hope the Minister will consider this matter, and that he will see whether it is not possible to introduce a few amendments.

The Minister, as the driver of the train of State in time of war, no doubt has difficult problems to contend with, and for that reason it is necessary to look leniently at taxation measures, which in normal times would be deeply resented. Since the outbreak of war I think he has driven the train of State very well indeed. He certainly caused one jar, and that was the excess profits tax, but that was, I consider, not due to bad driving, but to mechanical defects. At the present time he has given this train of State a serious jolt again, but I think on this occasion it is not due to mechanical defect but to bad driving. I was rather alarmed yesterday at the Minister’s explanation in justification of the imposition of his new taxation, namely, the trades profits levy; and what I am concerned about is this: The Minister has sought to establish that this House has sanctioned a policy of discriminatory taxation. He gives as an instance the case of the excess profits duty tax. Now, the excess profits duty tax is definitely a discriminatory form of taxation, but it is a tax on particular profits, on the further or increased profits which accrue as a result of the war, profits which the Minister has described as accruing fortuitously to trade in time of war. I think it reasonable to discriminate between profits which are termed excess profits and those which are the normal profits, the normal incomes of individuals and companies earned before the war started. This new tax, however, is not a tax on war profits at all. The new trade levy is imposed upon the ordinary normal profits, which individuals and companies were making before the war, upon the ordinary normal pre-war profits, I repeat. And I find it very difficult to subscribe to the Minister’s dictum that a differential rate of taxation is justified in such a case even in time of war. I do not think it is admissible, and I do not think it is generally acceptable. I have here as an instance of the opinion outside this House on this subject a very interesting memorandum, which has been subscribed to by 16 well-known and prominent accountants in Johannesburg. These 16 men, of whom I know personally a large number, are men who are all very conversant with income tax and its involved implications, and it is interesting to note their opinions of this tax. I shall not quote the whole of it but only a few portions to indicate their opinion in regard to taxation of a discriminatory nature, They say—

They go on—

They never are.

No, they are not. If the Minister will just let me finish. They say—

They also point out that this new tax will affect certain of the subscribers to the memorandum and not others, but they, one and all, heartily subscribe to it. I think the Minister’s policy is dangerous, because if the House passes this taxation this year, the Minister can come next year and use this as a precedent for the House passing other discriminatory taxation. The Minister’s. task of driving the train of State is difficult enough in time of war, but I think it is being greatly accentuated by introducing a multiplicity of taxes and that it will be very much easier if in time of war when everyone is so short-handed and when we should not have more work imposed on us than necessary, taxation were to be simplified and equitable instead of being made more complicated and discriminatory. I have been told by an accountant in Johannesburg that he would defy two accountants to assess independently the income of a company and arrive at exactly the same figures. Each year we have a further tax or two put on to the section which the Minister says can bear it most easily,—that is trade. Last year he put on the undistributed profits tax, and the foreign residents’ tax. This year we get his new trade levy, and I feel sure that at the present time the Department itself must be finding it most difficult to make all the new assessments, which are involved because of the various taxes. And I can tell the Minister that from the point of view of those, who are conducting business the position is becoming very difficult indeed. I believe the country generally would favour a policy of simplification and a trend in that direction and not in the direction of further complications. So I make a special plea that during the recess the Minister considers this whole question of taxation, gives it his earnest consideration, and comes forward with some simpler method next year. I think that would be welcomed in the interest of the country and of the people as a whole. In other countries we see such a trend. The excess profits tax—it is a very unsound tax inequitable and full of anomolies—has been abolished in Australia. I was interested to read recently that in England they are having considerable difficulty with this same tax and are considering reducing the rate of tax.

Don’t forget that it was 100 per cent. there.

Yes, but incidentally it was not 100 per cent. The tax was only 16s. in the £ plus 4s. which was compulsory saving, which is not by any manner of means the same as 100 per cent. tax. In Australia they have seen the effects of that tax, and in South Africa we have seen the effects of the excess profits tax with a vengeance. It has completely stultified new business. I don’t think there has been much extension in new business, largely as a result of this tax. If one refers to the annual report of the Industrial Development Corporation and to the remarks which are made about the adverse effects of excess profits tax, one can see the position. The Corporation considered 150 applications. Those 150 applications involved £1,500,000 and they earmarked £400,000 as contingent liabilities for propositions, which they accepted, and actually lent £1,500 on one scheme. Numbers of applications were withdrawn when the effect of the tax became known. To give an indication of what that tax means I have a couple of illustrations of propositions, which have been under consideration, and I do not think hon. members realise how serious that tax is so far as new business propositions are concerned. Here is a case where it was proposed to establish an industry required in connection with the war. It was to be a private limited liability company with a capitalisation of £24,000 and ten shareholders, and the capital had to be recovered in three years because it was a war industry. In order to recover £24,000 out of profits over three years, it was necessary to earn a profit of £19,692 per year. That profit had to be made in order to recover £24,000 over three years. That means that the total profit had to be in the vicinity of £60,000 in order to repay £24,000 without allowing for any interest on money. I have the other example where it was proposed to establish a company with a capital of £45,000, and the same provisions as to time applied. Now the result of the excess profits duty is this: This man was prepared to put up £45,000 so long as he could recover his money over three years, and in order to enable him to do so he had to earn over £61,000 a year, or £183,000 of profit over that particular period. When you come to figures like that no one can be surprised at the disastrous results of this tax. Such figures entirely kill the possibility of the establishment of new industry. After all is said and done South Africa is a very young country, and I say our heritage is our right to develop our industries. And under conditions such as I have enumerated no matter how loyal a person is, no matter how willing he is to help the war effort, this tax makes it utterly impossible in its present form for anyone to consider establishing a new industry or a new business. A description of the excess profits tax was aptly made by Mr. Carter Glass, Secretary of the United States Treasury, in 1919 when he summed it up in these words—

That, I think, aptly describes the position. The excess profits tax has had disastrous effects and was never intended to operate with such discriminating severity against the progress and establishment of new industry, but it has done so in South Africa. Now the Minister brings in the trade levy, which is based upon exactly the same fundamental defect inherent in the excess profits tax, namely, the statutory percentage. I feel sure the trade levy is going to create a great deal of dissatisfaction, when the country begins to realise just what that tax is going to mean, and what its implications really are. I am surprised that the Minister has introduced such a tax in the form in which he has, because apart from its differential character, his policy, so far, has been one of ca’ canny. When war broke out the tax on companies was 1s. 9d. The Minister increased it to 2s. 6d. by abolishing the rebate. He next increased it to 3s., and then last year he increased it to 3s. 6d. There is a consistent policy, but all of a sudden we find a complete change. I have as an example a company which paid less than £60,000 in excess profit and other taxes last year, and which, due to this trades profits special levy, will be taxed an additional £88,000. We find that this new tax is suddenly going to increase this company’s taxation from less than £60,000 last year to almost £150,000 this year. I have another case where this tax is going to increase a company’s tax by over 300 per cent. in one year.

Because they make a very large profit.

They do not make such a large profit. It is a very efficient business. An unreasonable increase of taxation of this nature is going to have a very dislocating effect on business, because people had come to accept the policy of ca’ canny. They are prepared for increased taxation, but I do not think that anyone is prepared for increases to this extent. My hon. friend said a moment ago that they made large profits. I agree that they make good profits, but what he has overlooked is the fact that for many years one may make no profit in business at all, and when the tide turns, because of industry, ingenuity of management and careful handling, one is entitled to reap the reward of large profits. The point that he also overlooks is that a company contains a number of shareholders, and when the profit is spread over the number, you get quite a different result. The globular figures disappear and become a small profit in the hands of the recipients. That is one of the points I am also very concerned about in this special trade levy. The Minister has made it applicable to every person in trade on the profit over 8 per cent. with £3,000 as the minimum. But this tax takes no cognisance of the fact that a private company, which it treats as an individual, is an aggregation of a number of individuals. We know it is quite impossible for a shareholder to be paid 100 per cent. of the profits made. It is a very common thing to distribute, say, about two-thirds. The shareholder in a private company therefore finds himself paying normal and super tax upon the whole of his share of the profit, although he himself may only have received two-thirds in cash, because in the private company the whole of the profits of the company are subject to normal and super tax. I would ask the hon. Minister to consider this point carefully, as to whether it is not possible to impose the trade profits special levy on private companies in the same way that other taxes—normal and super—are levied, and to treat them as partnerships. We have this anomalous situation. Let us assume a company has five individual shareholders and it makes a profit of £6,000 a year, £3,000 in excess of the minimum abatement. There will be trade levy tax of £1,000, that is, at 6s. 8d. in the £. The nett result is that these five people each earn £1,200, and have to pay tax of £200. These people are not the millionaires or the rich people of the country. They are the ordinary working people of the country. They each earn £1,200, and are liable to pay £200 each by way of this trades profits special levy, and on the balance of income they still have to pay normal tax. Five persons have to share the abatement of £3,000 between them. On the other hand, take the professional man, the doctor, the dentist, the lawyer, the accountant. He can earn £3,000 on his own; he gets the full abatement of £3,000, and he pays no levy. I put these examples forward in order to focus the attention of hon. members on this tax in the case of a private company, when the private company is merely an aggregation of individuals. I hope that the special plea I am making to the Minister will be considered seriously, and that he will consider ways and means of meeting the situation. Other hon. members have said a fair amount about differential taxation, but no one has given any figures to illustrate what this tax means. I want to give the House some figures, and I want to ask how anyone can justify them? Take the professional man earning £5,000 per annum, and the salaried man earning £5,000 per annum. The professional man will pay £400 more in taxation than the salaried man. On an income of £5,000 the professional man will pay £400 more. I do not know how anyone can justify a difference of 4d., let alone £400. I cannot for the life of me see how such discrimination can be justified. Here you have two people with identical incomes, and yet one has to pay £400 more than the other. That is the differential effect of the new levy in its proposed form. There is a tendency in this House to say, “Tax the rich man”, but in the private company I am not dealing of necessity with the rich man; I am dealing with a lot of small people who are also in these companies.

Are you talking of the salaried or the professional man with an income of £5,000 a year? Do you call a person paying an income tax of £400 a small man?

I did not say that he paid income tax of £400. The one man pays £400 more than the other man. That is what I want to make clear. That £400 is not the income tax he pays; it represents the difference between what he pays and the other man pays. Someone came to me the other day, who for years has been receiving £900 a year from a company. It is not a fortune. But this trades profit levy will in this case reduce his £900 to £350. Can you explain to that person why he should pay a tax of £350 on £900 when a person earning much more money than that will not pay £350 altogether? When the £350 has been paid by way of the special levy, that shareholder is further liable to pay normal tax. Then there is another aspect of the case I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. It is the case of mining companies where we get a special state of affairs arising. The mining company, unlike another industry, owns a wasting asset, but is not allowed to recover the cost of that wasting asset, except from its profits. There is no allowance for the cost of property in the amortisation calculation, which covers expenditure on shaft sinking, plant, development, and that sort of thing. The expenditure on a property or the mineral assets, which are wasting assets, is not allowed. This trade levy is likely therefore to hit mining properties very hard, indeed. It is going to make it very difficult for them to recover the cost of the wasting asset, and I feel that this is a case to which the hon. Minister should give his attention. The excess profits tax constitutes a deduction from the profits of the company before the calculation of other taxes is brought to bear, so that the rate of 13s. 4d. leaves a balance of 6s. 8d., and that 6s. 8d. is itself subject to the various remaining taxes in force. Now, we find the same principle being applied in the case of the trades profits special levy. The trade levy will constitute a deduction, but the remaining amount will be subject to further taxation. It does not mean that 6s. 8d. will be the only tax that will be levied on the portion of the profit. You have to pay the other taxes on the balance. It is therefore a decidedly heavy item. When one considers that the tax on public companies is only 3s. 6d., one cannot help feeling that the trade levy is an undue hardship and unduly harsh. Now I want to deal with the gold mines’ special contribution. Yesterday the hon. member for George had something to say about the gold mines and the fact that they were not taxed sufficiently. He made a statement yesterday that of the gold premium the State had received an amount of £126,000, and the gold mines had received £148,000. But he entirely overlooks the fact that in order to earn that money the mines have expended in capital expenditure alone a sum in excess of £80,000,000. So that the distribution is not quite as lopsided as the figures which he gave would tend to show. With regard to the gold mine special contribution—and this is a point not sufficiently appreciated—the tax is levied on the whole of the profit; the tax is not levied on the taxable profit. For purpose of the other gold mining taxes referred to in the first resolution, they are calculated on the taxable profits of the mines. If this tax was levied on the same taxable amount as the other two taxes on gold mines, I should imagine the rate would be not 20 per cent. but 30 per cent., and that gives one a fairer conception of the severity of this tax. The gold mines pay a 15 per cent. flat tax, and coupled with this tax, which is nearer 30 per cent., the flat taxation reaches 45 per cent., over and above which they pay the formula tax. I believe the total tax now works out at an average of nearly 14s. in the £. I think it is a pity, when the special contribution was originally introduced, that it was not based on the same taxable profit as is the case of the other two taxes. This was a point that was particularly stressed in the report issued by the Departmental Taxation Committee in 1935. That Committee stated that, although various opinions had been given to them in the different matters, all witnesses were unanimous that all taxes should be based upon the same taxable profit; and I am sorry that in this particular tax this was not done. With regard to the new tax on the sale of fixed property, I think the Minister would be well advised to leave some percentage free from this tax. The tax is very severe, and one has to bear in mind that the profit arising from the sale of land has only in a few cases been regarded as profit for the purposes of income tax. It has usually been regarded as capital appreciation. I think that the effect of this tax may miscarry. I think that the Minister’s object is laudable, namely, that he should endeavour to prevent inflation of land values. But in the application I feel that we must be very careful not to stifle ordinary normal business, and I think that perhaps an abatement on a percentage basis would be a very reasonable provision to bring in. I prefer a percentage basis to a fixed amount, because a fixed amount might be a large amount relatively in a small transaction and an infinitesimal sum in a large transaction. I am afraid that this tax may miscarry yet, and may have the effect of unduly increasing prices of land rather than reducing them. Whereas normally a seller would have charged a certain price for land, he might now ask very much more because he is compelled to hand over a large portion to the Government. On the other hand I know of the case of a small transaction where the seller has said he will sell the property if the buyer will pay him £50 profit. The purchaser has replied that the seller will have to hand over 13s. 4d. in the £ of the profit to the Government and suggested that he should rather forego the profit altogether. With regard to the estate duty, I have unfortunately not had a chance of going into the figures, but I notice that the Minister has graduated it evenly from ½ per cent. up to 25 per cent. In the initial stages of the calculation there is an abatement, which is diminished £ for £. Just looking at the figures I get the impression that in this case the Minister’s object may be defeated, and the result may in certain cases be very inequitable. I think the Minister should look into this, because from a mathematical point of view the graduated scale may create an anomaly, the same as existed in income tax and was rectified last year. It may create double rates over the range of the abatement as against the rates in the higher categories. I hope the Minister will give very serious consideration to the trades profit special levy in the light of the examples I have given here. I hope he will realise the severity of that tax, and particularly in its application to individual members of private companies. The Minister said in introducing this motion—I just want to refresh my memory to see what the Minister actually said …

The hon. member may not read from a newspaper.

He said that the incidence of this tax is thrown on the shoulders of those who can best bear it—those falling within the definition of trade. I think the Minister’s argument that he has excluded the rentier because of a decrease of income due to a fall in interest rates, is fallacious. He says that those who enjoy fortuitous profits can best pay this trade levy, but surely such profits are already taxed as excess profits at 13s. 4d. Furthermore, there are individuals in trade whose pre-war profits have declined, just in the same way that the interest rates of the rentier have declined. Those people are earning less money, but they are nevertheless called upon to pay this tax, graduated downwards from 6s. 8d. I cannot see how anyone can justify saying that you can exclude the rentier and salaried classes when you proceed to tax the declining income of individuals whose incomes from trade have decreased since war broke out. I agree that the fortuitous profits which arise from war can be justifiably taxed, but I cannot see when dealing with the normal pre-war profits how it is reasonable to tax one person whose income has fallen, and yet not to tax another person whose income has also fallen, at the rate of tax which is levied at 6s. 8d. on a part of the normal profit. The companies tax is only 3s. 6d. I do not see how it is possible to justify discrimination of such a nature.

The hon. the Minister of Finance pointed out yesterday with a certain amount of self-satisfaction, that the war expenditure was only 12.1 per cent. of the national income. That in itself I do not want to dispute. The calculation on which that is based, I notice, was taken according to the expenditure of £55,000,000 for war purposes in respect of the year 1941—’42. I think that the amount of war expenses was £60,000,000.

No, it was £56,000,000.

Whatever the position is, that is only half the picture. What we should like to have before us, in discussing the taxation proposals, is not what the percentage of war expenditure is in relation to national income, but what the percentage of the total expenditure of the country is in relation to national income. It is the total expenditure which must be covered by the national income. If we regard the matter from that point of view, then in so far as this year is concerned, if we take the loan Budget and the Budget on income together, and we add to that the £10,000,000 in respect of Provincial expenditure, it amounts to £150,000,000 altogether, and that means nearly 30 per cent. of our national income. If we compare those figures with the percentage which existed before the war, namely, in the year 1937—’38, we find that the percentage of expenditure in relation to national income was 20 per cent. In other words, there is a disturbing rise in the percentage of expenditure in relation to national income. We must take that into consideration in dealing with taxation proposals. But there is another factor which is disturbing, and it is this, that while there is a tremendous rise in national income as a result of the war, the rate of increase in expenditure is so high that that rise in national income has been caught up and even passed. In the calculation which was made by Professor Frankel, we notice that the portion of national income which is available for consumption, assessed on the basis of a retail price of the year 1938, in respect of the year 1938—’39, was £329,000,000. The following year it was £366,000,000, but for the year 1940—’41 it fell to £361,500,000: that is to say, the rise in national income has already been caught up and passed by the rise in war costs. It is a disturbing phenomenon which we must bear in mind fully in dealing with taxation, and we must not be consoled by the fact that the percentage is higher in other countries; in other words, that their position is even more critical than ours. It is a red light to warn us against this type of rise in the rate of war costs in relation to the rise in national income. In these proposals there are only two in regard to which I want to say something. The first is the tax on mines. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) calculated that of the total increase in taxation of £9,288,000 which the Minister is now imposing, the increase in taxes on the mines amount to only £1,640,000. That means 17.6 per cent. of the total increase is borne by the mines. But if we refer to the figures in connection with national income, then we notice, according to the last year in respect of which we have the final figures, that in 1939—’40 the percentage which the mines contributed to national income was 23 per cent. If we accept that ratio for this year, and if we accept the basis that the total new taxes must be the same as the relation of the mines to national income, then we should not have had £1,640,000 from the mines, but £1,135,000. In other words the mines should have paid £500,000 more than they are now being asked to contribute in these taxation proposals if we bear in mind the relation to the national income. But one can approach the matter from another point of view, and then one arrives at more or less the same result. If we take the position of the ordinary man who has an income of £500 per annum, then we provide that he should pay 10 per cent. extra in income tax, apart from the compulsory saving and apart from personal tax. He must pay an additional 10 per cent. on his income tax. If we take the same percentage increase which the mines paid in taxation last year, then they should have paid £610,000 more this year on that basis than they paid under the proposals of the Minister. If we increase what they paid last year by 10 per cent. then you will see that they should pay £610,000 more than they will pay now. And if we see what the Minister expects the personal tax on people who earn more than £250 a year to yield, then we find that the Minister contemplates that £640,000 will be obtained from this personal tax. That is a tax which has to be paid by the poor man, and instead of letting the mines pay £600,000, the poor people must now pay that. You will certainly agree with me that there are few taxes which create such an uneven burden as the personal tax which, is not graded. In his budget speech the Minister proposed that people who earned £250 to £300 will have to pay £1 personal tax, and those earning more than £300 will have to pay £2 10s. If you take the man with a salary of £299, then he pays £1, but the man who earns £301 pays £2 10s. under this personal tax, and the man earning £3,000 or more per annum also pays only £2 10s. personal tax. The personal tax creates a very uneven burden on the community, and it is out of all proportion to the ability of the taxpayers to pay. The Minister yesterday referred to the fact that commerce and industries were two industries which were very sensitive to any war conditions which existed. They react almost immediately, and make higher profits. But if we go into the figures of the mining industry, then we find that they react equally favourably, as a result of the war position, as commerce and industries. In studying the figures of the increase in our national income, I find that with regard to the mining industry the income rose from £81,500,000 in 1938—’39 to £100,000,000 in 1940—’41, an increase of 22 per cent. If we take commerce and industries we find that the income rose from £69,700,000 to £85,000,000, an increase of 22 per cent.; in other words, if the figures are correct, then the mining industry is not less sensitive to improvement as a result of the war position than commerce and industries. For that reason especially we on this side are of opinion that since we are faced by the fact that the normal 10 per cent. increase was not applied in the case of the mines, and in view of the fact that the mining industry reacts very favourably to the war position, we say that the Minister should take away the £640,000 from the poor people and impose this amount on the mines in order to equalise the taxation burden. Then there is an increase of 10 per cent. in all cases. And then I do not take into account the fact that apart from the 10 per cent. imposed on the poor man, he is also compelled to save under the compulsory savings scheme of the Minister. I think that if the Minister splits up the total amount in this manner, he would be more entitled to claim that his budget divides the taxation burden evenly, and spreads it over the various classes of the community, in accordance with the national revenue figures. Then just a few words in regard to the taxation on trades profits. All that one can say in favour of the tax which the Minister is now imposing is that it reduces the relative injustice to new businesses, or people who have no pre-war standard. That was our main criticism last year of excess profits tax, that it imposed the heaviest burden on new industries, and that instead of encouraging new industries it would certainly not serve as an incentive to develop new industries. Now the Minister does not propose to effect any relief in the position of new industries this year. They have been paying excess profits tax for the past two years, and the Minister does not propose to afford them any relief. The Minister says: “You complain that you have been wronged in comparison with more established businesses; I shall now treat you more equally and will tax the established businesses to a greater extent.” But he does not even place them on an equal footing. Not at all. There is no equalisation. Even now new businesses will pay twice as much excess profits tax as established industries and persons. The new industries will still have to pay 13s. 4d., whilst under the tax on trades profits which the Minister now proposes, the established businesses will only pay 6s. 8d.; therefore, there is not yet any equality. The injustice still continues, but to a lesser degree. In the second place, the newer businesses have borne the high tax for two years already, while the established businesses have escaped for two years. No effort is made to afford some measure of relief to new businesses in respect of the two years during which they bore the burden. Nor is any effort made to let the older businesses which now fall under the trades profits tax, pay a little extra on account of the fact that they have escaped the tax for two years. The Minister simply forgets that. The established businesses will in the future only pay half of the excess profits tax which the new businesses have to pay. The grievance which the newer businesses have, still exist today in respect of the excess profits tax. It remains under the trades profits tax. The new tax on trades profits simply repeats the evils of the excess profits tax. In fact, as the Minister said, the trades profits tax is but an extension of the previous tax. One of the most important evils of the tax is the fact that professions are included in trades. I think it was mentioned here yesterday that in other countries professions are not included under commerce and industries for the purposes of excess profits tax. In the second place, it is a fact that during the last Great War the professions were not included in commerce and industry for excess profit purposes. In the third place, there is the inconsistency that salaried persons are again excluded, although people who earn their money in a profession are included. It has already been mentioned by various speakers, but I think that we should emphasise it. In many cases salaried persons still have this advantage, that when they retire they receive a pension, but the person practising a profession has not that advantage. We say that the whole tax is one which is founded on no logical grounds. If it is the Minister’s object only to tax extra profits which are brought about by the war, then he must say that he will tax every person who earns anything extra as a result of the war, and then he ought not to discriminate between income derived from salary and income earned in a profession. Take, for example, the case of the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha). He is a person who received an additional income of £1,200 as a direct consequence of the war, but he does not pay a penny under this tax, because this is regarded as salary and is not added. And what is the position of owners of businesses? They now put in a salary for themselves which does not fall under the excess profits tax either. The Minister will say that they cannot show any salary, that it is subject to the approval of the Treasury, but in so far as the trades profits tax is concerned, if in the past a person put in an excessively high salary of, say, £5,000, then he can still show that at present, and he will not pay trades profits tax on that. And if he drew a small salary, he can increase it, and then the onus rests upon the Minister’s department as to whether the increase can be allowed. The whole principle is illogical; it does not rest on actual principles. If the Minister wants to tax income, he must tax every form of income and not discriminate in this manner. He must evolve a method which will create an even burden. With regard to the professions, it was stated yesterday that the income of the professions had also increased as a result of the war. That is not the position. If you look at the figures you will see that the income of the professions fell from £12,400 000 in 1938 to £12,200 000 in 1939 and to £12,000,000 in 1940. The professions are obviously not sensitive to war conditions therefore. The income of the professions did not rise, as did the income of commerce and industry, but there is even a decline. Nevertheless, the Minister wants to treat them alike. It is unfair. I do not want to go into the other matters, because other speakers have already dealt with them, but I want to say again that the taxation proposals of the Minister do not comply with the first requisite of taxes, namely, that there should be an even burden on all sections of the community, according to the carrying capacity of the various sections of the community.

