When the budget debate was adjourned on Monday I was dealing with the position of the millers, and I explained that although I am in favour of co-operatives, even a co-operative can make mistakes which result in a disadvantage to the people as a whole. I said that certain co-operatives bought mills at an uneconomic price. In this regard I mentioned the name of the honourable member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler). They paid high prices for flour-mills with the result that they had to put up the price of flour in order to be able to make a profit. On the other hand we had the position that the existing millers also made a very high profit on account of those prices. The Minister ought to see to it that those high profits made by the millers will be distributed to the benefit of both the consumers and the producers. In regard to the decrease of ½d. in the price of bread I want to say that that ½d. should never have been put on the price of bread. The large bakers made their estimates for the baking of bread and they included ½d. for certain ingredients. Those ingredients were never used in making the bread and all the time they made hundreds of thousands of pounds at the expense of the consumers. I hope that the Minister will give me an explanation in this connection before the House rises. If that actually happened the large bakers should be put in their place, for they made profits at the expense of the consumers. I have shown how little we hear in speeches made on the other side of the House in regard to promoting the interests of the farmer. I want to say something about the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock). He let the cat out of the bag, and he clearly demonstrated that that side of the House is only protecting the middleman; they are the protectors of the middleman, the speculator and the goldmines. He spoke about “ceiling prices”. He told us how many animals had been slaughtered at our abattoirs, but this information was so poor that one could laugh about it. He quoted that in 1937 635,000 animals had been slaughtered, but that in 1941 863,000 had been slaughtered. Is he not aware that there are thousands and even tens of thousands of refugees in our country and that large contracts were entered into for the supply of meat to the increased shipping around our coast. No, the argument he used is really childish. He wants to lay down maximum prices but not minimum prices. His object is to give the speculators an opportunity to make money. He wants to protect the middleman. He said that the middleman, and he is one of them, does not make more than 7½ per cent., that is nonsense. There is no middleman who makes only 7½ per cent. We spoke about overtrading. He said that it did not matter as long as they made only 7½ per cent. But when there are four of them it means 30 per cent., and that 30 per cent. the consumer has to pay. And on the other hand it has to be deducted from the amount the farmer receives for his products. The hon. member exposed the party on the other side. They are there to buy the meat from the farmer cheaply in order to supply cheap food for the employees of the big industrialists and to give the middleman a chance to make money. That is the whole spirit of the United Party. We have had one of the best proofs of it here and that is the big difference between them and us. I want to say something about the control boards. It never was our idea on this side of the House to abolish the control boards or not to support the principle of control boards. We know the difficult circumstances under which the boards were set up. Many of these boards have middlemen serving on them. Those middlemen possessed the stores where the products can be kept. The farmer does not possess them and the consumer does not possess them. It is precisely those middlemen against whom we object, for they are in control of the overtrading which takes place between the producer and the consumer. We want to have a control board which consists of the producers only. On the other hand we shall be quite satisfied if a board of consumers were also called into being. We feel that the middleman should only be used as an agent who receives payment for his services. He ought not to have any say on those boards. We do not want to cut him out altogether, but we want to limit him to his proper function. We on this side of the House have asked for cold storage plants year after year. The cold storage establishments ought to be the property of the State. Once we have those we can send our produce there and we can have proper marketing and distribution in this country. The sooner the Minister realises that the composition of the boards of control is entirely wrong, the better it will be for him. We should enable the boards to be real boards of control in regard to the products they are dealing with. At the moment we have a food-dictator in this country. Everything that is done by the boards is under the control of the fooddictator—the Minister of Agriculture. I am sorry to say that he, by his regulations, has made the boards of control so unpopular. There is a board of producers which last came together years ago. In spite of that we notice from day to day that regulations are being issued by the board of producers. Who issues those regulations? The Minister of Agriculture issues them—our food-dictator. He is the person responsible. When we consider any product which is controlled by him we find, that it has been a failure. Conditions in the agricultural industry are chaotic. The producers are dissatisfied and the consumers are dissatisfied. Let us look at the maize position. I received two telegrams in regard to this position. The one comes from Molteno; from English-speaking farmers. I want to read this telegram—[re-translation]