In dealing with the resolutions before the House one has to bear in mind the background against which these proposals are made. There are probably few countries in the world where the democratic principle that the burden of public expenditure should be laid on the shoulders of those best able to bear it has been so consistently disregarded as in this country. But I admit at once that the financial proposals before us now do not promise to aggravate the position in the sense of increasing the burdens on the poorer sections of the community. Those sections have in the past borne an undue burden of taxation, both direct and indirect, in this country. As I say, I am glad to be able to acknowledge as a representative of some of the poorest people in this country that the bruden has not been increased by these proposals. On the other hand, the proposals do not appear to me to go very far in exacting that contribution from those with higher incomes that is justified by the exigencies of the war situation, and the crying need for social reform among the poorer sections of the community. We on these Benches contend that it is possible to proceed with measures of social reform and also to finance the war effort provided the resources of the country are fully mobilised by proper means of taxation. When we have asked the Minister for concessions, as we have often done, he has told us to bear in mind the “financial realities”. He has used that expression to me this session when I asked for certain concessions, and these resolutions give us the opportunity to discuss the “financial realities”. With regard to the actual proposals, I have already said that they do not appear to me to go far enough. To begin with, I think the income taxpayers can congratulate themselves on getting away with no higher rate of income tax than they paid last year, a rate which is very low indeed as compared with the rate in most other countries that are involved in the present war, and I have no doubt that the super taxpayers too consider themselves fortunate that the maximum of super tax is still 7s. 6d. in the £. I personally would like to see a ceiling imposed on incomes beyond which no man should be allowed to go, and the balance utilised for the financial purposes of the State. The proposal which interests me most is this proposal for a personal savings fund levy. It appears to me to embody the principle of block savings which Dr. J. M. Keynes put forward for the consideration of the British people a year or two ago, and which was accepted in principle by the British Government, and I want to say that I would like to see a considerable extension of the principle embodied in this particular proposal in order to finance the requirements of the country at the present time. I want to ask the Minister why it would not be possible instead of indulging in further public borrowing to get all the money which the Government wants on loan by this means; he can pay interest if he likes to. There is no provision for interest here under this particular proposal. But rather than that there should be further wholesale borrowings, I should like to see this principle extended so that the Government could take all it requires to borrow in this way, because it seems to me that it has this merit: It is a genuinely anti-inflation measure. The money raised by this means must come out of genuine savings. It cannot come out of the proceeds of an extension of credit which the productive capacity of the country does not justify, which is the great objection to uncontrolled borrowing. I would like to see this principle extended and to be applied for the purpose of obtaining any money the Government may want to borrow. Some of us last year criticised the fact that the Minister did not increase the estate duty. Also, there is the question of succession duties. Previously, the estate duties amounted to one-half per cent. up to a maximum of 17 per cent. on a maximum income of £75 000. Now the Minister has raised his maximum percentage to 20 and the £75,000 to £95,000. That still seems to me a very modest slice to take out of large estates. A person who is an heir to £95,000 can still at this time keep three-quarters of that for himself, and I do feel that the Minister can come down very much harder on those who get these unearned amounts.

Have a heart.

Well, I think it is a very fair proposition. In regard to succession duties, these are not touched at all. They still remain at the same rates ranging from 2 per cent. to 10 per cent. according to the relationship of the legatee to the deceased. That, also, seems a case where the Minister might look for more revenue. The only indirect tax which seems to me to call for some criticism, and I am sorry the Minister should have found it necessary to impose this tax, is the tax on pipe tobacco. Pipe tobacco to many people is a necessity.

It won’t affect your people.

With regard to the excess profits duty, there some of us in the past have asked the Minister to take 100 per cent. of any excess profits, and he told us when introducing his Budget that he was virtually doing so by taking away the advantage which those who had a higher pre-war standard than the statutory percentage, had gained. I never liked the method by which this duty has been levied. It seems to me an unfair discrimination in favour of a person who before the war, perhaps in an industry which was not particularly essential to the war effort, was making high profits, as against the man or the concern who may have started an industry essential for war purposes after the war began, and who has to accept a statutory percentage of profit. Personally I think the best measure would have been to fix the percentage which should be lower than the present percentage, irrespective of when the person started business, and take everything above that for national purposes. The Nazis were doing that long before the war started. Six per cent. was the maximum they allowed, and they took the balance for national purposes. Three years after we have become engaged in the war we are not going to that extent yet — and I think it is not asking too much to say that profit makers should get say 6 per cent. and give the rest to the Government, especially when thousands are making greater sacrifices than giving up profits. The Minister in introducing his resolutions, quoted the percentage of the estimated national income that was being devoted to the war effort, and also the percentage of the estimated national income that was available for consumption after taxes had been paid. Those figures show that the wealthier part of our community are not being called upon to make such very great sacrifices when their position is compared with their prototypes the position in other allied countries to which the Minister referred. I want to give certain figures, putting the position in a slightly different way. In the three years that this country has been at war, according to Professor Frankel’s estimate which was quoted yesterday in a newspaper by Professor Hutt, the national income of this country has risen from £394,000,000 to £472,000,000 making an increase all over of £78,000,000. In the last year of peace this country spent both from revenue and loan account a sum of something under £70,000,000. This year, the total expenditure both from revenue and loan account, is estimated to amount to £140,000,000. In other words, there has been an increase in the national income of £78,000,000 and in expenditure of approximately £70,000,000, and that £70,000,000 includes money borrowed. The total increase in taxation is something only a little over £50,000,000. So very much more could be done to mobilise by way of taxation the resources of this country. Now, compare that position with the position of our most important Ally. The Minister compared the percentages of what we were spending with those of Great Britain. He said that we were spending about 16 per cent. of our national income on the war, whereas Great Britain was spending 40 per cent. of their national income on the war. Again taking the criterion of actual expenditure, last year Mr. Colin Clarke estimated Great Britain’s national income at about £600,000,000, while she was committed to war expenditure of £4,200,000,000 making 60 per cent. of her national income. A similar calculation in this country would give a figure of about 30 per cent. The Minister spoke of financial realities make possible a very much higher revenue contributed by the wealthy classes than is the case at present. If Professor Frankel’s estimate of our increased national income is correct, actually this country is making a profit on the war. The added expenditure has so stimulated the national income that it has far outstripped the increase of taxation which the Minister has in the past levied, and certainly the taxes proposed in these resolutions, having regard to what the Minister estimated that they would bring in, will certainly not overhaul the increase in the national income. I place these considerations before the Minister to indicate that financial realities render possible the raising of very much more revenue for both national and social purposes than is being done at the present time.

We have just listened to the one speech in the debate which has advocated increased taxation and in so doing brought balm to my wounded spirit. In this debate I have had to submit to the position of being wounded even in the house of my friends, but the hon. member by shewing his willingness at least to see the burden of taxation increased has helped to heal these wounds. Of course, the hon. member has taken the line that we should set a ceiling to incomes. That sounds good but, of course, these things are so highly subjective. You see our idea of what constitutes age varies as we ourselves get older and our idea of what constitutes reasonable income also, I am afraid tends to vary as our incomes increase. I do not know whether the ceiling proposed to be set to incomes would be the allowance normally payable to a member of this House.

†*I am of course, not expected to deal with all the points raised in this debate. We are dealing here with the question of principle contained in these taxation proposals. I am not going to deal with all the points of detail which have been raised, and which to my mind can be better dealt with when the House is in Committee, or still better, when the proposed legislation is before us. I am therefore going to confine myself to the principal points which have been touched upon. The main speech in this debate was that delivered by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). He dealt with three points. First of all, he discussed the question of differential taxation. Secondly, the question of the taxation of the gold mines; and, thirdly, the question of the tax on fixed property. In regard to the question of differential taxation, I feel that I answered that point in advance. The hon. member spoke of the fact that we are treating income from trade, including the professions, in a way different from that in which we are treating the incomes of rantiers and the wage earners. He is quite right. I said so at the beginning. But this is not the first time we are doing so. That principle was adopted by this House two years ago in connection with the excess profits tax. On that occasion this House adopted the principle of a differentiated tax. We imposed a special tax on trade, including the professions, and we are therefore not creating any new principle under the proposals which are now before the House. Under that Act, and I wish to emphasise that point, because of what other hon. members have said, it is quite possible for two people to have the same income and yet to pay different amounts of income tax. That principle was approved of two years ago for very good reasons, because we thought that in a time of war, trade generally was particularly sensitive to war conditions. That naturally does not apply to everybody participating in trade, but it does apply generally, and we have to deal here with a class. Generally speaking, we can say that trade flourishes at a time of war. There is more money in circulation, and trade in particular has the use of that money. That is the defence which we have put forward for the differential taxation which we have imposed. The hon. member in that connection raised a special point of a personal character, and I am sorry having to refer to it. He made a comparison between the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan) and myself. I think the House as a whole will feel that it would be better if things of that kind were not said here. I do not think this is the place to discuss the taxation which is paid by individuals, especially by individual members of Parliament. There is such a thing as an oath of secrecy, and I think it was the intention of the Legislature in that regard that such matters should not be discussed here, but, apart from that, my hon. friend created the impression—I am sure he did not mean to do so—but he did create the impression that I am influenced in my taxation policy by the question of how that policy is going to affect me personally.

No, that is not so.

I say at once that that was not his intention, but it cannot but create that impression among the unthinking section of the public.

That was not my intention.

I know the hon. member did not intend doing so. And I am saying this by way of suggesting to him that it is undesirable to say these things, because that impression must necessarily be created among certain sections of the public. What my hon. friend by his inference to the hon. member for Stellenbosch and myself apparently wanted to show was that so far as I am concerned, if salaries were assessable for the purposes of excess profits tax, I would have had to pay an excess profits tax which I do not have to pay now. In the second place, that the hon. member for Stellenbosch has to pay excess profits tax on his income above £1,500, derived from his profession. That is the impression the hon. member created. Well, both these things are wrong, and I am availing myself of this opportunity to say that they are wrong. In regard to the hon. member for Stellenbosch he does not pay excess profits tax on all his income from his profession over and above £1,500, nor does he pay excess profits tax over and above £2,500, or even on a higher level. That is not because of any special exemption granted to the hon. member, but it is in accordance with the terms of the general legislation which we passed last year. So far as I am personally concerned, I want to say that even if I were taxable for excess profits duty on the basis of my salary I would not have been liable for that tax today, and I would not have had to pay one penny excess profits tax. The hon. member put forward two things, and both were quite wrong.

The law has not been strictly applied to the hon. member for Stellenbosch.

No, it has been. As my hon. friend created certain impressions by his contentions of a personal character and as those contentions have received considerable publicity, I want to express the hope, and I particularly make my request to the Press, that the same publicity will be given to my reply. Now, I come to the question of the tax on the gold mines. That I also already dealt with in my introductory speech. I pointed out that the price of gold is a fixed price now. It went up immediately after the beginning of the war. But all the additional amounts which have come to the gold mines as a result of the increase in the price of gold, already come to us today. The price of gold is now a fixed price. Consequently, there is no question of the same degree of elasticity in the gold mining industry as there is in regard to trade. If there is an increase in working costs in the gold mining industry and if additional taxes are imposed, those increases in taxation cannot be covered by the increase in the price of gold, or even by an expansion in the scope of the industry, or the working of the mines. All these increases have to be covered out of dividends payable to shareholders. My hon. friend spoke about £3,000,000 for an increase in working costs. That is quite correct. At the beginning, to give effect to the intentions of my predecessor, in calculating the taxes, we took into account a 5 per cent. increase in the working costs of the mines. But that increase of working costs is very much more than 5 per cent. today. It is more than 10 per cent. In other words, that £3,000,000 has been more than caught up. If we had followed my predecessor’s policy we would, with the further increase in working costs, have had to make further concessions, but in consequence of the changed policy which we are now pursuing we are not taking any account of the increased working costs, and those increased working costs are put to the account of the shareholders and not to debit of the revenue of the State. As a result of this changed policy we have promoted the benefit of the taxpayer in general, and not the other way round. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) asked why we did not take two-thirds of the increase in the price of gold. We do not do so because we are already taking more than 100 per cent. I want to repeat again what I said on a previous occasion, in order to clear up this point which I have just mentioned. Last year by way of additional taxation we imposed £2,200,000 on the gold mines. The dividends from the mines, apart from new mines, such as Marievale and Venterspost, in that year decreased by £2,160,000. Practically the whole amount of the additional taxation last year came out of the dividends, and that will be even more the case in the year before us. My hon. friend further raised the argument that by way of special war taxation we were only getting from the gold mines a little more than £8,000,000.

£8,300,000.

When the hon. member says that, he, of course, does not take into account the increased yield of the mining taxation as a result of the increased price of gold. Then he says that the public in general, I suppose including the mines, had to pay an amount of £35,750,000 by way of war taxation. He did not tell us how he arrived at that figure. I think that if he scrutinised the additional amount of taxation imposed on the public, as I indicated in my Budget, he will find that, including the gold mines, the amount comes to the sum of £29,000,000.

I have taken every tax that has been imposed since the 4th September, 1939.

If the hon. member will look at the Estimates he will see that the total amount of taxations imposed is £29,000,000. Apart from that, the £8,300,000 does not constitute the only war burden imposed on the mines. Of course it does not. What about the tax on foreign shareholders, which is paid principally by the shareholders in the mines? What about the additional super tax on mine dividends, and what about the gold realisation account? If we take all those items together we get an amount of between £12,000,000 and £13,000,000 and not £8,300,000 out of the total of £29,000,000. Is that a reasonable comparison. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) pointed out this morning that the total national income as calculated by Professor Frankel amounted to £470,000,000. He said that the income from the mining industry amounted to £100,000,000. I admit that my hon. friend overlooked the fact that we should add to that £100,000,000 the payments that are made overseas. That supports my hon. friend’s argument, and it brings us to an amount of £120,000,000 as the income of the gold mining industry. That is onequarter of our national income. But according to the figures which I have just given, we take a good deal more than one-quarter by way of special war tax in realtion to the total amount paid. As usual, my hon. friend’s statistics go against him. If one analyses his statistics one finds that they prove the very opposite of what my hon. friend tried to prove. The hon. member for Fauresmith further said that the income of the gold mines is 23 per cent. of the national income, and therefore the additional amount of taxation from the gold mines this year should have been 23 per cent. of the total additional taxation. According to him it is half a million pounds less than 23 per cent. Then the hon. member should be consistent and apply the same measure to that proportion of the taxation which the gold mines bore in past years when they had to find a good deal more than 23 per cent. If we take our war taxes altogether, the gold mines do not have to find 23 per cent. of our war taxes but close on 40 per cent., and that is what the statistics of my hon. friend opposite lead us to. Then my hon. friend spoke about the question of the profits tax on immovable property. He has asked me for some information. The hon. member will find that all those questions are satisfactorily answered in the Bill which we are going to introduce. All these matters are provided for there.

But the public is very anxious to know all about these matters.

As soon as the House has passed these resolutions a Bill will be introduced in this House, and it is very much better for the public to see what the terms of that Bill are, than that I should perhaps create some misunderstanding now by making a general statement. I know the public are very anxious to get that information, and that is why I want to expedite the introduction of the Bill. The hon. member further said that that particular tax would not achieve its object, and in that connection he particularly raised two points. First of all, he said that as a result of this tax the value of fixed property would rise. Apparently there is a certain amount of difference between the hon. member for George and the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman), because the hon. member for Fordsburg told us that as a result of this tax there had been a drop in the property market. He told us that the property market had practically collapsed, and that prices had not gone up. Hon. members will realise that if a tax is imposed on the sale of a particular thing it is not going to encourage such sales.

Surely it depends on the supply?

My hon. friend, the member for George, argued as though the property which comes on to the market, is liable to the payment of this tax. If that were the position I could have understood his point, but the point is only applicable to part of such property coming on to the market.

And the property which is not liable to this tax is now going up in price so as to include the tax and to become equal to the price of the immovable property which is taxable.

Most of the property which comes on the market does not fall under this tax, and will therefore serve to stabilise the price, and as we want to impose this tax on the sale of immovable property, it can have no other effect but to prevent any further rise in the price. The hon. member for Fordsburg went further, and said that there already was a drop in the property market. It would therefore appear that the facts are on my side, and not on the side of the hon. member for George. The hon. member also said that amounts of between £30,000,000 and £40,000,000 were lying idle in the banks, and would eventually be invested in land. Well, the hon. member bases that argument on the idea that the value of our currency is going to drop. What reason has he for making this assumption? I have repeatedly expressed the view that we in South Africa are strong enough to maintain the value of our money, and we are prepared to take the necessary steps to keep up the value of our money in the interest of South Africa. Why should we get scared now and become nervous about the possibility of the value of our money dropping? The hon. member further spoke about possible evasions of the law. Is that a reason why we should not pass the law? I want to remind him of the fact that he has been speaking year after year about evasions of the Income Tax Act by private companies, and he used that very fact as an argument for a revision of the Act. He did not use it as an argument for the repeal of the Act. No, he used it as an argument in favour of closing up those gaps where the law was being evaded. Here we have a good tax. Let the hon. member assist us to make the tax as watertight as possible. The reason he has given is not a reason for abandoning a new tax. Anyhow, I want to thank him for the ingenuous instance he has given us about possible evasions of these taxation proposals. We shall do our best to close those gaps. The hon. member for Fordsburg in this connection put up a plea on behalf of small properties. He wants us to be considerate to small properties so far as this tax is concerned. No, I don’t think that that would be advisable, because we also want to prevent the rise of prices of small properties in the interest of the public as a whole. The hon. member quite rightly said that there already had been an increase in the price of properties, and for two reasons. There was a shortage of houses; and, secondly, money was lying idle, money which people wanted to invest in property. Very well, we want to cut out the second factor, and we want to make it less attractive for people to go and invest idle money in such properties. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren), and the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) discussed the question of the estate duty. The hon. member for Swellendam does not want us to tax small estates. I don’t really think that a £15,000 estate is a small one. In regard to the abatement, that remains at £15,000. Estates below £15,000 are not taxed. Several hon. members have urged that we should reduce the amount of £15,000, but we have not done so; we have adhered to that figure. In regard to an estate of £20,000, I want to point out that the duty on that is not £2,000, but £370. Surely that is not too large an amount. So far as I am concerned, I must say that I feel that we have been very considerate and very lenient in the way we have dealt with estate duties. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) spoke about the position of people who had sold cattle on a large scale. This is not actually a point affecting the special levy on trade profits. It does not touch the question of the excess profits tax, and I do not think it is applicable so far as this tax is concerned; I cannot conceive of any instances where this tax will be applicable to such cases.

†Then I come to my hon. friend the member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell). He has dealt mainly with the question of the trades profit special levy, and more especially with the position of the professional man. He was not here, of course, when the hon. member for Pretoria Central (Mr. Pocock) dissented with some of the remarks he made.

I was in committee upstairs.

Of course, I am not blaming the hon. member for not having been here. I know my hon. friend was usefully engaged. My hon. friend laid down the principle that if A. is taxed more than B. or C. where A., B. and C. have the same taxable capacity, you are sinning against the canons of taxation. I can only say that then my hon. friend has sinned with the rest of us, because he voted for the excess profits duty. If my hon. friend wants to apply that principle of equality of taxation, then the excess profit duty must go. I admit that this is differential taxation. I have admitted it before, just as the excess profit duty is differential taxation, but it is justifiable. The figures which my hon. friend, the member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) quoted this morning showed that. Take your three classes of income—trade, the salaried man, and the rentier, in other words, the man who derives his income from investments. The rentier does not benefit from war conditions. Indeed, his investments in companies engaged in trade and in industries are taxed at the source. In so far as his income comes from gold mining, he is also hit there. In so far as his income is derived from mortgages, he is hit there to, because the general rate of interest is down. The salaried man, certainly in the higher reaches, is also not profiting from the war. On the whole his salary remains the same, whereas the value of money has been reduced. But trade does profit from war conditions, and therefore it is justifiable to impose a differential tax on trade, but of course my hon. friend has spoken more especially about the position of the professional man who he thinks is treated unjustly in comparison with the salaried man and the rentier. I do not agree with him, but in any case I would like to ask my hon. friend what he suggests doing.

Take everything over £1,000.

That, of course, is subjective.

You would like to know what I would suggest. I would like you to abolish the excess profits duties and to impose a war time tax.

The hon. member would like to impose a war time companies tax as in Australia. But I want to ask him whether that is practicable. Have we not given a pledge under the excess profits duty to deal with post war losses? How can you abolish that duty now? The hon. member would like something like the Australian war time companies tax. Well, we always think that the burdens of others are lighter than our own. May I repeat to my hon. friend the maxim I have already given “It is better to bear the ills we have than fly to others that we know not of.” Moreover the Australian tax is open to the same criticism as our excess profits duty. You tax according to profits without regard to the amount of the capital; in other words, the higher capitalised companies benefit as compared with lower capitalised companies. That applies also to the Australian tax. My hon. friend has now told me what he suggests as an alternative. I am afraid that I can only say that I do not regard that alternative as practicable. It would, to my mind, be equally impracticable either to include income from salaries or income from investments within the scope of the excess profits duty. It would also be impracticable to exclude the professions from the scope of the taxes. All along hitherto we have included professions within the definition of trade, and how you are going to separate them now passes my apprehension.

The 1917 Act.

Yes, but the 1917 Act was not satisfactory. I would like my hon. friend to tell me, for instance, whether a chemist or a pharmacist is a professional man.

If you ask me in the ordinary course …

Yes, you would give me your advice and charge a fee for it. I admit there is a serious difficulty here, but the principle of including professions in trade is a sound one. When trade flourishes the professions flourish, and vice versa. Now the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell) has raised the question of private companies which consist of a relatively small number of individuals. He would like them to be treated as individuals for the sake of this tax. I must say that I cannot see how one can do so logically. We have, and in general it has been to the benefit of the private companies, treated them as entities, and not as partnerships for the purposes of the excess profit duty. That being so, I do not see how one can treat them differently here. I know there will be hardships, as pointed out by the hon. member, but may I say this—I think the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) will agree with me—these private companies have not done very badly in the past. They had quite a long run until we made the change in the taxation system last year, and one’s sympathy with the cases such as those my hon. friend referred to must necessarily be tempered by the fact that up to last year these private companies did very well indeed insofar as taxes are concerned. Now I want to say just one word in general before I sit down. I want to say a word about the criticisms of the Government’s proposals by supporters of the Government. I am not now referring specifically to any member who has spoken here. I am speaking generally, and having regard more particularly to some of the representations made to me outside the House. When I get criticism of the Government’s taxation proposals, it is nearly always prefaced by the statement, “Of course, we do not mind increased taxation. We will give you all you want for the war. We will give you more than you ask if you need it for the war: but do it in another way. What you are doing it not equitable; it is too complicated. Do it in a simple way.” In other words, “Don’t tax us; tax the other fellow:”

We say tax us, but do tax the other fellow also.

But my difficulty is this, that when you tell these people to indicate to you what the other way is, you don’t get very much help. Indeed, the assistance I have usually had in regard to my present taxation proposals by way of offering an alternative, has rarely gone far beyond suggesting that instead of using last year’s surplus for the payment of debt, I should transfer that surplus and so avoid the imposition of taxes. It is no use talking about taxation having a dislocating effect, as hon. members have done here. Of course it has. There is a war on. War has a dislocating effect, and we cannot have it all ways. If we are engaged in war, and if we want to pay for the war, we must be prepared to face some of the consequences of that; we must be prepared to face some of the consequences in the way of dislocation of trades and industries; we must be prepared to face the fact that industrial development will not proceed as fast as it might have done otherwise, having regard to shortage of material, to mention only one factor. In conclusion, I want to say that I do not mind people criticising our taxation proposals, but I would ask that in future it should not be regarded as necessary before you criticise the Government’s taxation proposals, always to preface your criticism with the pious remark that you do not object to taxation, and that you will give the Government more than it wants if only it takes it in another way.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—52:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Sonnenberg, M.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Byl, P. V. G

Van Zvl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Warren, C. M.

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

Noes—33:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Brits, G. P.

Conroy, E. A.

De Bruyn, D. A, S.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Fouche, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Olivier, P. J.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

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

The Committee has to consider the taxation proposals on income tax and super tax, gold mines special contribution, trade profits special levy, personal and savings fund levy, fixed property profits tax, estate duty and customs and excise duties; and the Committee has leave to bring up a report forthwith instead of on a future day.

Income Tax and Super Tax.

The Committe proceeded to consider the proposed income tax and super tax.

I move—

1. (1) That, subject to an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament, and to such amendments of Act No. 31 of 1941, as may be provided therein, there shall be paid as from the first day of July, 1942, on all incomes received by or accrued to or in favour of or deemed to have been received by or accrued to or in favour of all persons from any source within, or deemed to be within, the Union—
   1. (a) a tax (to be called the Normal Tax), the rates of which for the year of assessment ending the thirtieth day of June, 1942, shall be—
      1. (i) in the case of companies the sole or principal business of which in the Union is mining for gold, for each pound of taxable income, three shillings;
      2. (ii) in the case of companies the sole or principal business of which in the Union is mining for diamonds, for each pound of taxable income, four shillings;
      3. (iii) in the case of all other public companies, for each pound of taxable income, three shillings and sixpence;
      4. (iv) in the case of persons other than those referred to in subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii), for each pound of taxable income eighteen pence, increased by one one-thousandth of a penny for each pound of the taxable income in excess of one pound, subject to a maximum rate of three shillings and threepence in every pound: Provided that for a married person the rate for each pound of taxable income shall be fifteen pence, increased by one one-thousandth of a penny for each pound of the taxable income in excess of one pound, subject to a maximum rate of three shillings in every pound;
      5. (v) in the case of any company or person other than a company who derives any portion of his income from mining in the Union for gold, in respect of each pound of the taxable amount so derived, a percentage determined in accordance with the following formula—
         y=40-500/x
         in which y represents such percentage, and x the ratio, expressed as a percentage, which the taxable income derived from mining for gold bears to the income derived therefrom:
         Provided that the tax determined in accordance with subparagraph (v) shall be payable in addition to any tax determined in accordance with sub-paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv); and
   2. (b) a tax (to be called the Super Tax), the rates of which for the year of assessment ending the thirtieth day of June, 1942, shall be—
      For each pound of the income subject to Super Tax, two shillings, increased by one four-hundredth of a penny for each pound of such income in excess of one pound, subject to a maximum rate of seven shillings and sixpence in every pound.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to put a certain point very clearly. We are asked here to approve of normal income tax on persons, companies, gold mines and diamond mines. I believe that the Minister altogether, under the one heading, expects to get an amount of £27,680,000. That is normal tax on persons, companies, gold mines and diamond mines, with the super tax included. We are continually told about the “terrible” increase in the contributions made by the mines to our Exchequer in the last few years. For that reason I think it is as well to compare the normal tax on inviduals, companies and gold mines, and to take the year 1937, a year before the war, for the purposes of that comparison. Let us take the normal tax on gold mines. In the case of companies whose only or principal business is the exploitation of gold, the tax is 3s. in every £ of taxable income. If we compare that with the tax on the gold mines in 1937 we find that it was exactly the same. Consequently, in the normal tax on the gold mining industry not the slightest change has been made. Now take the diamond mines. We find that so far as the diamond mines are concerned, the normal tax has been increased from 3s. to 4s.; it was 3s. in 1937 and it is 4s. now. The normal tax on the diamond mines has therefore been increased from 3s. to 4d. And what about private companies? In 1937 the Companies Tax was 2s. in the £ and today it is 3s. 6d. So far as persons are concerned the tax in 1937 was 1s. rising to 2s. in the £ as a maximum. And now it is 1s. 6d. with a maximum of 3s. 6d.

For unmarried persons.

Oh yes, for married persons it is from 1s. 3d. to 3s. The gold mining tax has not been altered and it is still the same as it was in 1937. So far as super tax is concerned, there we do find a change, but the point I wish to emphasise is that the normal tax on persons has been increased, that the normal tax on companies has been increased, that the normal tax on diamond companies has been increased, but that the normal tax on the gold mines has not been raised by one farthing. If the mines contribute more, it is not because their normal tax has been increased, but it is due to other factors—the operations of the mines have been extended; new mines have come in, the price of gold has gone up, and there are other additional circumstances as well, but the normal tax has not been raised. I want to say this, that with the exception of the gold mines the normal tax has been increased everywhere, and the only amount which the gold mines have to contribute in the form of extra war taxation is the special contribution under the Minister’s second proposal. I should like the Minister to admit the fact that from 1937 to 1942 the normal tax on the gold mines has not been increased at all. I particularly want to emphasise that, after what the Minister said here this afternoon.

The hon. member is quite correct if he takes resolution No. 1 separately. In the matter of normal taxation there has been no change so far as the gold mining industry is concerned, but, of course, one cannot take the one resolution entirely by itself.

Then resolution No. 2 (the special contribution) is the only additional contribution made by the gold mines.

So far as new taxation is concerned, yes. The yield of the tax on the gold mines under 1 has been considerably increased but the only additional tax under this heading is the special contribution. Of course there are other factors such as the tax on foreign shareholders, the gold realisation account and the super tax which is applicable to gold mining shares. All these have to be taken into account if one wants to draw a general comparison between the taxation which the gold mines have to bear and that which other sections of the community have to bear. It is perfectly correct, however, that so far as normal income tax is concerned there has been no change in regard to the gold mines, and for that reason, that it was decided for the purposes of war taxation to take a different basis of calculation than the basis of calculation for the normal income tax. The basis of calculation of the special contribution is different from that for normal taxation, and that is why the special contribution comes under another heading. If one wants to make a real comparison one has to take 1 and 2 together.

I move—

Agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

I move—

1. (1) That, subject to an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament, there shall be paid for the benefit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, subject to such definitions, conditions, exceptions and exemptions as may be provided in the said Act, a levy (to be called the Trade Profits Special Levy), at the rate specified in paragraph (2) hereunder, by all persons deriving income from trade and having as a pre-war standard for purposes of the levy of excess profits duty under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1940 (Act No. 25 of 1940), an amount which is greater than the statutory percentage and exceeds three thousand pounds, in respect of—
   1. (a) the additional amount on which any such person would have been liable for excess profits duty, and
   2. (b) so much of the amount in respect of which any such person is entitled to a refund of excess profits duty in terms of paragraph
   3. (c) or (d) of sub-Section (1) of Section 11 of the said Act, as exceeds the amount in respect of which he would have been entitled to such a refund,

We want to lodge our strong protest here. We are opposed to this tax in the first place because it is a war tax and nothing else, and we say that it is not our war but England’s war, and we are not prepared to have ourselves stripped for England. But in the second place we are opposed to the tax because we feel that a tax is imposed on commerce and industry which commerce and industry cannot bear, and I want to tell the Minister that I am almost prepared to enter into a bet with him that he will be disappointed in his income. I predict that the Minister will receive less under the various sources of income this year than he expects to get.

We shall see.

Simply because the dealers refuse to work for the Government. Business places in Cape Town are closing on a pretext of giving people time off in order to play soldier for a few hours. The actual reason is that they do not want to make more profit. Professional men do not want to make a high profit, even dealers and speculators in the country refuse to work for the Government. And a third reason why we are against this tax is because we feel that there is unfair discrimination here. We have not yet heard a good reason from the Minister as to why there is discrimination. If anyone has an income exceeding £3,000 he has to hand over 6s. 8d. to the State, but the rentier gets off, and the big salaried person also escapes. I agree with the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) and other members, that if we have to make sacrifices then we should all be taxed evenly and should all be in the same boat. The Minister advanced no reason why the chairman of the Chamber of Mines, a man who, I think, earns much more than £10,000, should be exempted from this tax. Now I would like to ask the hon. Minister this. He said here that I was wrong in the comparison which I made between him and the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan). If the position is to be that a salary will be subject to excess profits tax and the Minister’s income increases all of a sudden by £2,500 in one year, how then can it be that he is not subject to the excess profits tax?

I am prepared to give my hon. friend the figures.

This is a remarkable thing.

Surely I know more about my income than my hon. friend does.

If there is an addition of £2,500 in one year, or even £1,800, then he will have to pay.

My hon. friend is quite wrong. There are three years, and we can take into consideration what we lose. My hon. friend did not study the matter closely enough.

Then I take the case of the Minister of Labour. I just want to say that I did not make the comparison between the hon. member for Stellenbosch and the Minister in order to make the imputation that he acted in his own interests. I merely wanted to point out how unfair it is that a person who enjoys an increase in salary of £2,500 should not pay the excess profits tax, and the other person who gets this from a trade or profession has to pay it. But in the case of the hon. member for Stellenbosch, the Minister has amended the law somewhat in order to meet such cases. But under the law as it stood originally, the hon. member for Stellenbosch, if he had made the same additional income as the Minister, would have had to hand over 13s. 4d. in the £ on everything exceeding £1,500, while the Minister would not have had to do so. It is so blatantly unfair. I just want to say, in conclusion, that I regard this tax in its entirety as having been conceived and born in sin. We are going to vote against this tax, because it is a rotten thing.

Motion put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—53:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W

Conradie, J. M.

De Wet, H. C.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander. A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman. H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys. W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno. D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Shearer,. V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Wallach, I.

Wares. A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

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

Noes—31:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

De Bruyn, D. A S.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis. P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Fouche, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I move—

1. (2) That
   1. (a) the levy on each pound of the amount subject to the levy shall be eight pence for each completed onetenth of the amount described in paragraph (b) which is contained in the amount subject to the levy: Provided that—
      1. (i) the levy in respect of the period of assessment ended upon the thirtieth day of June, 1942, shall not exceed six shillings and eight pence on each pound of the amount subject to the levy; and
      2. (ii) the rate at which such levy shall be payable in respect of any succeeding period of assessment shall not exceed a rate the imposition of which on the amount subject to the levy in respect of that period, would result in the payment of the levy on the aggragate of the amounts subject to the levy in respect of that period and of all previous periods of assessment at the rate of six shillings and eight pence on each pound of such aggregate;
   2. (b) the amount referred to in paragraph (a) shall be the amount by which the pre-war standard of the person concerned exceeds the statutory percentage or three thousand pounds, whichever is the greater.

Agreed to.

I move—

That, subject to an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament, and subject to such definitions, conditions, exceptions, adjustments, and exemptions to be provided in such Act—

1. (a) there shall be charged, levied and collected annually for the benefit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, as from the first day of July, 1942, a tax (to be called the Personal and Savings Fund Levy), on every person, other than a company, based on his taxable income for the purposes of normal tax, the normal tax payable by him, his income subject to super tax, and the super tax payable by him, as determined under the provisions of Act No. 31 of 1941, for the year of assessment ended on the thirtieth day of June, 1941, and each and every year of assessment ended on the thirtieth day of June thereafter, at the following rates—
   1. (i) a basic tax of five pounds if the taxable income for the purposes of normal tax plus the dividends of such person amounts to two hundred and fifty pounds or more for the relevant year of assessment: provided that if such person is married, and his taxable income for the purposes of normal tax, plus his dividends, does not exceed three hundred pounds, the basic tax payable by him shall be three pounds; and
   2. (ii) twenty per cent. of the normal tax payable by such person for the relevant year of assessment; and
   3. (iii) ten per cent. of the super tax payable by such person for the relevant year of assessment;
2. (b) there shall be paid from time to time to the credit of the Loan Account referred to in the General Loans Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1917 (Act No. 22 of 1917), out of the Consolated Revenue Fund, sums equivalent to fifty per cent. of the levy paid at the rates provided in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (a) (other than the proviso to sub-paragraph (i)), and sixty-six and two-thirds per cent. of the levy paid at the rate provided in the said proviso; and there shall be issued to each person in respect of whose tax payment any such sum is so payable to the credit of the said Loan Account, a special redeemable stamp or certificate for the sum so payable.

I can well understand that the Minister will find it difficult at this stage to withdraw this tax, but I want to ask the Minister, if he wants to continue with this tax, to impose it only for one year.

It is only for one year.

Then I want to ask him not to introduce it again next year. If he finds that he wants more money, let him get it by means of super tax. Let him say that a person can live decently and well in South Africa on an income of £1,500 per year. On everything exceeding £1,500 we impose a tax which rises rapidly until we practically take everything eventually. That would be something within reason. But the Minister must not impose the tax on this type of person who cannot give a penny to the State without wronging his family or himself. A single person who receives £250 must now start paying £5 in taxes. The married man also now starts paying £5 on £301. Fortunately, the Minister’s heart has become softened, and we are grateful for that. We do not reproach him in that he took into account what was brought to his notice here, and met the man with a large family. There is an abatement of £1 per child up to a maximum of £5. A person with an income of £301 and five children pays nothing.

Yes, that is so.

Now I want to say this to the Minister. I do not want to tell the House of all the misery of those poor people. The Minister ought to know of it. Those people cannot pay this tax. They find it difficult to maintain their families decently, and if the Minister wants money he must not take it from them but from people who can pay. If the Minister is going to impose a super tax from £1,500 onwards, as I have suggested, then it would be better. On that sum one can live decently. If a man’s income is higher than that we can take more and more from it, provided the State requires the money for a good object. The war is not a good object, and I am not prepared to pay for it. I am not going to publish my private affairs here, as the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) did, but if that tax were to affect me and if it were for a good purpose, I would have been prepared to pay it.

It will be devoted to the best possible object.

To be shot away through the mouth of a cannon, and to bring back maimed soldiers to our country.

To protect you.

To protect those people who want to shield behind others, and then they run away from Rommel. I just want to tell the Minister that if he does not bring about a change now—and we would very much like him to do so—then he must bring about a change next year. Do not impose a tax on the poor people which they cannot bear. If you want to impose a tax, impose it on the rich people. Take the person who pays the ordinary income tax. The Minister now adds £5, then still an additional 10 per cent. and then another 10 per cent. savings tax. I say that the Minister is adding at least 25 per cent. to the tax to be paid by a person receiving £400, and as a result of the increase in costs of living, these people cannot afford it. It is an injustice towards them. This is a tax which the poor man cannot afford to pay.

I should like to know from the hon. Minister to what extent this taxation proposal departs from what he said in his Budget speech, apart from the fact that provision is made for children. The first portion of the tax is the initial tax of £5. Now I should like to know what the Minister expects from this initial tax of £5. Then I should also like to know what the number of persons is who do not pay income tax at the moment and who will have to pay taxes for the first time as a result of this proposal. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to reply to these three questions at the moment. I take it that the number of persons who receive more than £250 and less than the minimum for the payment of income tax, will be a considerable number, many more than the number of super tax payers. Then I want to submit that the administration costs involved in collecting this tax will be out of all proportion to the actual amount which will be collected. It is not as in the case of the existing taxpayers where we have already created the machinery in order to obtain particulars regarding their income. We are dealing here with a new class, people who were not income taxpayers, and I should like to know what the number of persons is who will now have to pay this tax, who earn between £250 and the amount which is fixed as the minimum for the payment of income tax.

The people to whom this tax will be applicable did not pay taxes in the past, and this tax will clash with the social welfare of South Africa. We are dealing here with people who receive a meagre income. They have to pay taxes and they have to buy savings certificates which they can sell at a later date at 18s., which means that they will again be paying taxes. I say that this runs counter to a very important section of our national welfare. I ask the Minister not to continue with this measure. The whole trouble arises from the fact that the Minister and the Government did not have the com-age to introduce a simple tax, a tax which clearly and frankly stated that if his income increases, the person concerned will pay more. If that had been done, the Minister would not have been faced with the difficulty of having to tax these lowly-paid people. We asked the Minister last year to give us a simple tax so that people will start paying super tax sooner, and under which the super tax would rise more rapidly. The Minister must, of course, fix the amount which he requires to carry on the government of the country, and according to the amount he requires he must impose taxes. At this time, of course, he must have money for the war which his Government declared. But he can find this by means of a fixed percentage on income and a sliding super tax, but for some reason or other, or perhaps for ten or twelve reasons, he is not prepared to do that. Let the Minister frankly admit that there are private interests on the other side which makes the Government reluctant to claim a fair share from certain sections in the country. Let the Government introduce a sliding super tax so that everyone who earns more than £1,500 will pay a fixed sliding tax. It is right that the country should know that the Government is not prepared to claim taxes from those who can pay, and who have even more than they know what to do with, and that it is taxing people who cannot afford to pay these taxes. Those people who cannot pay are taxed, and people who possess more than they require are protected. The Minister should have levied a simple tax as we suggested here, and he must do away with all these various taxes which he is levying, and which are so burdensome in the case of people earning a small salary. At this stage, even, I ask the Minister to abandon this tax and to introduce a simple tax so that the people who earn most will also pay most.