That is their minimum consumption. And those people receive 37 bags. Then I have another wire here from the farmers’ association of Hofmeyr. They tell me that the natives are leaving their farms because they cannot get food. The Minister knows that the petrol those people receive has been rationed. They cannot go to the village more than twice, and how can they buy their mealie meal by the bucket? They furthermore point out that the farmers want to shear, but the first thing the natives demand is that they be supplied with food. When the farmer tells them that he has no mealies, the natives simply go away again. It appears as if there is chaos in the country. Our Department of Agriculture is hopeless and the farmers do not know what to do. The labourers run away and I ask where it is going to end when things go on like this. The same thing is happening in regard to meat production. The hon. member for Pretoria, Central asked that a fixed price should be laid down for oxen, for instance of £10 per ox. One ox wieghts 400 lbs. and another one may weigh 1,000 lbs. Have you ever heard a more ridiculous suggestion. No the whole matter is now becoming chaotic. What did the Minister of Agriculture do for the wool farmer? He already caused the wool farmers to suffer damages of far more than £1 million. The British Government itself proved it and in this connection I want to point out what a country like Australia did. In this connection I want to read cut this interesting bit of news—[translation]

Our price was slightly higher than the Australian price when war broke out. In Australia the price was 8.3d. and the Australian Government rejected the offer. I now read on—

We on this side of the House asked for 12d. and now we see here what the attitude adopted by the Australian Government was. We were belittled because we pleaded for a higher price. The report goes on—

Compare this with what our Government did.

In our agreement you will find nothing about the British Government bearing the loss. There is not a word about it in there. It has been completely deleted. This again was to assist the British Government in every possible way. In our agreement absolutely nothing is said about who had to bear the loss. I could have said a great deal about this subject but my time is expired and I shall rather sit down.

In spite of the huge expenditure on defence, I am not going to discuss the war, but there is one thing I wish to say. We took a certain course in 1939, and we are not going to deviate one iota from that course. Further, we are prepared to make further sacrifices in order to achieve the desired end, that is final victory. During many debates in this House the question of the war has been discussed, so I am going to leave it alone. High finance has been discussed by several members, and I now want to put the views of the ordinary citizen or the man in the street. Each year there is great speculation concerning the budget by the ordinary citizen, and perhaps this year it has been more so than usual, because of the huge revenue which has to be raised to meet contingencies. The question is invariably asked: “What surprise will the Minister spring upon us?” There is always great speculation as to what the new budget will contain. This year it is very marked, and an extraordinary amount of interest is centered on the budget outside the House, as well as inside the House. In view of the abnormal expenditure, one realises that further means of raising further funds had to be found. As far as one can gather from Press reports, and in conversations with individuals, the general opinion is that the Minister has dealt more lightly with the direct taxpayer than was expected, and so spread the incidence of taxation that the burden does not fall too heavily on anyone. The country expected that taxation would be greatly increased. Most people expected that the price of petrol would again soar, but they have been disappointed in this. In fact, the Minister had been very gentle with all sections of the taxpaying public. This huge expenditure is the price of our freedom. There are one or two items which I want to touch on. First of all, I want to say that the imposition of a 15 per cent. levy on normal income is not a severe blow under present circumstances. No doubt there are other means of taxation which we may be called upon to contribute should the necessity arise. I want to touch upon a few items. There is the increased tax upon spirits, beer, tobacco and cigarettes. From that tax the Minister expects to raise £3,480,000. I am sorry the Minister has not taxed the smokes of the rich, or the semi-rich. I refer to cigars. The ordinary man in the street cannot afford to buy cigars; he has to buy tobacco and cigarettes, and I would have thought that this luxury would have been taxed. I believe that a large number is consumed during the course of a year. To show the Minister what interest has been created in the country, I would draw his attention to the remarks of a certain individual with a mathematical turn of mind, who went into these figures and who passed these remarks—

What is the hon. member reading from?

I am quoting a letter from an individual who is rather mathematically inclined, and who has worked backwards from the Minister’s supposed revenue.

The hon. member is not entitled to quote from documents referring to speeches made in the House during the current Session.