I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to make an appeal to the Minister of Finance, and the appeal which I want to make is that which I have already made on a previous occasion, and which has again been made to him by this side of the House, and that is that he should not impose a tax on the section of the community which suffers the greatest hardship at this time. In imposing taxation we have previously made a concession to people with families. We allowed £100 per child, and we tried to exempt the person with a meagre income so far as possible. But now the Minister is introducing a tax which will be a heavy burden to the man with a meagre income, and even with regard to those who formerly paid income tax, it will mean that they will have to pay 25 per cent. more. We are not properly looking after that section of the community. Those people who derive the best and the biggest advantage from the country should pay the biggest taxes. That is what we feel. At the moment there is an increase in the cost of living, and people who earn a few hundred pounds find it extremely difficult to maintain their standard of living. It is those very people who are going to suffer under these taxation proposals. I ask the Minister to take his tax into review so that it will affect to a greater extent those people who can pay the tax, and who derive the biggest advantage from the country. This tax which is levied is levied against the will of the people, and we ask the Minister to introduce an alleviating measure which will give greater consideration to that section of the people which can afford less to pay taxes.

I want to associate myself with hon. members who spoke before me, in making an appeal to the Minister to take this tax into review. He will pardon me if I tell him that he has not the moral right to impose this tax. On the 4th September, 1939, the Prime Minister gave this country the assurance that the point at issue was not active participation in the war; it was merely whether or not we would retain our friendly relations with Germany. Here the Government is now taxing the poor people to such an extent that in the present circumstances they are not in a position to pay that tax. We must not forget that this class of person suffers under the increased cost of living. Now the Minister is still further increasing their burdens. It is remarkable to me that members on the other side can get up and plead on behalf of persons with an income of £5,000 per annum. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell) did so. But not a single member on the other side stood up and objected to this tax. I regard this as the most unfair of all the taxes before us, and I want to make an appeal to the Minister to take it into review. We cannot get away from the fact that this tax affects those people who, if they want to maintain any reasonable standard of living at all, will be affected more heavily by the war position at the moment. I want to ask the Minister to consider this matter.

I just want to reply to the questions put to me by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). In the first place, he asked to what extent this proposal departed from the proposal originally introduced. The proposal is precisely the same as the proposal introduced on the day of the Budget. I have, of course, given notice of an abatement in respect of children, but that is not included in this, because the proposal which is made is subject to such adjustments as are allowed in the Act. Provision will therefore be made in the Act for an abatement of £1 per child.

Is that the only difference?

For the rest the resolution is precisely the same. With regard to the estimated revenue, I can tell him that the original estimate was £640,000, which comes principally from income taxpayers, of course, and also partially from people who did not originally pay income tax. I estimate a number of persons in the last-mentioned class at 60,000. Of course, as a result of the abatement, the income will be less than the estimate, apparently by an amount of approximately £200,000. I do not know whether that is the information which my hon. friend wants. Furthermore, I just want to say with regard to the tax in general, that I am of opinion that we were very fair in this matter. At the moment, our taxation notch where the lowest tax is paid, is fairly high. I do not think that it is unfair to cast the net a little wider. We have made a concession with regard to children, and since that has been done I hope the House will be prepared to accept this proposal.

I just want to put a question. An abatement of £1 per child is given. Is that only on the last portion?

It will be divided.

If a person has an income of £301, he has to pay £5 under the Act. Assuming he has five children.

Then he pays nothing.

And if he has two children?

Then he pays £3. That will be a tax of £1 10s., and £1 10s. for the savings fund.

I just want to know this from the Minister. These savings certificates are bought, and I take it that they will then be transferable.

No, the money in respect of it can be drawn.

When?

After six months.

And then the person gets 18s. in the £. That means that the poor man who actually needs the money will have to pay this tax, while the rich man who can pay will not pay it, but will draw interest. The person who draws his money after six months will not receive the full amount, but only 18s. in the £. He has to pay a tax of 2s. in the £ because he is poor. The rich man does not pay it.

It is an incentive to save.

If he has no food, if he cannot maintain himself, his wife and his children properly, then he will draw it, and he will then pay a tax of 2s. in the £, while the rich man will not do so. It is simply an additional tax on the poor man. If a person can save money, then he will save. But if he has not sufficient food and clothing, then we cannot expect him to save, and in order to get back his money after six months it will cost him 2s. in the £. That does not encourage thrift. It is simply a tax, and it is a tax on the poor man, because he will be compelled to draw his money, whether he likes it or not.

According to what the hon. the Minister has said, 60,000 people will now have to pay taxes who did not pay income tax before. They will now have to pay a personal tax which they did not pay before.

May I just explain that point? These additional people who will now pay tax are none the less all Provincial taxpayers at the moment. Consequently they are not entirely new taxpayers, and the machinery exists today for the recovery of taxes from them. The hon. member doubted whether the revenue would be worth the cost of recovery. We have the machinery, and it is easy to collect this tax.

I wonder if the Minister can tell us how many income taxpayers there are at the moment?

There are about 100,000 Union income taxpayers.

Then the Minister is now including nearly two-thirds of that number as new taxpayers, that is to say, as Union taxpayers? These are people on the lowest scale of incomes, people earning less than £400 per year. They have to be gathered in now and to start paying taxes, and they are not paying on a graded scale of, say, £250, rising to £400, but on an arbitrary point, namely at £300 they turn over on £1 to £2 10s. At £299 a man pays £1, at £301 he pays £2 10s. There is no equity in this tax, particularly if we take into account the fact that the people who are going to be effected by this are the poor who already suffer most as a result of the increase in the cost of living. The Minister has now selected 60,000 people of that class for the special tax. As the Minister said, they are already paying Provincial tax. That already is a heavy burden on them, but now they are to be further taxed, and the amount which the Minister is going to get by taxing them is £440,000. Is the game worth the candle? There is going to be a lot of administrative work in regard to the collection of the tax, even though the machinery is there; 60,000 forms will have to be made out and scrutinised. Cannot the Minister get this amount of £440,000 much more easily by making the highly paid people pay a little more, by adding something to the super tax or to the mining taxation? If the Minister, who is now putting up the special contribution from the mines from 18 per cent. to 20 per cent., were to put it up to 21 per cent., he would get more than the amount he is now going to collect from the poor. The country should realise that the Minister is selecting 60,000 of the lowest paid people in the country for this additional tax. I am sorry the Minister of Labour is not here. He should realise what the implications of this tax are going to be on social welfare. The Minister of Commerce and Industries should know what the effects are going to be when we bear in mind that we already have this ever-increasing tempo in the rise in the cost of living. We know that wages after a period of lag always follow the increase in the cost of living. First of all, there is an increase in the cost of living, and then afterwards one gradually gets an increase of wages. It is the people who find it very hard to make both ends meet who are going to be effected by this tax. I think the Minister is doing the wrong thing in putting on this tax.

I am glad that the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) has dealt with this point because I want to emphasise that the people who are going to be affected most severely by this are those people who are taxpavers already. Those people who have to pay this extra tax are already paying £2 5s. 0d. in provincial taxation. I believe that is the amount. They are the people who pay on an income of £250, and now the Minister comes along and on top of it all puts on a further tax; in addition to that they have to pay their municipal taxes and in the Cape their divisional council rates. They have to pay their insurance premiums. The Minister is now taxing a section of the community which really cannot bear it. I wonder if the Minister can realise what the position is of those people who have an income of £250 per year. It is going to hit the salaried man particularly hard. He has no opportunity of putting by a few pounds, but he has to pay tax on his income of £250. Surely he has to try and put something away for a rainy day. He has to put something by in the event of his death, in the event of his leaving his wife and children behind. He has to insure his life. How can those people bear tins extra tax which the Minister is now going to impose on them? I want to plead with the Minister even at this late stage to raise the line from £250 to £350. If we go on like this, and there does not seem to be any other prospect, the Minister will have to come along again next year with fresh taxation proposals, and if at the very start he already taxes the poor man as heavily as he now proposes doing, what is going to be the end? I feel that the Minister is making a serious mistake. He is going to hit those poor families very hard. They are already suffering great hardships. The Minister prehaps does not realise it but those people are suffering severe hardships in their attempts to educate their children. I am making an appeal to the Minister in the name, and on behalf of all those who are going to be affected by this tax, and I ask him at any rate to increase the amount to £300 or to £350.

Motion put and the Committee divided.

Ayes—53:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie. J. M.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman. H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Heyns. G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper. E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Lawrence. H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate. C.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Shearer. V. L.

Smuts. J. C.

Sonnenberg, M.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

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

Noes—32:

Bekker, G.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Fouche, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein. J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and P. O. Sauer.

I move—

1. (1) the profit realised by any person on the alienation for any consideration of—
   1. (i) immovable property referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b), or
   2. (ii) any share referred to in the said paragraphs in any company which is a private company as defined in sub-section (3) of section 33 of the Income Tax Act, 1941 (Act No. 31 of 1941) and whose income, in the opinion of the Commissioner, is or will be mainly derived, either directly or indirectly, from immovable property or dealings in immovable property,
      which was acquired for any consideration; and
2. (2) so much of any amount which accrues to any intermediary in respect of any such alienation as exceeds five per cent. of the consideration for the immovable property or shares, as the case may be, alienated,

at the following rates:

In the case of any such alienation of immovable property or shares, as the case may be, acquired—

1. (a) on or after the first day of October, 1939, but before the twenty-sixth day of February, 1942, six shillings and eight pence; and
2. (b) on or after the twenty-sixth day of February, 1942, thirteen shillings and four pence,

We are naturally also opposed to this tax, and there are a few points on which I want to reply to the Minister. Particularly arising out of what the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) said, the Minister remarked that there was a drop in the property market at the moment. I am prepared to admit that that is the case in certain parts of the country, but what is the reason for it? The reason is that the Prime Minister has done his best to create a feeling of panic in South Africa in regard to the possibility of a Japanese attack. In places like Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg, the large centres of this country, one gets people who are afraid of the yellow danger, and they are nervous of owning property here. The only reason for the present position is that the Prime Minister has done his best to create a feeling of panic, but the slacking off which has come about in the property market is not the result of this taxation proposal. What does happen is this: People want to sell their property at a profit of £100. For instance, I have a property and I want to make £100 profit. It means then that I have to make £200 or £300 profit so as to leave me this £100 clean, because the Government takes two-thirds of my profit. The position is that the property market at the moment has not yet quite fitted itself into the price level. But the result of the step taken by the Minister is going to be a rise in the price of property, houses and land. That I am convinced of. Every letter I receive goes to confirm that fact. At the moment there is a certain degree of hesitation in the property market, largely because the people have been scared by the Prime Minister, and also because those people who at one time would have been prepared to sell their property with £100 profit now want to make a bigger profit, so that they will retain £100 net profit, and the property market has not quite fallen into line yet, but there is one thing I am convinced of, and that is that there is going to be inflation in the price of property. And what is the amount which the Minister expects to get from this tax? I want the Minister to realise the position. It is not the speculators in land who are the great danger, but there is a danger that many people at a given moment will be looking for a safe investment for their money. The Minister knows that at the moment there are some £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 lying idle in our banks. The people are prepared for the time being to leave that money there without it earning interest, because they are unable to decide what is the best thing for them to do in present circumstances; whether it is better to have the money, or whether it is better to have property, but if the slightest danger arises of a further drop in sterling taking place, and if the Minister keeps us tied to sterling, so that our money will also drop, a panic will be created among the public and people will then invest that £20,000,000 of £30,000,000 in fixed property. They will all buy at the same time then, and whatever the Minister may do the prices of property will go up then. The only thing the Minister will achieve by this tax is that the honest man is going to be caught, but he is going to turn 90 per cent. of the people into crooks, and an Act which does a thing like that is a bad Act.

You are talking very much like a champion capitalist lately.

When the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) should have been here to plead the cause of the poor man he ran away. We are pleading here for the man who is unable to get a house today. One cannot rent a house at the moment. If the less well-to-do people want a roof over the heads of their families they have to buy. We object to the poor man, who wants to buy a house for his family, first of all having to put £200 in the Minister’s pocket, and that is what the effect of this proposal is going to be.

You are shifting your argument completely now.

Assuming you have a house in Cape Town; you want to make a reasonable profit on that house—say £50 or £100. Now the Minister comes along and says that if you sell that house he is going to take two-thirds of the profit. The man still wants to make his reasonable profit of £50 and he is entitled to it, but in order to make that £50 he actually has to make £150, and then he has to give the Minister £100 of that £150. So the poor man who wants to buy the house has to put £100 in the Minister’s pocket, and that is what the hon. member over there wants now.

But surely it is the seller who is the cause of that.

The poor man will have to pay. Some people are really too stupid to understand the most simple thing in the world—if they don’t want to understand it. If the poor man wants to buy a house today he has to make the Minister a present of £100. Does not the hon. member understand that?

You are now pleading for the speculators, the greatest enemies we have ever had.

I believe that there is a slight misunderstanding in regard to the instance which I mentioned here this morning, and perhaps the Minister also misunderstood the position. I know of the special case of a farmer who bought a farm for £10,000. He paid £2,000 in cash. Now he wants to sell this farm for £13,000. The Minister takes £2,000 of this £13,000 and the man keeps £1,000. The position is quite clear. The man had £2,000 cash to put down, now he makes a profit of £3,000, and the Minister takes £2,000. Does not the Minister realise how terribly unjust this is? It is true that man did indulge in a slight speculation, but he did not actually buy the farm for the purpose of speculating with it. I want the Minister to realise that this taxation proposal, so far as the farming population is concerned, is nothing but a land tax. If the Minister were to tax other speculators as well I could still understand it, but why must the man on the platteland be specially selected? Why must the farmer be selected, because it is the farmer who is going to suffer from this tax?

I really cannot understand the hon. member at all.

Now let’s hear what you have to say.

If a calf is hungry it roars every time it sees its mother. At one time I really used to think that the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) had some sympathy for the poor man. This new method of taxation proposed by the Minister is to my mind the most effective he has introduced throughout the whole of his career. Let us see how this tax is really going to work. It is going to affect the very type of man who is responsible for these high house rents, for the high prices of houses and of plots of land which the poor people need. If we cast our minds back to 1930 and 1932 we find that large numbers of plots on the Witwatersrand and elsewhere were issued for sale. Now what happened? Speculators bought up large areas of land, the prairie value of which was at the utmost £2 10s., and they cut the land up into plots. Do hon. members know what those plots were sold for? They were sold for £150, £200 and even £300 per morgen. Those are the people whom hon. members opposite are now pleading for. There are many people on the Witwatersrand who are employed on the mines and elsewhere, and as soon as they get a chance they buy a plot with the object of putting up a house when they have the opportunity. The prairie value of the land was £2 10s. and now the poor people, for a plot of five acres, have to pay as much as £100 or £200 per morgen. They have to pay through their noses and these big speculators are making unheard of profits, and those are the people the hon. member for George is pleading for.

What is prairie value?

Hon. members opposite come here now and tell us that the poor people who want to buy houses will have to pay these tremendous prices as a result of this taxation proposal of the Minister’s, but what is the cause of it all? Who is responsible for the poor man having to pay a higher price?

The Minister, of course.

Hon. members opposite are always trying to make us believe that they are pleading the cause of the poor man, but when it comes to political schemes they try to dip their hands very deeply into the pockets of the speculators. Even at the moment those people are engaged on buying up huge tracts of land which at the utmost are not worth more than £5 per morgen.

You had better get back to your circus.

I wish that poltroon on the other side would allow me to bring an argument to their notice. They don’t want me to have a reasonable opportunity to upset their arguments. I was saying that those people were buying up large tracts of land which are not worth more than £5 per morgen. That land is cut up into small lots and sold at £130, £140 and sometimes £150 per morgen. The people who buy the land are the poor, the railway workers and the poorly paid civil servants, who cannot manage to get hold of a house in any other way. And now the hon. member for George says: “Let these poor people pay £200 for their plots of land.” When I heard of the Minister’s taxation proposal I said at once that if ever he had done a good thing he was doing so now in getting at the people who had made these terrific profits. By doing this he is going to tax these land speculators, but I am surprised at the hon. member for George wanting to play into the hands of these big men, of these speculators. I hope that people who are interested in the matter will not be so stupid as to allow themselves to be misled by the distorted arguments of hon. members opposite, because let me tell them that this proposal will enable the less well-to-do people to buy a small house and a plot of land at a reasonable price, and the speculators will not be able to make their 2,000 per cent. or 3,000 per cent. profit. That apparently is what the hon. member for George and his friends want, but by imposing this tax the Minister is putting an end to it. They will no longer be able to make these huge profits. Why I say that this proposal comes at a good time is because large areas of this land have already been bought up, and if the Minister had not imposed this tax tremendously high prices would have been asked from people who need that land. If there is one type of tax I can recommend it is this one. If those people want to buy and sell let them make a reasonable profit, but hon. members opposite have nothing to go on— these are instances of land having been bought for £5 per morgen and sold for £100 or £120 per morgen. I hope that people who are interested in this are not going to allow themselves to be misled by hon. members opposite. Let hon. members there go on pleading on behalf of the speculators. We know that when they are dealing with the farmer they tell us that they hate the middleman, but where the speculator is concerned my hon. friends are quite satisfied to stand up and plead for the interests of the speculators.

I don’t want to reply at any length to what the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. Van den Berg) has said. I hope I shall be able to differ from him in this respect, that I shall only repeat my argument once. Nor do I want to talk about the poltroons he spoke about. As a man who has taken part in a circus he naturally knows more about poltroons than anybody else in this House, but his argument amounts to this: a man goes along and buys land in the neighbourhood of a town, land which has an agricultural value of £5., I believe the hon. member called it prairie value.

Don’t you know what prairie value is?

No, I don’t but of course I am not as thoroughly bilingual as the hon. member is. Then he buys the land for £5 per morgen and he cuts it up into erven— the hon. member spoke of plots, but I take it he meant erven. And then he sells the erven for £100 or £120 per morgen; and the hon. member objects to that. For once in his life he was quite right. We also object to that. And we particularly object to people charging too much for that land, but now the hon. member says that this tax which the Minister now proposes is going to improve the position. He says it will improve the position so far as the poor man who buys that land is concerned. Now, what is the position? The speculator sells an erf and he has to hand two thirds of the profit to the Government. Let us assume that he makes £100 on each Erf, but with the tax on these erven he can only make a little over £33. Is that not so? The hon. member does not answer, he does not know.

Tell me, will you still be so keen on buying such large tracts of land?

The speculator is no longer satisfied with £33 because he had expected to make £100 on his Erf, so he says now: “I am not going to sell the Erf at the old price; if I do I shall only make £33 profit where I expected to make £100 profit. I am now going to increase the price to that I can still make my £100 profit, and the man who buys it will have to pay the tax.” So we now have the position that the tax will have to be paid by the purchaser. If you put on a tax it is paid by the speculator there would be no objection to it, but what we do object to is that it will not be the speculator who will pay that tax but the man who buys the Erf, and what we want to do here is to protect the interests of the poor man. We still want him to be able to buy that Erf at the same price as he used to buy it at before. We want the tax to be put on the speculator.

Tell us how you are going to do it?

Is it our duty to do that? Call in a doctor and the doctor will give you a prescription; if you are dissatisfied with your own doctor call us in and we shall tell you how to do it, but no doctor gives a prescription until he is called in.

I am afraid that if you have to give the prescription all of us will die.

We are not only talking about the position in regard to erven, but we feel that right throughout the result of this tax is going to be that the purchaser will have to pay it, and the seller is going to safeguard himself against the tax by putting it on to the buyer.

I must really correct my hon. friend. He should realise that if this tax is imposed, this process of buying up land will not be able to continue. Why would those people continue to buy up land if they knew that they would not be able to make such a large profit on their sales?

[Inaudible.]

Hon. members must please give me a chance. When hon. members on this side of the House want to speak they make such a noise that one cannot possibly carry on. What speculators would still be keen on buying up that land and on getting money out of those people to whom they used to sell? This sort of thing has been one of the greatest evils, not only on the Witwatersrand, but also on the platteland. I think the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) will support me when I say that years ago the whole of the Zoutpansberg district was bought up for 1s. 6d. per morgen. Large companies bought up the land at that price. They then sold it to the farmers for 15s. per morgen. Those people bought the land at a price which was so high that they are hardly able to make a living on it today, as a result of the huge profits that were made. While we are imposing taxes on enterprises where they can be imposed, for heaven’s sake let us catch those people who make these huge profits. I am one of those who said that the mines and Barclays Bank were making huge profits, but the land speculators are making even greater profits, and have been doing so for a long time. To come and talk of this tax as a land tax is a distortion of the truth, because it is not a tax on land; it is a tax on the unheard of profits made by the speculators. I am surprised to notice that hon. members opposite, who in many constituencies represent small farmers, don’t get up and say that the Minister is not catching a type of man who has always got off scot free, and who has always made a profit out of all proportion. Hon. members will at once agree with me that this idea of buying up a whole district will now be stopped once and for ever, and the man who will now buy land is the man who wants to live on it, or to farm on it—not the man who buys it for the purpose of speculating. I wonder if hon. members know how many morgen of land are today in the hands of the Land Owners’ Association? Do they know what it is? Two years ago the Land Owners’ Association owned 10,000,000 morgen of land.

And they are not going to pay this tax.

Does not my hon. friend understand the position yet? They hold 10,000,000 moreen of land, two-thirds of the Orange Free State, and if a poor man wants to buy any of that land he has to pay terrific prices for it. Don’t hon. members understand that? I always imagined that hon. members over there knew all about the interests of the poor, and particularly of the poor farmer, but I am beginning to realise that they must study things very, very carefully before they can say anything about the interests of the poor.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has been posing here as a champion of the poor, but I want to ask the hon. member where he was fifteen minutes ago, when we were voting on a matter closely concerning the interests of the poor? The hon. member hid away then. He was here, but he did not have the courage to come and vote. There he proved that he really had no sympathy for the poor man. And then he wants us to believe that if this taxation proposal is passed less ground will be cut up into erven; in other words, there will be less ground available for erven, or the prices of the existing ground will be higher. If the hon. member is in earnest, let us test him. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister, and I want to tell him that he is not going to stop inflation by the imposition of this tax. He is not going to prevent the price of fixed property going up by this proposal of his. For a few weeks after his statement on the 26th February nothing happened in regard to the sale of fixed property, but that is not the position today. What is the reason why people want to get hold of fixed property today? They are worried about the value of our currency. Now, I want to make this suggestion to the Minister. If he wants to prevent inflation let him make a statement in this House that if sterling drops any further he will release us from sterling. That is the only way to help the poor man. Now, I want to ask the hon. member for Krugersdorp if he will be prepared to support us if we appeal to the Minister to release us from sterling if sterling goes on dropping further?

I shall give you my answer by and by if I get the opportunity to do so.

He dare not answer.

I am going to answer you.

The hon. member dare not answer us, because he is compelled to vote as hon. members opposite do. I want to ask him whether he will vote with this side of the House if a motion to that effect is introduced? We do not ony expect him to make a statement, we want him to act, and not merely to speak. We know this so-called advocate of the interests of the poor man—we know him only too well.

They draw double salaries.

Yes, the hon. member for Krugersdorp also draws a double salary; they vote for this tax, but the hon. member is not in his seat when we discuss a matter and vote on a matter which affects the interests of the poor man. I want to ask the hon. member—I want to ask that great advocate of the interests of the poor man, to prove by his deeds that he really stands for the poor man’s interests. Now, I again want to tell the Minister that he is not going to achieve his object by means of this tax. What he is going to achieve is that the real crook will get past, and the man who is not cute enough will be caught. The crook who is up to all the tricks of the game is not going to be caught by this tax, and that is why I want to ask him to follow the right course if he wants to stop inflation, and let him tell us what policy he is going to pursue.

I want to tell the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) very clearly that if the Minister comes here today and proposes to restrict the profits which anyone is allowed to make on the sale of property—if the Minister makes such a proposal, I shall support him.

Will you please repeat that?

I say that if the Minister proposes to keep the profit which anyone is allowed to make on the sale of property within reasonable bounds, if he introduces legislation to do so, then I shall support him.

Will you explain what you mean by restriction of profit? If the State tells you …

You have made your speech; you cannot make another one now; give the hon. member a chance to finish.

This proposal does not impose any restriction on profit. On the contrary, it compels the man who would have been satisfied before with a reasonable profit, to make twice as much profit now, so that in the end he may keep a reasonable profit for himself and give the rest to the Minister. Unfortunately, we can do no more than bring this very simple fact to the notice of the hon. member for Krugersdorp. If the Minister steps in and at a time like the present imposes a restriction on the amount of profit an individual may make on the sale of property, especially on dwelling-houses, I shall support the Minister. But now the Minister is not only compelling the reasonable landlord to try and get a reasonable profit for himself; over and above that he has to try and make twice as much profit so that he may give the Minister the balance. I now tell the Minister that within twelve months he will see the value of property throughout the country going up to an unheard of level.

After what the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has said, I should like to make this suggestion, and I hope he will reply to it, namely, that we should protect the poor man and only try to get hold of the profits made by the rich man. Now I want to test the Minister and see whether he is prepared to help the poor man and not only the rich man. Assuming a man has £2,000 and the income he derives from that is only £100. If the Minister fixes that man’s capital at £2,000 or £4,000 or £5,000, or whatever it may be, let him say then that only what the man makes over and above that will be taxed. I feel that if the Minister would consider that suggestion we would at once cut out the poor man, and he would be able to make a reasonable profit. If the Minister fixes the capital amount at £4,000 or £5,000 it will still allow the poor man to make a profit, and I do not think the Minister would begrudge the poor man that profit. You do not always have the chance of building up your capital, and if an opportunity presents itself the Minister should help the poor man to make a little profit. Let him only take the poor man’s profit over and above a certain figure. Now let me say this to the Minister: The hon. member for Krugersdorp is very much concerned about the land and the erven bought up round about towns and villages by land companies. I may be wrong, but I understand that those companies have already designed a scheme to evade the provisions of the Act. They are now selling their land on the instalment system.

The lawcan make special provision for that.

In terms of this proposal now before the House I do not believe that the Minister can put his Act into operation before transfer has been given, and I understand that these companies are now not giving transfer.

Yes, we know all about that, and we shall deal with that.

In the third place I want to make an appeal to the Minister, and I want to ask him whether he is going to take into account the improvements made to a property, and whether he is going to take into account costs of transfer and legal costs?

The hon. member will see all that in the Bill. I shall do that.

I am glad to hear it.

Motion put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—54:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Deane. W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Fourie, J. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphrevs, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Sonnenberg, M.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

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

Noes—31:

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

De Bruyn. D. A. S.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Fullard, G. J.

Grobler, J. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Tellers: J. S. Labuschagne and P. O. Sauer.

I move—

Agreed to.

Customs and Excise Duties.

The Committee proceeded to consider the proposed customs and excise duties.

I move—

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—

Agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

I move—

1. (a) ready for smoking in tobacco pipes or in the form of cake, plug or stick; or
2. (b) in the form of cigars or cigarillos, at the rates set forth hereunder—

Agreed to.

I move—

I would like to say something in regard to the licence fees. You get a distillery which has more than one still. I want to move—

In other words we make it 5s. for the distillery which has more than one still.

I have no objection to that.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I want to object to this extra tax on petrol. I would like to point out to the Minister that every session we have come together there has been an extra tax on petrol, and on this occasion his excuse for imposing the additional tax was that we will now use less petrol. Is the Minister then of opinion that because petrol is being controlled the public is being rendered a service thereby? Does he think that because there is a reduction in petrol supplies the public is being rendered a service? He now wants to give us to understand that because we get less petrol we are better off and that we can pay more taxes. That is what it amounts to. If you have less petrol you have to suffer as a result of it in many cases. It seems to me that the Minister assumes that since there is a reduction in petrol the public is being rendered a service, and for that reason he can impose a higher tax on the petrol which is used. I again want to point out that the motor car is no longer an article of luxury. The poorest man is dependent on his motor car. I go further, and I want to add that it is the platteland especially which is being affected by this tax, because there we find the person who has no other alternative. In town people can use the bus, the train and other facilities, but the person in the platteland is the one who has to use his car. I want to point out to the Minister that if the person in the platteland to whom 400 miles per month is allowed—that is, 21 gallons of petrol—uses it every month, then he pays an annual petrol tax of no less than £12. Apart from that, we find that the motor fuel which is manufactured in the Union is also being taxed more severely. I merely want to say that I lodge the strongest protest against this additional tax on petrol.

I would like to know from the Minister what his object is in imposing this petrol tax. Is it his object that less petrol should be used, or is it his object to get less income?

To get more income.

I may be wrong, but I think that the Minister said in his Budget speech that in view of the fact that less petrol will be used, this additional tax can be paid. But whatever the Minister’s object is, I want to ask him whether he realises that he is imposing a tax on the farmer in this case, especially on the farmer and to a lesser degree on other persons. I do not know how the petrol position will develop in the ensuing months, but I know that the Prime Minister will induce the Minister of Finance, if petrol becomes less, to stop joy rides altogether, but will not allow the farmers’ petrol to be curtailed in any circumstances, unless it becomes absolutely necessary. I do not know whether the Minister of Finance knows it, but we cannot farm without petrol today without reducing the yield of the country tremendously for a few years at any rate. We no longer have trek animals. It is not only a question of ploughs but also of conveyance of our produce. If that is a fact, and the Minister dare not deny it, then it amounts to this, that the Minister is imposing a tax on the farmer alone in this case. I want to make an appeal to him not to impose this tax on the farmer, and to protect the production of the country. Since the Minister has got so far as to curtail the use of petrol for pleasure purposes, I want to point out to him that in the platteland farmers live miles and miles from the nearest town. It is not unusual for a farmer to live 50 or 80 miles away from a town. I was in the north-west and in areas the other side of Kuruman the price of petrol was as high as 3s. 4d. per gallon. That is absolutely too high for these people to be able to afford it, and I want to suggest that the Minister should have a fixed scale—that we should apply the principle of a flat rate. We already have that to a certain extent in the case of mealies. Mealies are conveyed at the same price over long and short distances, so that the townsman can get the benefit. I have nothing against it, but since that is the case, I want the Minister to realise that there are areas where an enormous price has to be paid for petrol. In imposing this additional tax the Minister will curtail production immensely, and he is doing an injustice towards people who reside far from towns. There are times when they have to go to town, perhaps to go and fetch the doctor, or even to make purchases, and those people are taxed very heavily in comparison with the townsmen, who can make use of the train, the bus or the tram. I can give the Minister the assurance that the reduction of petrol consumption in the towns is to the advantage of the townsmen. They are no longer using as much as they did in the past. He taxes the farmer heavily, however, because the farmer still has the full use of his lorry. The Minister is not satisfied, however, to allow the farmer to use this petrol for production. He applies the tax generally. I want to ask the Minister in all seriousness to consider whether he cannot repeal this tax, or at any rate not to apply it to the farmers.

I am sorry that I cannot comply with the request which my hon. friends on the other side made. The position is this. Petrol is rationed in the case of everyone, and that means that everyone should try to save in the use of petrol.

But that is done.

If that is so, then it means that everyone uses less petrol, and everyone ought to be in a position to pay more for it. There will, of course, be cases of hardship. We can never hope to eliminate all cases of hardship. If petrol is used for agricultural purposes, then I would be inclined to exempt it, but it is impossible to do so. We cannot make a difference between use for farming purposes and use for other purposes, or we shall have to have an official at every pump station and at every farm. In practice it is quite impracticable. I am sorry, but I cannot comply with that request.

I want to associate myself with the appeal which was made to the Minister to consider the question of applying this proposal more lightly to the platteland. Under the existing system of rationing, it is extremely unfair towards people who live in distant areas. I want to mention a case to the Minister in order to prove that. Under the existing system we find that a farmer may live 50 miles from town or from the nearest petrol station. He cannot fill a drum and take it away with him. Every time his tank is empty he has to drive to the same pump in order to fill it. The Minister will agree with me that that is in conflict with the words he used just now. He told us that it is a national matter to save petrol. Why then does he compel the farmer to use his petrol needlessly in this manner. He has to travel 50 miles to the petrol station, and in doing so he wastes a good portion of his petrol. I want to submit to the Minister that he should so alter this system that the farmer, for example, can buy a drum of petrol which can be delivered by bus.

It is not a question of tax, but of rationing.

I realise that it is a question of rationing, but that applies to the farmer whom the Minister proposes to tax, too. If the farmer has to travel 50 miles in order to fill his tank, then the tank is half empty when he reaches home. That is altogether wrong. I realise, however, that this does not really fall under this resolution, and I am prepared to leave the matter at that, in the hope that the Minister of Finance will find some method of meeting the farmers in that respect. But then I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Finance, since farming is largely dependent upon motor transport, to see what steps can be taken with a view to meeting the farmers in so far as petrol is concerned. It is necessary, in the national interests, that the farmers should have petrol at their disposal for transport and other farming purposes. I want to suggest that the Minister should go into this matter in order to see whether this unnecessary use of petrol, to which I have referred cannot be eliminated. It would be a great concession if he could help the farmers in connection with this matter, so that their petrol can come by bus. Even if the same quantity is given to them, they should be allowed to take that petrol with them to their farms and to use it there.

Since the Minister admits that this tax will bear heavily on distant areas, and that he would have discriminated if it were possible, I want to tell him that, although I realise that this is a difficult matter, he should nevertheless take it into further consideration. He should endeavour to fix a scale where there will be a maximum, so that the farmers in distant areas will not be prejudiced as they are now being prejudiced. Although this does not fall directly under this vote, I hope that the Minister will try to do something for those areas, and it will be greatly appreciated.

I move—

Agreed to.

When the House adjourned yesterday evening I was pointing out to the Minister of Posts how he could get hold of the secret broadcaster. We believe that the Minister can get hold of him, and also that he can get information from the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in regard to it. We brought it to the notice of the Minister of Posts that a certain Haupt tries to place shares for the paper “Vryheid”, and he uses the name of Mr. Louis Esselen. We further told the Minister how the Union Unity Fund finances the paper “Vryheid”. We went further and told him that the people who were responsible for the collection of funds and who were the trustees of the Unity Fund, included none other than the Minister of Lands himself, and also other members on the other side. I went further and referred him to a gathering in Cape Town, where the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) made a speech to the insurance companies which have their headquarters in England, in order to collect funds from them for the Union Unity Fund, and when he said, inter alia, that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister approved of the collection of those funds. We went further too, and pointed out that documents were sent overseas, in which were stated what they wanted to do with the Unity Fund. I further quoted in order to show how the funds of the Union Unity Fund were to be used, inter alia, to erect a broadcasting station outside the borders of the Union. They said that they wanted to go even further and get their own literature or magazines in order to oppose the policy of neutrality in South Africa. The peculiar thing about that document is that they say that they dare not vote money for it in Parliament. Listen what is said here—

Then the summary follows, and, inter alia, it is stated that they want to erect a radio station outside the borders of the Union and that they want to get a magazine. That is the paper “Vryheid”. Since the Minister is making a search, I want to tell him that he can go to Mr. Haupt, to Mr. Louis Esselen, whose name is being used, and then to the Minister of Lands. He can go even further as far as the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, and then I think that he will be well on the track of the secret sender. The saddest feature in connection with this is that the most scandalous and filthy things one can conceive are broadcast. I wonder whether the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has listened to the language which is used? He must remember that this is being supported by people who sit on the other side. [Time limit.]

I want to address a few words to the Minister of Posts in connection with the so-called secret sender who cannot be found. I want to refer the Minister to a notice which was put in the “Sunday Times” to the effect that after a fixed date the secret sender would again operate. I thought that when a newspaper inserts an advertisement it is compelled to have the address of the persons who insert the advertisement. I thought that if the Minister wanted to do his duty he could have got hold of the names, but he sits here and simply shrugs his shoulders and says that he is very sorry that he does not know where the secret sender comes from, and that it is impossible for him to find out. I just want to tell him that he must be very lax, and his department must be very lax, and not only must his department, but the secret service of the Government must be very lax if they cannot discover this. We complained about it a year ago already, and as the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) said just now, the Union Unity Fund was established. Its object was to make propaganda, and that propaganda is also made through the secret sender. I do not listen to such scoundrels as those used by the secret sender. The meanest and lowest language which can possibly be used is used by them towards the leaders of this side of the House. But the Minister sits there with folded arms and says that he knows nothing about it. It is one of those secret senders who are despised not only in South Africa but throughout the whole world. Anyone who broadcasts such things secretly can be nothing but a scoundrel. What is still worse, is that there is a member of this House who associates himself with that secret sender, and who practically acted as his agent here. I understand that the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) asked here yesterday evening why I did not contradict the secret sender when he said that I had received a certain sum from a German Minister in order to make propaganda against the Government. Let me immediately tell that hon. member that I do not associate with scoundrels, and for that reason I do not reply to scoundrels such as those people of the secret sender. They are what the English call “guttersnipes.” What hurts me is that a member of Parliament can get up here and practically associate himself with this secret sender, because what other object could he have had in getting up here and repeating the accusation made by the secret sender? It is only in order to create suspicion in the minds of the people against me. I say that we expect that only from a cad and not from a respectable member of Parliament. I rise in order to deny this, and I challenge that hon. member to say outside the House that I received money from a German Minister, or any German, in order to make propaganda against the Government. If he does not do so, then in my opinion he is a coward.

Order!

He makes accusations on the floor of the House which agree with the accusations of the secret sender, accusations which the hon. member is not prepared to repeat outside, but which he makes here under the protection of the House. He says that here because he knows that nothing can be done to him here. I must take it that he is an agent or an associate of the secret sender. I must express my surprise that the Minister and his department have not yet put an end to this. Publicity was given to the matter in the “Sunday Times,” and the Minister could certainly have found out who were behind this thing. But it suits the Government and the party on the other side, and for that reason they shrug their shoulders and say “We cannot find the secret sender.” It is clear to me that the Government associates itself with this filthy propaganda, and for that reason a member of this Parliament comes here and says, “Why did you not deny this?” Must we deny what any filthy creature says in this country while we do not know who it is? They told me—I do not listen to such filthy things myself—that any member on this side who does not agree with the Government is defamed and blackened by the secret sender in the evening, that things are said against people on this side of the House which cannot be proved. I want to warn the Minister to take steps so as to put an end to the secret sender. I want to go further. The Government will not always be in office, and when the time arrives when we get into power, then we shall take the most drastic steps and the most extreme steps against those people. The sooner that secret sender makes himself scarce and crawls out of South Africa, the better for him. The Minister cannot shrug his shoulders and say that he does not know anything about the secret sender and that he cannot find out anything. The Minister, with his big department and with the detectives at his disposal, cannot tell me that he cannot find out where the secret sender is. And you find people on the side of the Government who agree with the besmirching and blackening of people in South Africa, and these are the people on the other side who still talk of co-operation, and who beg us to help them in their war effort. Will we help them if we are besmirched in this manner and they associate themselves with it? You are engaged also in making future co-operation in South Africa practically impossible. I again deny, with the greatest contempt, the accusation which was made against me, and I challenge the hon. member for Rosettenville to make this accusation against me outside the House. That will be the last accusation which he will ever make.

Mr. Chairman, I heard what the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has said, as far as I am concerned, and as I am not the coward that he seems to think, I am on my feet immediately to reply. In the first place he accused me of being associated with the freedom station. I brought this matter up after three virulent attacks had been made by leading speakers on the Opposition side against the freedom station. Mr. Chairman, there is a little bit of the essence of sport in this matter, because the freedom station people are not here to defend themselves, so I thought I might get up and defend them myself.

Sportsmen don’t repeat scurrilous things like you did.

Mr. Chairman, may I now deal with the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) who is interjecting again? I would like to repeat to the House what that hon. member said yesterday. When he was speaking about the freedom station the hon. gentleman said it was the most filthy radio station in the world, and he went on—

Mr. Chairman, he was immediately called to order by the Chair. Then he went on—

He was again called to order by the Chairman, but he went on—

It is a filthy thing, and you associate yourself with it.

He also said yesterday that the freedom station was putting across deliberate lies and besmirching the character of members on the Opposition side of the House. Mr. Chairman, I want to read to the House what the freedom station broadcasted throughout South Africa. They sent over the air a speech made by the hon. member for Humansdorp and if the freedom station is prepared to broadcast a speech delivered by the hon. member for Humansdorp in this House in toto, I do not think the hon. member can complain. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad associates me with the freedom station, but I must associate the hon. member for Humansdorp with that station.

Talk sense.

The hon. member for Humansdorp will not be able to deny these allegations. This is a speech which was delivered in this House on the 15th March, 1938, against the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, who was then the Minister of Lands. The whole speech was broadcast by the freedom station. The hon. member said in March, 1938—

What has that got to do with the filthy propaganda of the freedom station?

These are the scurrilous lies that are said to be coming from the freedom station. The hon. gentleman, the member for Humansdorp, said …

Order. I would like to remind the hon. member that when he repeats anything which is unparliamentary or scurrilous towards another member, he must be taken as having said it himself. He must not cast reflections upon the conduct or character of a member of Parliament.

This is a speech which was delivered in this House, Mr. Chairman, when the Speaker was in the Chair.

Order, order! I have given my ruling.

But, Mr. Chairman, I want to quote from this, it is reported in Hansard here.

Order. The hon. member must not make imputations against another hon. member and by repeating or quoting what has been said he is making such an imputation.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. member not entitled to read what another hon. member has said in this House against another hon. member?

Not if it reflects upon the character or conduct of an hon. member.

But, Mr. Chairman, the Speaker was in the Chair when this speech was delivered.

The hon. member must accept my ruling now.

[Inaudible].

I don’t want to deal with the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop). Conceit is God’s gift to little men.

You should know.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I cannot carry on with this, because a very violent attack has been thrown across the floor at me, and I have been asked to go outside now and repeat certain statements which I made in this House. Actually all I said was that it had come out of the freedom station, and I wanted to know whether the hon. member would refute it. That was all I said. I certainly made no reflection at all.

Oh, yes, you associated yourself with it.

I am apparently erring in quite good company. This was an attack made by the hon. member for Humansdorp on the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, and if such an attack had been made against me I don’t think I should be able to live it down. But now we have the hon. member for Humansdorp appearing as Protector No. 1 for the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, after having delivered that extremely virulent attack on him in 1938. I am extremely surprised at that. [Time limit.]

I am not rising to reply to the hon. and very gallant member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth). I want to address a few remarks to the Minister. I think the Minister has had rather a bad time during the last day, and I would just like to sum up the position as it is at the present moment. The Minister has been attacked chiefly on two grounds, and the first was in regard to the appointment of people to the post office. I thought that he would have given a more full reply to that, but the few words that he has said have not in any way vindicated his action, and have not in any way minimised the import of the remarks he made in the Senate. In that Senate he very distinctly stated that he was not going to employ people who came from surroundings that were hostile to the Government. If he now comes and says that by “hostile to the Government” he only means people who are trying to blow up the Government with dynamite, that, Mr. Chairman, is a very far-fetched story indeed. “Hostile to the Government” has only one meaning in South Africa, and that is that people who have it have different political convictions from those of the hon. Minister. In other words, it is his policy and the policy of his department, and it is going to remain their policy, to appoint people as far as possible who are supporters of his Government. People who are opposed to the Government have very little chance indeed of being appointed to positions in the postal service. The other charge against the Minister was that he has failed completely in his duty to South Africa to stop the criminal offence which has been perpetrated by the existence of the freedom radio station. It is a criminal offence in South Africa for any unlicensed person or organisation to have a radio station inside the Union. This so-called freedom station has been operating for a considerable time. The Minister knows if he consults his technical staff that it is one of the easiest things in the world, and if you have the necessary apparatus which we have in South Africa, to detect the whereabouts of such a station. There is no difficulty whatever, so the position is that he has been able to locate that station at any time that his staff wanted to do so. If he had given them the order to locate the station they could have located it within two or three days, but not the Government of to-day. There have been people outside prepared to bring the necessary information to the Minister, so that he can lay hands on the people who have been operating this station, or who are very closely connected with it. He has refused co-operation from this side of the House, in other words he says he does not want anybody to help him to put an end to this station. Well, he has come here with a very weak story that people who could have given him the necessary information are associated with newspapers and the editors of those newspapers have refused to divulge the names of these people. That is a very weak story. There are thousands, or at least hundreds of people in South Africa who are put in prison because they refuse to give evidence under the Emergency Regulations. The Government has forced people to give evidence, and why has the Minister not used this power to detect this criminal offence in South Africa? I merely state these points to show not the inability of the Minister to detect this offence, because there is no inability, but the fact that he does not want it detected.

You are wrong there.

I shall tell you why. This freedom station is not a sporadic thing, it is part of a large organisation the funds for which have been collected under the patronage of the Prime Minister, and other hon. members on that side of the House. This freedom station is being financed by funds under the control of one of the colleagues of the Minister in the Cabinet. That is the position, and Mr. Chairman, his colleagues in the Cabinet and his colleagues in his party won’t let him put a stop to that. But, Mr. Chairman, the attacks on this freedom station have become so violent, and the class of stuff which is being spread by this station all over the country, has so disgusted the whole population that for tactical reasons the freedom station has closed down for a fortnight or a month to save the face of the hon. Minister and his colleagues who are controlling that station. I am perfectly willing to accept the Minister’s words that he hates the stuff that is being put over, and I am willing to accept that if he had a free hand he would put a stop to it in two or three days. But he dare not do it because his colleagues in his Cabinet, who control the funds, and who are supporting this freedom station, will not allow him to do it. This freedom station is not a sporadic station, something on its own that starts here one day and is somewhere else the next, but it is part of the organisation of the so-called Unity Fund, it is part of the propaganda of that organisation, and the Minister will not put a stop to it not because he does not want to, but because his colleagues will not allow him. I am glad that the hon. Minister hates it and is ashamed of it, I would be ashamed of it myself. But while he is ashamed of the freedom station he should also be ashamed of the friends in his own party.

I want to deal briefly with the remarks of the last speaker. He says that there are two points in connection with this discussion, and the first is appointments to the post office. He must know that I, as Minister, know nothing about the applicants until they are finally passed and come to be for formal signature. I tried to explain to the hon. member and to the House the procedure that is adopted. He quoted remarks that I made in the other place, and in reply to him I was quite frank and stated that, although the interpretation he placed upon what I said was perhaps a reasonable one, it is not the interpretation that I intended should be put upon those remarks. I also said that of the people who are joining the service, 80 per cent. are Afrikaans speaking. He accuses me of influencing the appointments that is absolutely absurd, absolutely ridiculous. These appointments are made in the usual way, and the postmasters are the ones who consider the suitability or otherwise, and fill up the necessary certificates. I want hon. members to accept that. Another hon. member wanted some assurance from me that people in the post office who hold different political views to my own, would not be prejudiced. Well, I say without hesitation nobody is being prejudiced in the post office; I don’t know the political views of anybody, but what I do demand, and what I insist on as Minister, and insist on the senior officers carrying out, is that we expect our officials to be loyal and carry out instructions given them faithfully. There have been a few instances where we have had difficulties, but only a few, and we have dealt with them departmentally. I don’t know the political position of anybody in the post office who comes forward for promotion. Now, let me say a word in connection with this freedom station. I have always been against this freedom station, and I have reports in connection with the matter with a view to its being stopped. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) made a statement in the House yesterday, and I want him tomorrow to go to the Postmaster-General and give him the information he gave to this House.

You have it on record.

I am not here to do your work.

You are here to tell us who told you.

Why don’t you ask the “Sunday Times”?

I informed the hon. member yesterday that as soon as that advertisement appeared in the “Sunday Times”, they denied all knowledge of it, and there is a letter from the “Sunday Times” saying that they know nothing about the person who put it in.

What about your regulations?

What about Senator Conroy?

I have no hesitation in saying that he has no time for this freedom radio station.

Tell that to the marines.

Tell us another.

I am telling you what is the fact. The hon. member over there referred to the Unity Fund as being mixed up with this. I know nothing about it, and they would repudiate it if I went to see them. I cannot go any further in connection with it. I have told the House, and I repeat it, that we are going to avail ourselves of the information already volunteered here, and I appeal to any other hon. member who may have some information to give it to us, and it will be used.

Why did you say you did not want help from this side?

I may have to come to you for help.

May I point out to the Minister that, in spite of his protestations today, his attitude from the beginning, from the time the matter was raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill), his attitude has been most unsatisfactory. It is no good his coming here to tell us today that he is as much against it as we are; the hon. Minister knows, his attention has been directed to this transmitter again and again. I asked last night, and I want to repeat what I said then. I asked whether at the time this matter was brought to his attention by the member for Bezuidenhout, he had instructed his department to take the necessary steps, and he replied that he was advised that this was done. One would have expected that the Minister would immediately have taken steps himself. We on this side of the House regard this as a most serious matter. Hon. members on the other side have been treating it with a certain amount of levity, and I can only say it is one of the most scandalous things that has happened in the public history of South Africa. We find members on that side treating it with a considerable amount of levity. Not only have we the fact that an unlicensed transmitter is operating, making political propaganda, and putting over the air vile and filthy stuff, in which the character of members on this side of the House are besmirched, but we have the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) and other members on the Government side, associating themselves with it. If hon. members treat a matter like this with levity, they do not realise the seriousness of what is happening; they do not realise that this is a blot on the fair name of South Africa, and when the Minister is asked to act as he has been repeatedly, he has done nothing. If this radio station had been operated by the Nationalist Party, making propaganda against the Government. I am convinced that within a comparatively short time the Minister would have located it. But, as the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) said, the Minister dare not act, because this is being controlled by the Unity League, and this filthy stuff is being put over by them. The people who represent that organisation have filthy minds, and if our suspicion is correct as to the person who is directing it, we know that he has a filthy mind. The Minister is prepared to condone it.

I don’t condone it. I condemn it.

The character of the Leader of the Opposition has been besmirched by this radio station, and hon. members on the other side laugh when we raise this question here. I say it is one of the most serious things that has happened, and I hope in the interests of the fair name of South Africa the Minister will be able to stop it.

There is one thing I would like to say, I do not believe a syllable of the scurrilous attack made upon the hon. member.

I spoke about the radio news yesterday and I urged the Minister to do something with a view to improving the morning service. I maintain that the news which we set in the mornings is not worth anything. It is hopelessly onesided and incomplete.

I wanted to raise a few points in connection with the radio service. I want to ask the hon. Minister to use his influence with the Radio Board, if possible, to bring about a change so that we can get a better news service both in English and in Afrikaans. I am thinking especially of the platteland. In the towns we have our newspapers, but in the country there are no newspapers, and I want to point out that the English section of the community does get a fair summary of the news from London at a quarter past eight, which is relayed here, but the Afrikaans speaking section in the platteland frequently does not know English very well, and that news service is consequently of little value to them. For that reason I want to urge strongly that we should get an Afrikaans news service in the moning. I know that the programme will have to be changed, but I think that provision can be made for us to get a proper news service in Afrikaans. Then I again want to say something in connection with a complaint which I made here regarding the telephone service from the Rand to Pretoria. When I spoke on a previous occasion I pointed out that there is a tremendous delay in getting through from the Rand to Pretoria on the public telephone. Private telephones are not really installed now, with the result that many people have to make use of the public telephone. Now I want to ask the Minister this. If you telephone Pretoria from a private telephone in Johannesburg, you dial your number direct, insert the money in the slot, and then you talk. Cannot that be the position too when you telephone from Pretoria? The private telephones on the Rand connect right through to Pretoria. If all the numbers had had to be got through the medium of the girls who work at the Telephone Exchange, it would have been a different matter; but if you dial from a private number in Johannesburg you simply put the figure seven before the number and then you get the Pretoria number. I want to ask whether we cannot connect Johannesburg direct from Pretoria on the public telephone too, insert the money in the slot and then carry on with the conversation? I want to ask the Minister whether something cannot be done in that connection. Then there is another question which I want to put to the Minister. I know the Minister will tell me that this is war time, that there is a shortage of material and that it may involve extra costs, but I want to assure him that many people object to the fact that natives and Europeans have to use precisely the same telephone in many cases. There are many cases where that position does not obtain, but there are more cases where that is the position. It is everything but pleasant. The telephone boxes can also be improved very much. But you have to go into precisely the same box where very often a native has just come out. Well, I know that we have fairly civilised natives, but we also have other natives who are not altogether of a desirable type, and who have just recently had the receiver against the ear when you have to use the telephone. You are perhaps in a hurry and you have to use the same speaking-tube and the same receiver. I hope the hon. Minister will see to it, since the Department of Posts is not too badly off with regard to finance, that we get a separate box for natives and a separate box for Europeans.

The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) told the Minister yesterday that he apparently expected that his vote would be accepted very soon because he could not give us any money for improvements under his vote. But the hon. member said that the Minister was mistaken because we were after his blood. I am afraid the hon. member for Humansdorp is wrong because we cannot even draw blood from the Minister. He sat here and listened to the speeches, to all the challenges, and there was absolutely no reaction on his part. He did not even consider it worth while to reply to all the representations which we made to him. If I have to judge by his external signs, he felt fairly anxious. Certain challenges were made to the Minister. I do not know whether his interpreter was perhaps not good enough and did not inform him of everything, but we sat here expecting that the Minister, as someone who occupies a responsible position, would indicate to us that he will accept those challenges and carry out his duty as Minister of the Crown. Not only challenges were made to him by this side of the House, but a challenge was also made to the Minister by this so-called freedom sender himself. I think the Minister knows that. I think he told us today that he and the Minister of Lands really did not like this thing; but after having listened to the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) this afternoon, we think that he has certain members on that side of the House who swallow everything which that sender broadcasts. If the Minister did not listen to it carefully I just want to refresh his memory, and I want to remind him of the challenge which was made to him by the sender.

I think the committee had enough of that.

This is altogether a new point. I want to ask the Minister if he did not listen in, or one of his friends who has such a good knowledge of these matters, when the freedom sender said on a certain evening that he had ascertained that Minister Clarkson wanted to put a stop to the freedom sender. He asked all his listeners to take a piece of paper and to draw a “V” on it.

I received about 3,000 of them and committed them to the flames.

We are very glad to hear that the Minister, too, is now committing the “V” signs to the flames. I want to ask the Minister whether he received the signs which the freedom sender asked his listeners to send him. He asked his listeners to turn the “V” sign upside down and to draw a line in the middle and then to send it to the Minister. We understand that he received about 10,000.

3,000.

Assume that it is 3,000. The Minister says he committed them to the flames. The fact that 3,000 of these upside down “V’s” were sent to him shows the Minister, as a responsible person, how many people listened in to this freedom sender, and the question now arises why the Minister is constantly refusing to carry out his duty as Minister. He knows how many people are today behind internment camp wires merely on suspicion. Here it is not a case of suspicion. In this case criminal contraventions are being committed. Why cannot the Minister call these people to account? He has the power to do so. We can only come to one conclusion, if the Minister refuses to call these people to account, and that is that he does not do it because he dare not do it, because he is afraid of certain of his friends; and when we see how that side of the House reacts—no one stood up to defend him—we are not surprised. The Minister himself did not tell us what he was going to do. He tells us one story here and when we put questions to him he tells a different story. The first time I put the pertinent question, whether he was still busy with this matter. He replied that he was investigating the matter. Is that the truth, or is it the truth that he is now waiting until the sender comes on the air again? We feel that if the Minister wants to be worth his salt, he must not exclaim in despair that he will come to us for assistance. I am now expected to go to the Postmaster-General and do the Minister’s work. I am not the Minister.

You are not getting his salary.

I would rather have seen another in the place of the Minister.

Will you not give me this information?

I gave the information over the floor of this House. It is recorded in Hansard. I asked the Minister in the first place whether he would receive information, and his reply was “no.”

What must the Postmaster-General do if this person simply denies that he said anything of the kind? That is why I asked you to give me the names of the people who said this.

I said that you could go to all the advertising firms and all the big businesses in Cape Town. You need not seek very far; and I can tell you now that the Minister need not even use the powers which he has under the Emergency Regulations in order to get the information if only they are asked for it.

[Inaudible].

I wish that hon. member would rather keep his silence. He never says anything; he only sits here the whole evening and whines. We want to know why the Minister should shield behind other hon. members. Why should we personally give this information to the Postmaster-General? The Minister is the head of the department; he must do it; or who is the actual head?

The Postmaster-General.

My hon. friend says that the Postmaster-General is the actual head of the department. It seems to me, too, that that is the case. Here we have the Minister who has to apply a certain policy; we give him information and then he wants us to convey the information to the Postmaster-General. The Government is doing its best to get people in gaol who do not share their views, but in this case where a criminal contravention is committed, nothing is done. The Minister gets up in this House and devotes barely seven minutes in replying to the speeches on his vote. We have shown beyond doubt that the Union Unity Fund and the paper “Vryheid” and the freedom sender are all three linked up, and that people on that side of the House and even colleagues of the Minister of Posts are on the management. I want to know whether the Minister cannot clear himself of that charge. Or is he not going to call to account these people who committed this contravention? I know of people in Cape Town, for example, who did not pay the £1 licence fee for their wireless set. Those people came forward with it themselves. They were not caught out. [Time limit.]

I want to discuss for a moment the question of the opening of our letters by the Censor, and I want the Minister in this House to give an account of his system, or of his views.

But the Censor does not come under this vote; the Censor comes under “Defence.”

But surely it is the Post Office which opens the letters?

It comes under “Defence.”

The Post Office authorities also open the letters without the Censor.

The Post Office officials open the letters, and surely they are under the Minister’s control? May I be allowed to put that question to the Minister?

On a point of order, that is the very matter which I also want to discuss. I want to draw your attention to the fact that when we wanted to discuss this on the Defence Vote we were told that it was a matter falling under the PostmasterGeneral.

The hon. member was not present when I raised the preliminary objection. I have nothing to do with censors. It is not on the vote and I have no control over the censoring of letters.

I am bringing up a matter on which I think there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding—I raise this matter with a certain amount of reluctance also, but this afternoon you, Mr. Chairman, ruled me out of order, and I feel possibly there was some misunderstanding. I was reading from a speech by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) delivered in this House on the 15th March, 1938, and I said that that speech had been broadcast by the freedom station. The freedom station has been attacked by the Opposition, and although I was accused …

Is the hon. member raising a point on the ruling I gave earlier today?

I feel there was a misunderstanding about it.

The hon. member cannot discuss the point now. He should have done it at the time if he wished to.

May I proceed? I should like to go on with the speech which was quoted in this House on the 15th March, 1938, by the hon. member for Humansdorp —it is a speech which was broadcast by the freedom station.

Does the hon. member suggest reading from the same speech on which I stopped him this afternoon?

Actually I am …

Order, order.

Am I allowed to reply to you or not?

Not to the ruling I gave.

Am I allowed to reply to your question?

The hon. member may put his case.

Unfortunately you are quite correct that I am going to continue giving extracts …

The hon. member must observe my ruling.

Then may I have Mr. Speaker’s ruling on this?

No, the Chairman maintains order in Committee of the Whole House and I have given my ruling.

May I have Mr. Speaker’s ruling, because I feel …

Order, order!

Try again.

On a point of order, the hon. member wishes to quote from a speech which was referred to on the freedom radio.

Order, order! I have ruled clearly that the hon. member could not repeat anything which would constitute an imputation or a reflection on an hon. member. The matter cannot be further discussed.

Very well; then I shall leave it out.

You have got to.

I don’t wish to re-open this question, nor is it necessary for me to defend the Unity League, but one thing I want to say, and that is that remarks have been made in the Press and elsewhere where prominent men on our side have had to stand a great deal—all I can say is that it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. A great deal has been said against men on this side, and we have said nothing; we have let it go. Now, I just want to say this: Certain remarks have been passed about the personnel of the Post Office. In my constituency I have had a good deal of experience of the work of our Post Office, and very excellent work they have done, and I just want to express my mede of praise to these young ladies and these temporary men who are working in the Post Office, for the excellent work they are doing today. I can say this, that I have in my constituency both Afrikaans and English speaking people, more English speaking than otherwise.

Shame!

But I can say that the administration of the postal authorities is excellent. I am a man to whom everyone comes in this particular place, and let me tell this House that there is no trouble there; there is no racialism there. A mede of praise must be given to these people, to the Minister, the Postmaster-General, and the staff, for the excellent manner in which they are carrying out their duties. In regard to the other matter which hon. members over there have been discussing, it is no good stirring up mud. We know what we are up against, and the less said about it the better, because if we wanted to kick up a row and say to hon. members opposite what they have said about our Leaders and about our big men—let me tell them that we would have quite a lot to say.

We vainly waited this afternoon for an hon. member on the other side to get up to express his disapproval over the broadcasts of the secret radio. We expected hon. members on the other side of the House to get up—not to defend us, but to express their disapproval. The hon. member who has just spoken is under a wrong impression. We have no objection to hon. members on that side attacking us on political matters, even about the radio which is now being used for political purposes, but what we do object to and there I challange the hon. member to show us any instance where we have ever publicly attacked a single hon. member’s character on that side of the House. What we do object to is that our leaders are attacked in public, not on political matters, but that the characters of our leaders are publicly dragged through the mud. Why we feel this all the more, and why we think that hon. members over there do not want to reply—and the Minister can ask the Prime Minister about it—is because the knights of the truth have sent out a circular letter. The Prime Minister is the Chief of the Knights of the Truth. The Knights of the Truth have sent out a circular letter to their leaders in every area in which they have asked their people to collect money for a secret transmitter which would shortly start broadcasting. I should like the Minister to ask the Prime Minister whether this is so or not. I put that question to the Prime Minister and he did not deny that it was so. Now I want to ask the Minister what connection there is between that secret broadcast and the secret transmitter for which the Khaki Knights have been collecting funds? We on this side of the House are not in the least afraid of their political machinations; we are not afraid to be criticesed, but what we do take exception to, and there we have to express our strongest indignation, is that not one single hon. member on that side of the House has got up and said that he disapproved of the characters of members on this side of the House, members who sit in the highest Councils of the people of South Africa, being belittled. We feel this all the more when a person like the hon. member at the back there gives the impression that he approves of what has been said over the wireless. It is an honour to us if hon. members opposite try to belittle us politically. Our ancestors were accustomed to be belittled by people who wanted to treat the Boer Nation with contempt and who wanted to destroy the Boer Nation, but the character of the Boer is second to none, no matter which nation a person belongs to. We are not allowed in this debate to discuss the Censorship of our letters, because according to the ruling laid down by the Chairman the censorship does not come under the Department of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, but there is a reason for it. If the Post Office did not have a military chief it would not have happened. But for that, what has now happened would never have happened. I want to ask the Minister whether he approves of the PostmasterGeneral also occupying a high military position, even if it is only on the home front. Does he approve of the head of the Post Office occupying a military position? He knows that in war time if a high military officer issues an order, his officers have to obey him, and this means that the Postmaster-General will go over the head of the Minister. Why has the Minister approved of the Postmaster-General also occupying a military post? We now have the results of that situation. Letters are being opened and letters disappear. The Minister tells us that he has no say in the matter because it comes under the Department of Defence, but none the less it is the Postmaster-General who is responsible for these things. No, we want the Minister to be the real head of his Department, however good or however bad he may be. Letters are now getting lost; we approach the head of the Department and we ask him what has become of those letters. He simply tells us that it does not come within the scope of the work of the Post Office and that we must approach the military Authorities. Whether those letters come under censorship or not I have a pretty clear suspicion of what happens to them. I want to tell the House that large parcels of pamphlets from the Junior Nationalist Party are lying in Johannesburg. They are kept in the head office there. It is not only pamphlets that are lost At Somerset West the Nationalist Party sent out pamphlets which have never yet been delivered. Where are we to go with our complaints? Are we to go to the Post Office, or must we go to the Military Authorities and complain there? I want to ask the Minister to see to it that the Postmaster-General sticks to his work. If he wants to occupy a military post, by all means let him do so, but then let the Minister appoint somebody else as Postmaster-General, otherwise he must stick to his work as the head of the Department of Posts. I also want to tell the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs that we expect a little more from him than simply to try and get his vote passed and play up to us in regard to the grievances of the people outside. Those grievances and those complaints are mainly caused by the way the head of the Postal Department has been carrying on. And the Minister should do a little more than simply try and smooth us down—he should do something more in regard to getting those complaints dealt with. If he wants to get rid of those complaints it is his duty to act as the head of his department, and to take steps instead of simply trying to smooth us down. Hon. members opposite are to a very large extent responsible for the way matters are conducted in the Post Office; they are largely the cause of the Minister being unable to carry out his ideas in the Postal Department in the way he has explained them to us. He is not allowed by them to do so. Let me tell hon. members over there that we do not mind their attacking us politically, but they, with their secret transmitter, are attacking our character. How would hon. members opposite like it if they were treated in that way, if they were attacked personally, and if we did not disapprove of such tactics? They should remember that the pendulum swings, and if we get into power and their characters are besmirched, what will they think of it if we do not express our disapproval and put a stop to it?

There is a pendulum which swings, and there is a cock which cannot crow.

I am talking to people of character, but hon. members opposite do not disapprove of these things. They approve of them. We want to appeal to the Minister; if he really wants to take steps he has the power to do so. What would the whole world think of the Government if the enemy had a broadcasting station in our midst, and the Government of the country could not even find out where that broadcasting station was? What would other countries think of a thing like that? Yet the Minister comes here and tells us that this particular broadcasting station is there, and it is besmirching his fellowAfrikaners—perhaps I should not say his fellow-Afrikaners—it is besmirching the character of Afrikaners, but he does not know where the station is, and he cannot find out where it is. The hon. member who has just sat down gave the Minister the necessary information. He also told the Minister where he could get more information. “Barlow’s Weekly” even published the names of people who were connected with it. I want to ask the Minister once and for all to put a stop to these scandals which the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) showed up so clearly in his own language. I want him to stop these things, so that the Afrikaner can be safe in his own country.

It is difficult for us to appreciate why the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) should be so sensitive about this freedom station. I don’t know whether his name has ever been broadcast from there, but if so he might tell us what his complaint is. Has he perhaps heard any home truths from the freedom station? Hon. members opposite profess to know all about this radio station, and perhaps those hon. members will consult their intelligence department and likewise tell us how Zeesen gets its news. The hon. member for Mossel Bay may be unduly elated by the fact that Zeesen broadcasts his name. We have never heard any word of protest from him or any other member from his side of the House when the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has been villified by Zeesen night after night. The hon. member for Mossel Bay should thank the freedom station, for on one occasion they broadcast news about the part played by the leader of the Ossewa Brandwag when he assisted in suppressing the rebellion. He was at Mushroom Valley when General De Wet’s son was killed. That information was denied at one time, but it has since been admitted, and members opposite are now making use of that information in their campaign against the Ossewa Brandwag. [Interruptions] I come now to the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). I don’t wish to flatter the hon. member, but it is recognised that he commands biting sarcasm, his use of invective is powerful, and he excels in vituperative.

Vituperation.

I have not on more than or two occasions listened into this freedom station. When I did listen in there was nothing to which any sensitive member could take exception. There was on one occasion an appeal to the leader of the Afrikaner Party which could not in any way wound the tender susceptibilities of any hon. member. But, Mr. Chairman, we have now heard that the station has shown such bad taste as to broadcast speeches made by the hon. member for Humansdorp. If that station did broadcast the defamatory speech made by the hon. member on the 15th March, 1938, then I find myself in entire agreement with the hon. member for Humansdorp, because nothing could be more scurrilous and nothing could show worse taste. The hon. member for Humansdorp is therefore perfectly correct if he criticises programmes broadcast by the freedom station, and if he castigates those programmes as filthy, and for once in his life I think he has placed himself in his true perspective. Before I leave the hon. member, I remind the House that he has challenged the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) to repeat outside the House what he said here this afternoon.

I did? I have never taken any notice of the hon. member for Rosettenville.

I want to ask him, is he prepared to repeat the speech he made on March 15th, 1938, about the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) outside this House? In conclusion, I would remind him of the fact that political expediency brings together very strange bedfellows.

I hope it doesn’t bring us together.

I want to ask him whether his defence of the member for Wolmaransstad tonight is justified in view of the attack he made on him in 1938? Either he was false to the hon. member then, or he is false to him tonight. He can have it whichever way he prefers. Mr. Chairman, a lot has been said by way of criticism of the work of the Postmaster-General’s department, but there is no doubt that the service of the postal department is one which the country can justly be proud of. They deliver millions of letters, they perform millions of acts for the pubilc, and it is a matter for congratulation that in spite of every effort made by members of the Opposition to dissuade postal officials from their loyalty, to induce them to cut wires or interrupt communications, the Post Office is functioning very efficiently. That is a matter for great congratulation. There are, however postal officials who are called upon to overwork themselves, and some of them are very poorly paid. I know of a case where a pay-clerk handles about £100,000 per month and only receives a mere pittance in salary. These employees are called upon to do responsible work out of all proportion to the remuneration they receive, and I think an effort should be made to raise the standard of the lower paid officials. If there is one department in the service which is giving of its best, it is the postal department. Before I conclude I feel that the case of the unestablished official again deserves mention. These are officials who were at one time employed by the service, but who resigned and were subsequently taken into service again. They are regarded as unestablished, and though they do technical and responsible work, they are not paid according to the scale of salaries applicable to other employees. I think the time has come when justice should be done to these employees and that they should receive remuneration according to the class of work that they perform.

I want to put up a plea in connection with the opening of letters. I want to do so because I want to put the position perfectly clearly before you. The Minister has told us that he has nothing to do with it, but may I be allowed to point out that the staff of the Board of Censors …

The hon. member cannot go into that now.

We are voting the salaries of the officials of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs here, and their’ salaries are also included.

The Minister has explained that that has nothing to do with this vote.

It is an important matter.

Order, order!

Very well, then I shall proceed. I wanted to appeal to you and ask you to change your ruling.

If the hon. member casts a reflection on my ruling, he has to withdraw that.

What did I say that I must withdraw?

I heard what the hon. member said.

I think you are under a misapprehension, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member was trying to adduce arguments for thinking that you should change your ruling.

I wanted to argue that we are asked to vote the salaries of these people here, and that that is why we should be given the opportunity of discussing their actions here.

Order! The hon. member cannot proceed to deal with that matter, and I hope it will not be necessary to call him to order again.

Very well, thank you. Then I want to deal with another matter. We have been told that it has been the Government’s policy to carry on with essential services. The Minister of Finance also told us that essential services would not be interfered with. The extension of the telephone service is something absolutely essential at the moment, and I want to know from the Minister why he has put a stop to that extension? I can quite understand that he cannot proceed with the extension on a large scale, but he has completely stopped the extension, and I want to know from the Minister why he has done so? I can tell him that there are certain parts of the country where promises have been made that there would be an extension of the telephone service, that telephones would be put in. Let me refer to the position in the North-Western parts of the Cape, where there was a plant to build a line from Calvinia and Sutherland to Cape Town. At the moment one cannot talk with neighbouring dorps, such as Fraserberg and Calvinia, which are 80 or 90 miles away. One cannot get into touch with them at all, because there is no line. When the officials of the department went round the country they did not definitely promise that that line would be built, but still they expressed the view that it was absolutely essential and urgent that it should be built. That was the understanding. Now the department has completely changed its policy in that regard. There are parts from Sutherland to Calvinia along the river, which are densely populated, and yet over a distance of fifty or sixty miles people cannot get into touch with each other. I have invited the Minister to visit those parts. He told us that he would be pleased to come, but he has not been yet; he only goes to the large towns, and that is why unfortunately he does not know anything about the conditions prevailing on the platteland. It would be very much better if the hon. member who is now interpreting for him were to take his place. He would arrange matters very much better, and we would not then require an interpreter. I don’t know whether he gets anything extra for the work he is doing …

The hon. member must refrain from making personal reflections.

I am in this position, that the Minister does not know my language, and that is why he needs an interpreter. If one has to do anything through the medium of an interpreter one cannot do things as well as otherwise. I have discussed this matter every session, and I come back to the same question every time, yet nothing is done. It really seems that we should reduce the Minister’s salary, or otherwise delete it entirely; and I am going to do so. Neither he nor his Postmaster-General know Afrikaans, and I want to make an appeal to this House, and I particularly want to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that the time has come when we can no longer allow both the Minister and his chief executive officer to be unilingual. It is because of that that we find conditions developing in the Post Office which are not in the interests of the country. The Minister and the Postmaster-General do not realise what the people of the platteland have to put up with, but now we have a Postmaster-General who is a military man. If I look at him I must say that I do not think he can be much of a military man. I should like to know whether the Postmaster-General gets anything extra for being a kind of a colonel with a crown and two stars? Does he get any extra salary? It is generally said that he does get something extra. I do not know what his military abilities are, but certainly, as far as postal matters are concerned, he has no ability. But it is a fact—he is fighting on the home front. I hope the Minister will realise that that condition of affairs in his department should be changed, and I do hope that the Government, even if they want to keep the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in the Cabinet like a loose donkey which trots along by the side of the others, will realise that this is a serious matter, and that he cannot be allowed to retain that post. I have so often pleaded the cause of the people in the North West, and I have repeatedly received promises from the Minister and from the Postmaster-General. I have been told that all these matters will be dealt with, and that is as far as I have got. I feel the time has now come when we cannot allow matters to continue any longer in this way. The Postmaster-General is incompetent to occupy that post, and we have quite enough members opposite who are competent to take over the post of the Minister. The interpreter who sits there is fairly competent; he could take it over. As we cannot get satisfaction from the Minister or from his first lieutenant, I want to move that the Minister’s salary be reduced by £1,250.

That has already been proposed.

Then I would almost move that his whole salary be deleted.

Does the hon. member move that?

I think we should do so, but as a motion for the reduction of his salary has already been moved, I shall not do so.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to keep the House very much longer, because I bow to your ruling as far as this speech is concerned. I very much regret that I cannot quote from it, as I took a lot of trouble in unearthing it, but I bow to your ruling and I am not going to quote any more. I would have finished my speech if it were not for a few remarks from the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), and since he spoke we have had the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) on his feet. It was rather ludicrous to hear the latter say that his main objection to the freedom radio was that the characters of the Opposition were being attacked from the air. How on earth a responsible member of the House can get up and say that after I had been ruled out of order, when I was trying to protect the freedom radio and saying that they were not broadcasting untruths! I was quoting what they actually said over the wireless, and then we have a responsible member of the Opposition getting up and objecting to these libellous attacks coming over the air. I am surprised to hear the hon. member make a statement like that, because it was a direct contradiction to what I was trying to say here when, unfortunately, I was ruled out of order. The freedom station was quoting absolutely the truth, and nothing but the truth, as far as their broadcast of the speech of one of the members of this House is concerned.

[Inaudible.]

Did I hear the hon. member aright, was he calling me a fool?

No, I would be out of order if I did.

That is the sort of scurrilous stuff we get in this House, and it is not over the radio. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) mention that he had never heard from the hon. member for Mossel Bay or any other member of the Opposition, give any support when the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister was libelled by Zeesen. I want to associate myself with that remark. Before I sit down, I want to make this further point as far as the hon. member for Humansdorp is concerned. He asked the Chair if I was entitled to read anything that is libellous in this House. It just shows how the truth hurts them, and how they cringe and try to run away from it. In conclusion, we heard a lot of condemnation of this freedom station. I am not associated with it at all, but I am serious when I suggest that the Minister should possibly consider, seriously consider, whether he should not grant them a licence. I feel that they are possibly doing quite a lot of good, and it might help to clear up things in the country.

I just want to draw the Minister’s attention to the deplorable condition prevailing in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs so far as buildings are concerned.

Does not that come under Vote No. 27, which deals with “Public Works”?

I believe I can raise it under the heading of “general policy”, but if I should raise it on another vote, very well. The other point I want to raise is in connection with the salaries which the Minister pays his officials. I want to ask the Minister to consider the question of paying his officials better salaries. I do not think there are any other officials in the whole service who have to bear so much responsibility and who get such poor pay. There are young women who do post office work and who have to handle hundreds of pounds and the salary they get is only £9 or £10 per month. Those young women have to pay £5 or £6 and more every month for board and lodging. How can they possibly come out on their salaries? I hope the Minister will grant his staff a better salary, a salary more or less in accordance with that received by other officials of the State occupying responsible positions.

The hon. member for Marico (The Rev. C. W. M. Du Toit) raised the question of the delay in telephoning from the Rand to Pretoria and the trouble in getting through to the Exchange. I have made enquiries and I find that there are difficulties in altering the arrangements. It is due to the enormous traffic between Johannesburg and Pretoria. Five or six years ago the House authorised an expenditure of £180,000 to put an underground cable between Johannesburg and Pretoria in order to carry the contemplated traffic—that was before Pretoria was on the automatic exchange. I made enquiries from the Department, and they were confident that the cable would be sufficient for the development of the Pretoria telephone traffic with Johannesburg for the next ten years. Well, the telephone traffic has developed so enormously that since the automatic exchange was opened in Pretoria it was using the whole of that space. Difficulties have cropped up, we should have a duplicated cable but it is impossible to get it, and I am sorry to say that the difficulties will continue until we can get the material. We have big orders for material. If we can only get the material we can carry on the development that is going on—and this applies to the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys)—in the North West. The hon. member for Prieska has spoken about this but they have not done badly in that area. Their lines go for hundreds of miles, and they are run at a dead loss to the country.

Is it not possible to telephone from a public telephone from Johannesburg right through to Pretoria?

No it is not, not from a public telephone.

Well, they can do it.

No, you have to ring up from a public telephone. You have to go through the Exchange on the Rand, that is from a public telephone. From a private telephone you can get through direct.

We want that altered if possible.

I shall make representations to the engineers and see if it is possible. Hon. members know that the policy of the post office is to give the best possible service. The hon. member has also referred to telegrams. It is true, there has been delay but I would point out that the telegraph traffic has developed beyond all calculations and when Parliament is sitting I wonder that we get on as well as we do. Difficulties have cropped up, telegrams have been delayed in delivery, due to lack of messengers. We are doing our best to get all the messengers we can. We have increased salaries in Johannesburg, Durban. Cape Town and Pretoria, but our difficulty is the war service — these various technical services which these people go to. The other point which the hon. member referred to is the morning broadcast. As he knows, broadcasting is controlled by the Board. Frankly I agree that the 7 o’clock news service is not worth listening to. It is very inefficient, and in consequence I have given up listening to it. I shall make the representations to the Board which have been made here, because all members have said the same. Most of these morning services, and particularly the Sunday midday service, gives very little news. I don’t know whether it is possible to duplicate the 8.15 Daventry Service in Afrikaans because that service is worth listening to. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) talked about the telephone communication between Cullinan and Johannesburg. We have done all we can and we realise the importance. This matter has been investigated on more than one occasion.

Why can Johannesburg get Cullinan and why cannot Cullinan get Johannesburg?

The hon. member says that, but the hon. member over there says the very opposite. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) referred to certain correspondence not reaching his destination. I shall make enquiries and find but he said that it referred to some feast at Krugersdorp on the 10th October. I wish he had communicated his complaint at the time, so that we could have investigated it, but I shall find out what happened.

You mean you will try to find out.

Yes, I shall try to.

I am sure you won’t find out.

Now, the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) made some remarks about the secret radio station. I think I have said quite enough about that. We are going to follow up the suggestion. I have asked for his co-operation—if he won’t give it we can’t help it. He has given the name and we shall see what can be done.

Why don’t you thank him for his information?

Oh, yes, I thank him.

Why did you say you did not want any assistance from us?

The hon. member also referred to a post office which he wants. I shall get the position investigated and if it is warranted and if he can get somebody to build it, the post office will run the place. We are continually doing that, but we only do it if we find it necessary to have a post office in a particular area. That raises a question which other members have also referred to— the question of the pay of unestablished postmasters. That is one of the bugbears I have to deal with. Dozens of people occupying these positions have had their salaries increased. Their salaries are based on the amount of business that is done. I am glad the hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. de Bruyn) is here. In many instances we run these post offices at a dead loss. Some people come and say that they will run it for nothing, but as soon as a post office is established they ask for an increase. Now the hon. member for Heidelberg says that he has erected a post office and he is prepared to run it for nothing but that we have turned down his request. Well, the report of the inspector is that there is no justification for that post office. I have informed the hon. member that I myself will go and see this place, but we are not going to establish branch post offices everywhere and be criticised for the salaries of the people who are running them. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (Mr. Haywood) raised the question of the under-secretaries, particularly with reference to Mr. Redelinghuis. There are three under-secretaries—one for posts, one for staff and one for telephones. It is peculiar that the person who is undersecretary for telegraphs, and the other who is under-secretary for staff—that both of them have received promotion in other departments. The one is secretary for Public Works, and the other is the Provincial Secretary for Natal, but in the list of post office officials Mr. Redelinghuis is the senior.

His job is looking after posts, and I want to say that unless we had gone in for this re-organisation the amount of work which the post office had had to undertake—the whole of the machine would have broken down. I am sorry there has been these complaints about letters not reaching their destinations. We shall see what is wrong there.

When shall we find out what you find out?

The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) raised the question of radio weather reports. These reports are not being sent out by reason of the requirements of the military and the navy. I am not going to explain, and I am not going to defend their attitude, or complain about the attitude taken up by them. It is something over which I have no control. The other question he raised in regard to subscribers is being investigated. We have large supplies of material on order and I hope some day the material will arrive in South Africa. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) complained that the post office service is not as good as it was. I am glad to hear that other members do not agree with him; neither do I. I want to pay a special tribute to the work the post office staff are doing with 1,600 of their colleagues away at the front. I agree that a telephone on a farm is no longer a luxury. I have been preaching that gospel and I may tell hon. members that when I became Minister there was a waiting list of 4,000 telephones. We have erected over 70,000 — 13,000 last year. I repeat here that the policy of the Post Office is to get every man a telephone who is prepared to pay for it, but unfortunately we have not got the material at the moment. It is true that the post office at Bothaville should have been built long ago. I have dealt with the question of unestablished postmasters. I think I have now dealt with all the points raised, except that raised by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), and with that I hope to conclude. He complained of the position of the PostmasterGeneral. The Postmaster-General is the head of the Post Office, and as such carries out his duties as Postmaster-General. He gets nothing for the position he occupies in a military capacity. I have already replied to that question before.

What is his military rank?

He is a Brigadier.

That is a sort of a General, is it not?

No, he is not a Brigadier-General —he holds the rank between a full Colonel and a Brigadier-General, and he is attached to the Defence Force.

Why, what is the necessity?

Well, that question has been asked before and I cannot reply to it. It is outside my responsibility. I happen to know, but I cannot say.

Did he take that rank with your approval?

Yes, the Prime Minister appointed him in his capacity as Minister of Defence. Other officials of the department have also received military rank and are carrying out military duties.

Is it an honorary appointment?

You are not sending him to Libya, are you?

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—25:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

De Bruyn. D. A. S.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Fouche, J. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Loubser, S. M.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop. P. J.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

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

Noes—43:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Heyns, G. CL S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys. W. B.

Jackson, D.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Moll, A. M

Mushet, J. W.

Pocock, P. V.

Shearer, V. L.

Stallard, C. F.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

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

May I be allowed the privilege of speaking for half an hour? We are dealing here with a very important vote and I hope you will allow me at once to move—

To reduce the amount by £1,800 from the item “Minister, £2,500”.

Just make it £1,000.

No, and I shall say why not. We are leaving the £700 which the Minister gets as an ordinary member of Parliament. If we take account of the amount of harm which the Minister has done to the country, we really would have to propose reducing his salary by £2,499, and leave him only £1 to return to Salt River. We do not want to go as far as that, however, but before I come to the harm which the Minister has done the country you will allow me to bring a few points of importance to his notice? He promised last year to give his attention to these matters. I do not know whether it comes under this vote, but first of all I wish to remark that the estimates now before us are in English and in Afrikaans and no longer separately in Afrikaans and in English. English is on top this time, and I hope Afrikaans will be on top next year.

I have already promised to do so.

Then the Minister promised last year that he would look into the position in regard to the laws which are still in High Dutch. There are still a large number of laws in Netherlands which should be translated. What has the Minister decided to do? A few days ago the Leader of the Opposition had to quote a law in English because part of the other side of the House does not understand Afrikaans well, and does not understand Netherlands at all. It is important that the law shall be translated into Afrikaans. So far as the administration, is concerned, there is a staff shortage in all the departments. When any matters are raised in the Select Committee on Public Accounts and any points crop up to which the Auditor-General has referred, even points where things are radically wrong, the heads of the departments all hide behind the one fact, namely, that their staffs are inadequate. I feel very seriously about this matter, and I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that it is detrimental to the country. Hundreds and hundreds of members of every department have joined up. Let them join up if they want them; we are in favour of those who want to support the war going to fight. Their salaries are also safeguarded; we have no objection to that either, but I now understand that a statement has been made that the people who go away will get their ordinary promotion when the time arrives for such promotion. In other words, what is going to happen? Today we have this position, that the departments and the country generally are suffering tremendously owing to so many officials being away and owing to unqualified persons having been appointed in their places. If the war lasts another five or six years we can well imagine how detrimental the position is going to be to the country. But if the people who are away are to be promoted in the ordinary course of events, what sort of a position are we going to get then? A man who is left here as a clerk will, when he returns, find perhaps that he is the head of a department. I shall be pleased if the Minister will tell me whether I am mistaken—but that is my information. Those people will be appointed to higher positions without their having gained the necessary experience in the meantime. As a result, the country will suffer for years and years after the war, owing to people who are not competent to occupy those posts, having been appointed to those posts. Now there is another point I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice, and that is Vote D. There is an expenditure of £2,000 in respect of Asiatic immigration. In terms of Act No. 37 of 1927 the expenses in connection with every person or every Asiatic who wants to leave the country are paid, and on top of that he gets a bonus on condition that he does not return within a year. They can return in two or three years’ time, but if they do they have to refund the amount that has been spent on them, and after an absence of three years nobody is allowed to return. Now, what happened last year? First of all let me put this question: Who leaves the country? It is not the old people who go; they are refused a passport; it is the young Indians who leave. The young Indian goes away and stays away for a year; he is not allowed to return within a year, but in two or three years’ time he is allowed to return and then he has to pay back all it has cost the State to send him away. But the law says that the wife and children of that Indian are allowed to come in. Last year we found that 37 Asiatics were sent out of the country at an expense of £2,377 17s. 7d. That is including the £814 which they were paid as bonuses. That works out at £64 5s. per Indian, so it costs the country £64 5s. for every Asiatic who leaves the country. In the meantime while we sent 37 out of the country last year 362 came into the country in the same year. Those are women and children I am talking of now. 362 came in.

Was that in terms of the agreement made by Dr. Malan in 1927?

Yes, that is in terms of the Act of 1927. I am not blaming anyone for that. I am blaming the system we have, which is quite wrong. Let me just read to the Minister what has happened since 1928. We find that since that year the following numbers came into the country: 794, 632, 506, 729, 811, 907, 1,041, 845 and 701. In other words, in those years they came in 500, 600, 700, 800, 900 and 1,000 every year, and as I have already said it costs the State £64 5s. for every Asiatic who leaves the country. We send the Asiatics out of the country to go and get married, and after having been away a year the man comes back and then we have to permit his wife and children to come in. We encourage Asiatics to come to this country. This, so far as I am concerned, is a most serious matter, and I hope the Minister will give his immediate attention to it and that he will see whether it is not possible to bring about some improvement in that position. I think the House will agree with me that this Asiatic question is a very serious one to this country, and if we allow it to develop in the way it is doing it will become very much more serious than it is today. Now, the Minister is also responsible for the civilian protection services for which we have to vote a certain amount of money. I want to ask the Minister whether the time has not arrived for him to interfere in this protection service which is undertaken by local bodies such as municipalities which are busy playing at war. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not high time for the Government to step in and put a stop to it. We know what has happened in Cape Town. They made regulations here in regard to motor cars which have involved the motorists in considerable expense and which have caused accidents and then had to be suspended. Take for instance these expenses in regard to black-outs. Is the Minister aware of the fact that people in Cape Town were compelled to spend not less than £500 in one day on materials for the black-out scheme? People are becoming discouraged, and the regulations are so ridiculous that it is really high time the Minister interfered. After all, what is the use of this black-out scheme to Cape Town? Possibly if Cape Town were attacked it would be useful.

You will also have to put a black cloth over Table Mountain.

Yes, they will have to put a black cloth over Table Mountain. But imagine, the City Council of Cape Town is now digging trenches, and they have voted no less than £40,000 for the digging of trenches. Is it not ridiculous? Is it not disgraceful to spend the taxpayers’ money in such a reckless manner? If the Cape Town ratepayers could afford it, I could still understand it, but I am told that the rates here are terribly high already. I believe that the Government should step in and put an end this sort of thing. Things like this are infectious. Paarl has really also become so injected that they have also decided to go in for black-outs.

They have not passed such a resolution.

They are busy doing so. They have become infected and I hope the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Hugo) will use his influence there. The municipalities are playing at war and we have to pay for it.

Do you want the Government to interfere with local governments?

Yes, these people are playing at war, and the Government is making them a grant towards it. They have the say. The Government is the highest authority in the country, and I believe the Prime Minister has now interfered and put a stop to it, so that the regulations will not be in force as from the 1st April. The Government has the right to interfere, and I believe that the Cape Town ratepayers will be grateful if they do so. Now, I want to come to another important vote, also falling under the Minister. I am referring to Vote M. There is an amount of £536,000 asked for to be spent on internments. Let me say, first of all, that the most hated man in the whole country today is the Minister of the Interior simply because he has no heart for the Afrikaner people of South Africa. Secondly, because steps have already been taken to intern people where there is absolutely no cause for their internment. I have discussed the matter personally with the Minister, and I told him that if a man was guilty by all means let him be interned. If the man was an enemy of the State, intern him, but the Minister has given me an assurance that innocent people are not being interned. Now, let me tell the Minister what my personal experience is, and if I do so he will realise that we have every reason to feel that we cannot attach any value to his assurance. His department a fortnight ago sent detectives to me to crossexamine me. They also sent detectives to a number of people in Kuruman, to make enquiries about a statement which had been received, that I had given instructions or that I had received instructions to blow up the railway line on my neighbour’s farm. Now, let me say that if I were an ordinary person and not a member of Parliament, I would have been put in gaol; I would have been kept there for two or three months before a complaint would have been made, and I would then have had the opportunity of denying the charge, but my denial would not have been accepted. But the ordinary procedure is that people are arrested when a complaint is received, especially where such a serious charge is made about blowing up a railway line. Anyhow, I saw that charge, and my question at once was who had sent in that report. It was in connection with a speech which was made at Vryburg. The reply was: “We cannot give you that information.” But I further asked: “I am anxious to know whether it was a Jew or an Englishman or a Hans Khaki or a Khaki Knight.” The detective could not give me that information either. Does not the Minister realise the seriousness of a matter like this? He may get a long typewritten report which has no foundation of fact. If the Minister’s Khaki Knights are animated by …

What has it to do with me?

It falls under the Minister’s internment and espionage service.

No.

Well, it is perfectly clear to me. We have the Information Bureau under this vote, and that Information Bureau supplies the Minister with all kinds of information. Surely that information goes to the Minister, and he is the man who interns people.

That is nonsense. All that work is done by the police.

The Minister may perhaps say that this should come under the Minister of Justice.

But internments come under the Minister of the Interior.

Yes, that is the position. All internments come under the Minister of the Interior. I want to give this assurance to the Minister, that there are people in the internment camps who are quite innocent, and I want to declare again that if I had not been a member of Parliament I would have been interned. Many of the people who have been arrested have not even had a charge made against them yet. I want to know from the Minister whether that is done to other people?

I shall make a statement on that point.

People are, first of all, arrested, and only after that do they hear what charge has been made against them. The Minister cannot deny that.

And long afterwards, too.

He is the man who has us arrested and has us put in the internment camps. I have already told the House of my personal experience. Many people have been interned by the Minister of the Interior, and that is why I feel tonight that he is responsible for the fact that large numbers of people are innocently kept in the internment camps. Only recently large numbers of members of the police were interned.

No, they were not interned.

Well, hundreds of them were sent to Koffiefontein.

No, they were certainly not interned.

But what is Koffiefontein except an internment camp? Special trains had to be obtained to send the innocent people back from there.

That does not come under my vote; that is a matter for the Department of Justice.

These internment camps come under the Minister, and he is the man who is responsible for detaining the internees there. How can the Minister say that the internments do not come under him? There are 87 members of the police in the internment camps today, and I believe that eventually only three of them will be found guilty, and that the others will be released. What is the result of this internment policy? The deepest resentment is being created in the hearts of the Afrikaners. I don’t know whether the Minister realises when he goes to sleep at night—I don’t know whether he ever thinks of the poor families of men who are innocently kept in the internment camps. Can the Minister realise what is going on in the hearts of these people? I had a talk recently with a man who had been innocently interned. One feels the resentment in that man’s heart, a sense of resentment which we shall not be able to eradicate during our life time.

Who is that man?

Surely you do not expect me to mention his name. He has been released and he would not have been released if he had not been innocent.

No, that is not so. Quite a large number of people are released if we feel that they will behave themselves in future.

I shall tell the Minister afterwards what the man’s name is; I can give him the assurance that possibly here and there may be somebody …

If you allege that an innocent person has been interned you should give me his name. It is your duty to give me his name.

How many people have not been innocently interned and been discharged afterwards? Day after day we get admissions that people have been innocently interned, because day after day people are being released. Would they be released if they were not innocent. The Minister of Justice has denied that innocent people have been arrested and been released. I again want to tell the Minister that a feeling of deep resentment has been created in the hearts of those people and that we shall not be able to get over that feeling of resentment. What has been the result of the internment of a few hundred members of the police? A few days ago there was a report in the papers about crimes committed in this country. What is going on? The number of crimes committed in this country this last year exceeds the number of crimes committed in the last twelve years. I have an extract here from one of the papers supporting the Government which in large letters refers to the increase in crime. The police are being interned and naturally people who want to commit crimes now have the opportunity of doing so. I hope the Minister will see to it from now on that no people are interned unless there is good reason for doing so. Now I want to come to another point which indirectly concerns the Minister, a point on which he has expressed his personal opinion. It is a question in regard to the espionage system in the schools. I have expressed my disapproval of this system on a previous occasion, but as an old teacher I have a feeling of contempt for the methods used by the Minister in regard to our schools in the Union. The Minister, speaking at a Congress of the United Party at Bloemfontein, made the following statement: He said that complaints had been received that politics were being introduced into the schools on a large scale.

Under what item does the hon. member want to discuss that point?

It comes here under the teachers who are being interned. The Minister said that politics were being introduced in the schools and that the Government required the assistance of every man ad every woman to stop it. He said that when it got to the stage that people who had brought information had to be cross-examined, they left him in the lurch because they were scared of victimisation and publicity, and he went on to say this:

How the Minister can say that they should not be political bodies but that party members must serve on those bodies I fail to understand. Does the Minister imagine for one moment that while he is carrying out these internments he can come and say that he wants more vigilance committees appointed? But he says at the same time that so far he has appointed a hundred secret committees in the Cape alone. To do what? To do contemptible espionage work among teachers, and then to put the teachers in the internment camps on statements made by children. The Minister went further and he said that he would take steps to see that it was done, and what has been the result? We find now that “professor” Eli du Plessis has been appointed to get teachers put into the Minister’s internment camps. I want to ask the Minister whether he has had anything to do with the appointment of this person. The Minister does not answer. Now I want to ask him whether he knows who this man is? If the Minister can find the time to go to Petrusville he will find the sole of a boot there, with a bit of foot in it, stuck in a rock, and that is the remnant of that man’s leg which was left in that rock. That man went there in 1900 to do espionage work against the Boers. He was the man who was stripped and driven away because of the filthy work he had done. But that same man made a statement that he had lost his leg in the war, and he is now drawing a war pension. That is the type of person that is being appointed today to go to the schools in the Cape to undertake this low type of espionage work. It is disgraceful to think that people can go so far as to have educated people ordered about by a man like this Eli du Plessis, and to have a man like Eli du Plessis spying on them. I cannot express my disapproval in words strong enough to show my indignation. Unfortunately my time is nearly up, and I don’t want to say anything more on that point. Now let me come to the Board of Censors. A few months ago the police recorded the names of certain books. A few days ago we found that two books entitled “Hoe sy Stierven” and “Helkampe,” of which 10,000 copies had been printed, were recalled and stopped. I want to ask the Minister whether the publishers are to be compensated for those books. What is the Minister’s reason for recalling those books? I want to ask the Minister whether he also intends recalling “A Century of Wrong.” Is the Minister recalling our history books to try and hide the black deeds of the English in 1900? Does he want to destroy South Africa’s history? I want to tell the Minister that he may perhaps ban those history books, but he will never succeed in eradicating our history from the hearts of the South African people. I want to assure the Minister that if he succeeds in killing one Afrikaner, ten will rise to take the place of that one, to keep the history of the Afrikaner people where it has been in the past, and in spite of all his efforts to destroy the history of the Afrikaner he will not succeed.

This is an opportunity that I have been waiting for for quite a long time. I want to speak about this £2,500 which is set aside for Civilian Protective Services. I want to say, at the outset, that I am rather disappointed at the very small amount the Minister has put forward on this occasion. The Minister has done quite a lot of interesting work in connection with C.P.S.; he has visited Johannesburg on several occasions. I am not going to say that he has made very large promises, but I believe he has created an impression that the Government is going to do a consierable amount in connection with the C.P.S. services throughout the Union. This £2,500 which he has got a vote for is very small indeed to be expended over the whole Union, and especially in the principal cities. I may say there is a possibility that there is an amount in the Defence Vote for these services. Of course, that is more or less a secret, but I hope the Minister will tell us something in connection with that vote and whether there is anything in the Defence Vote for these services. I don’t think I need remind the Minister at the present time that this is considered a very important matter indeed; the Minister knows that a large number of people are interested, and they want to know what the Government’s intentions are. I saw in the paper a day or two ago something about a very important gathering of representatives in the various cities waiting on the Minister. I don’t know whether this deputation has interviewed the Minister as yet or not, but if so he may be able to tell us what representations were made to him. I have not seen any account in the paper yet, but possibly the Minister may tell us, and he may have told them, what the Government’s intentions are. One has to realise the great importance of these services today on account of the changed situation which has come about recently. The Johannesburg members are expected to take this matter up, and we are expected to give some kind of account of what we have done in this matter when we go back. For that reason we have no hesitation in approaching the Minister; I have done so on one or two previous occasions, but the time has not been opportune. This is an opportune time, and I shall be very grateful if the Minister will tell us what the Government intends to do in connection with these services. I don’t think I need say very much more; I have spoken on it on two occasions before and have not been able to get a reply from the Minister. I am sure the Minister, in replying, will be good enough to tell us how far the Government intends to go, and what it intends to do in connection with this matter.

I should like to say a few words on this vote, Internments, £536,000. First of all, according to what we have been told, included in that amount is expenditure in respect of people from outside the Union who have been interned. That is to say there are people in our camps who are at the expense of the English Government. That expenditure is probably included in this amount.

That is so.

That expenditure is covered by that amount of £536,000. I also want to express the hope that our Government will keep a very careful account of this expenditure which will have to be repaid by the British Government at some future date, and the capital expenditure will also have to be repaid, not merely the daily expenditure in regard to the supervision, over and above feeding of the internees. We cannot blame the Government for having internment camps. I believe that any country which is at war has to have internment camps. It is usual in time of war to intern enemy subjects so I don’t want to say anything on that point, although it is noticeable—and I say so in passing—that Union citizens were not interned in Germany after the war had broken out, although we started interning German subjects.

They are engaged on broadcasting from Germany.

No, I can tell the Minister that that does not apply to all of them. There is a very telling case to prove how peculiarly we have acted. There was a Union citizen, a fairly wellknown person, who was in Germany when war broke out. He was not interned, he was given the opportunity of returning to South Africa by a Portuguese ship, and when he arrived here we interned him. The German Government allowed him to go at the risk of his taking un arms against them here. They did not intern him but we interned him, and that is not the only instance. There are more instances of Union subjects who were studying in Germany, or were travelling there, or whatever they might have been doing there. Germany did not intern them, but they came to South Africa after the outbreak of war.

And what about those who are there now?

I believe there are still some of them in Germany today but they have not been interned.

Because they are broadcasting for Zeesen.

Well, whatever the reason may be, they did not intern our people; but now we come to the internment of our own subjects, and when we get to that question we really feel that we would be neglecting our duty if we did not discuss the matter here in Parliament. This subject has already been discussed but as we are now dealing with a particular Vote under which these things come we have to raise our voices in protest against the way the Government is acting. What is happening in regard to the internment of those people who are Union subjects? I must honestly say that what is happening here is not to the credit of the Government of the day. Particularly is it not to the credit of the Government if we notice the way information is supplied to the authorities concerned. I am afraid that the Government is availing itself of the poorest traits in people’s character to get them to carry information to get their fellow men into the internment camps. The Government goes out of its way to spend money directly or indirectly to induce people to spy on their fellowmen; if a man is in that service, and he has any grievances against somebody else, it is easy for him to get the other man into the internment camp. All he has to do is to make a charge. Some of our best known and most responsible people, Ministers of Religion, teachers to the poorest type of worker, the Railway man and the official, have been interned on charges which have not been sworn to, or simply because of what we call back biting. The time at my disposal is short and I am not going to say much at this stage, but I do want to say that the way people are being interned is most reprehensible. How many cases have not happened of people being suddenly interned without their being given the opportunity of saying good-bye to their wives. I know of one instance where a man’s child was ill in bed. The man was arrested, he was picked up like a criminal and he was not even allowed to go and say good-bye to his child. Why should methods like that be applied to our own Union citizens? Those people are arrested, they are interned; in other words, they are punished without having the opportunity of appearing before an impartial court. The man does not even know what charge has been brought against him; he is simply put away, and once he has been interned his case may be referred to an official; and that official is not impartial because he is an official who is paid by the authorities who intern those people. And once a man has been interned, how is he treated? Do hon. members realise that if one looks closely into the position the condition of the internees, among whom there are some of the best and most noble people of our country—the treatment meted out to those people when they get visitors is such that it is equivalent to the conditions applied not only to criminals but to the worst criminal of all, the man who has been sentenced to death, on a charge of murder. If a man is charged with murder and he has been condemned he is taken out of the ordinary gaol and confined in a separate cell. I myself have visited people like that in gaol. They are treated as dangerous individuals. They are kept behind meshed steel wire, and there is a guard walking up and down all day and night, because there is no door to their cells. There is meshed wire; and what happens if the wife of a man like that comes to visit him?

Where is that?

I am talking of the gaols.

That is nonsense.

Then the Minister does not know anything about it. He should go and visit those gaols.

It is just as nonsensical as the report that I was going to intern you.

Then it is high time the Minister visited the gaols. I have done official work there and I have visited that part of the gaol.

There are no gaols in connection with the internees.

If the Minister will wait a little while I shall tell him what I am driving at with this comparison which I am making. I have come into contact with these things officially. If it is an ordinary criminal I can go inside and talk to the man in the courtyard. I can go to him, shake hands with him and talk to him. But if one visits a murderer who has been sentenced he is put in a cell and one cannot get near him. We cannot shake hands with him, and we cannot go inside. Now, what happens to these internees, among whom are some of the best people in this country? If the wife comes to visit her husband he is behind meshed steel wire and the meshed steel wire is in between them. In between there is a corridor and there is a guard there walking up and down all the time she is there. Consequently, we have this position, that the man and the wife have two sets of wire in between them, and the guard walks up and down between them. That is what happens there, and the Minister cannot deny it. No, the fact is that our own people who are interned are treated like criminals, so far as their visitors are concerned. They are treated like condemned murderers. This sort of thing has made a very painful impression. It is not only the wives who visit their husbands there, but their brothers, too, go to visit them. Somebody told me that he went to visit his own brother, but he was so deeply affected by the whole position that he decided rather not to visit his brother again.

I have been asked to bring to the notice of the Minister the position in regard to institutional accommodation for non-European mentally defective children. The case has been well set out by the Cape Mental Hygiene Society, and I would like to quote from their statement as it will be far better than speaking at random on this technical matter. It reads—

The reply of the Department is that there is at present a very serious shortage of accommodation both for non-European children and European mentally disordered persons, and that the Government has first to meet their need before giving consideration to this other question. This is a matter which I think the Government should give some sympathetic consideration to, having regard to all the circumstances. Mental deficiency is inherited and the result on the coloured community with its repercussions upon the people generally is very serious. The position of the mother, her capacity to maintain the home if she has a mentally deficient child, to care for, is most difficult and the effect upon the rest of the children is deleterious. There are other points but the Minister is acquainted with the position, and I only wish him to give it his serious consideration, and to ask whether it could not be arranged, if it is not practicable at present to establish an institution, at least for something to be done in a small way in order to make provision without going to the necessity of a expensive building at the present time. I would therefore submit this matter for the consideration of the Minister, as to whether some provision could not be made, even as a temporary measure, for these deserving cases.

I just want to ask the Minister for some information about the camp at Ganspan at Vaal Hartz. We have been given to understand that the internees there were removed within a few hours. The Department of Social Welfare had prepared that place as a settlement for a certain class of person. After it had been completed the Government took over the buildings and the other things there for an internment camp. The people have now left that internment camp and I want to know whether the Minister is going to return the houses in the camp to the Department of Social Welfare for the purpose for which they were constructed. Have they actually been returned?

Yes, they have been.

Is the Departement of Social Welfare now in possession of the whole place?

Yes, that is so.

We have on previous occasions repeatedly criticised the Government’s internment policy and we have pointed out what has been going on in these internment camps. Last year I revealed a number of things which came direct from the internees themselves, and I pointed out what the condition in the camps was. The Minister simply shrugged his shoulders and said that he did not know. I then asked him whether he would be prepared to allow members of Parliament to go to the camps and make an investigation. The Minister would not allow that. Now we understand that he has allowed certain members of Parliament, including a member from this side, to visit the camps. They were given special permission to go to the camps, and we want to know from the Minister what his policy is in that regard. We want to know whether he will allow us to go there, not to help those people to escape or to do any subversive work, but to see what is actually going on. I don’t know what the conditions are at the moment. Last year I had certain information which had reached me first hand from a reliable source. Meanwhile the supervision has apparently been made stricter and one does not know what is going on, but there is a feeling of uneasiness throughout the country about the treatment of the internees in those camps. People are upset about the conditions which they hear about from various sources, and I want to ask the Minister to allow members to go to the camps and make enquiries themselves so that they may know how the people are being treated there. In view of conditions prevailing, and the feelings in the hearts of our people that things are not right, the Minister should grant our request. I particularly want to ask him whether he will allow the church organisations to send people to visit the camps to see what is going on, and not so much to see what is going on, but to visit the people there, to relieve their minds, and to set them at ease; to relieve their anxiety from the conditions in which they find themselves. I want to appeal to the Minister to allow the various religious bodies to send representatives there to get in touch with the internees. I want to tell the Minister that we occasionally get reports of very hard and deplorable cases in regard to people who have been interned, and one often gets the impression that the senior officials who have to decide, and the Minister who has to control matters, have hardened their hearts and are actually displaying a strain of cruelty. I want to mention one case to the Minister which came to my notice in the last few days. It is the case of a certain Dr. Kuhnle. He was a German doctor who had been naturalised in South-West Africa under the Naturalisation Act. I know nothing about this particular case, except the information which was sent to me. He was interned; he was let out, and then interned again. I have a medical certificate here which I should like to read out to the Minister. That certificate reads as follows:—

Was that certificate sent to the Internment Authorities?

Yes, his wife sent it to them. I must assume that this medical certificate is correct. It is really cruel; if a doctor certifies that it is tantamount to sentencing a man to death if he is again interned, to take that man back to the internment camp. Now there is another matter. It is not quite clear where the dividing line comes in between the Minister of Interior and the Minister of Justice, the dividing line between internment and arrest. I must say that I personally am very confused about it all. I don’t know where the dividing line is, and I don’t know when a person is interned. The Minister told us that the police had not been interned. Why then were they all sent to an internment camp? In the course of another interjection the Minister remarked that there were no gaols in connection with internment camps. On the other hand we know that our gaols have been proclaimed to be internment camps. That was done by Proclamation.

That was done in regard to Marshall Square.

Yes, I went to visit them as the advocate of some of the internees and when I got to the gaol I was told that it was not a gaol but a internment Camp. That is why I ask where the dividing line really comes in? The Minister says that those internment camps where the police are interned are no longer internment camps, and the police who have been put there have not been interned. These members of the police were arrested, and afterwards they were sent to the Koffiefontein Internment Camp and not to the gaol. We had to assume that they had been interned, and we should be pleased if the Minister would give us an explanation before we discuss this matter any further. Now I want to say a few words about the treatment of the internees. I have had the opportunity during the past year of coming into close touch with some of these people in court cases which have taken place. I want to mention the case of the Italians who escaped, among whom was Dr. Mario Mazzacuratti. There was a lot of talk about the escape of these people. They were punished twice. First of all they were punished in the internment camp under the Internment Regulations, and after that they were brought to court and were punished again. The judge expressed his surprise and said that he did not know why these people were brought before him. In that connection I want to tell the House how those people were practically invited to escape. On certain days those people are allowed to visit doctors or dentists in Kimberley or Bloemfontein, and that is what happened that morning. Early in the morning when the motor car had to leave there were five Italians there who got into the car without being asked who they were or how they had got out. There was only one driver in the car, and he was not armed. Hon. members will realise the temptation there was to those people to escape; if the Minister had been interned in Germany and he had been given that chance would he not have availed himself of it?

That is not the point. Those people escaped; it was the custom for them to be conveyed by motor car.