There is one item that has met with universal approval, and that is the question of giving a meal a day to school children, irrespective of colour. I realise that this is going to be a stupendous task, and that it will take time before the machinery can be set in motion. We know that today meals are provided at certain institutions. We also know that native children at locations receive milk and fruit through the generosity of citizens. When I say that this is going to be a stupendous task, I want to add that I took the trouble to find out how many children would receive one meal a day, and according to the statistics from the Year Book of 1941, I find that the total number of children receiving education in the Union, is as follows: Europeans 417,000; Natives 453,648; other non-Europeans 165,322, making a total to be provided for of 1,035,970 children. It is for that reason that I gave the statement that the Government is confronted with a stupendous task in providing a meal per day to these children. I realise that the cost of feeding children is not so overwhelming, and I was astounded to hear the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) say that it was not necessary to provide meals to native and coloured school children. I understood him to say that the provision of a full meal a day to these children would result in increased attendance at schools, and that the farmers would be unable to obtain the necessary labour. Surely, a native child should not be denied a meal because of the colour of his skin, and I deprecate such a remark from the hon. member. It brought to my mind a little incident which happened in London. I was trying to find a word to express my indignation at the statement. There was an incident in London when a cab knocked off the wheel of a coster’s barrow and spilt the contents. When someone said: “Harry, why don’t you curse,” he replied: “There aint no language.” That is how I felt when I heard the remark of the hon. member for Boshof. I could not find a word which would adequately express my feelings. I am sure that when this scheme is carried out, malnutrition will be greatly reduced. Such remarks as those made by the hon. member savours of Hitlerism. Then I want to refer briefly to civil pensioners and the cost of living allowance. During the last Session I put the following question to the minister—

The second question I put was this—

The Minister’s reply was that the matter had been considered. These pensions have been fixed by law, and the Government could not, in the event of an increase in the purchasing power of money, pay those pensioners less than was laid down by law. There is a large number of retired men in the service. I am referring now to civil pensioners. I find, according to the Year Book, that in September, 1940, there were 10,903 in receipt of civil pensions; male pensioners 8,928 costing £1,565,998; female pensioners 1,804 costing £91,229; disability pensioners 32, costing £1,977; widows and other dependent pensioners 49, costing £5,451, making a total cost of £1,665,355. There are a number of these pensioners who are in receipt of very small pensions indeed. They have given excellent services to the State, and in view of the very high cost of living allowance, it is practically impossible to make ends meet, and the result is that some pensioners have to rely on charitable institutions. I admit that there are individuals who have what I would term adequate pensions. I understand that the Minister expects that £80,000 will be available for ex gratia payments, and he is going to set up a special committee to enquire into hard cases. I should like, at this stage, to read to the House a copy of a letter which I have received from an ex-magistrate, and these are views expressed not only by him, but by those in similar circumstances—

The hon. member is not entitled to read documents in this House, referring to what Ministers or other members said in the House during the current Session.

This letter which was sent to me just puts the position as far as these old pensioners are concerned. I must admit that I do not like the idea of this committee. But I believe that the composition of the committee will be such that they will deal fairly with all applications. There is one further matter I want to touch upon before I sit down. I think the Minister has struck a hard blow at second-class passengers on the trains, and I want to ask him whether he will not consider the question of differentiating between first and second class tickets. I would suggest that he put a higher percentage on first class tickets, because the bulk of travellers in this country are second class. The Minister, in his closing remarks said: “This will probably be described as a drastic budget.” I should say that he has attempted, through indirect taxation, to reach into the pockets of all but the very poorest, and he has sought to avoid placing too great a strain on that section of the community which is already bearing the lion’s share of the costs of South Africa’s war effort.

In the short time at my disposal I wish to bring a few matters to the notice of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of the Interior in regard to the internment and treatment of prisoners who have not yet been given a trial. In spite of the fact that the Minister of Justice a fews days ago tried to make a reassuring statement here in the House, I want to assure him that he probably does not realise what measure of bitterness, hatred and enmity is found in the country owing to the policy which he adopts. The position simply is that boys and men are being arrested and are being treated in such a way that we may expect that the country during the coming generation will be a breeding ground of racialism. The Minister tried to explain that those persons are all being treated well and reasonably. But that is definitely not the case. The people are arrested and they are only tried after they have been under arrest for a long period. I want to mention a few cases. Some time ago, in October last year, I received a letter from a certain lady in my constituency whose husband has been arrested; she wrote to me that he had been given the reasons why he was arrested and that he had appealed. That was in October. I immediately got in touch with the department concerned. On the 3rd November I received a letter from the department that the matter was receivingconsideration. About two weeks later I received another letter from the department in which I was informed: “With reference to your letter of the 3rd instant to the Minister of the Interior I beg to inform you that I have been instructed to advise you that the appeal of Mr. A. Theron is waiting to be dealt with by the Commissioner of Appeal, and before the appeal has been disposed of, his release cannot be taken into consideration.” This letter was dated the 22nd November. I then waited until the beginning of the Session, when I got in touch with the Minister and the official concerned. After another two weeks had passed, the official concerned submitted a document to me and said that this person’s case had not yet been dealt with. I then asked him when one could expect that the case would be tried. He shrugged his shoulders and said that he could not tell me, because there were hundreds of cases also waiting. I should like to ask the Minister concerned the following question. This person has been under arrest for about six months and his case is still awaiting appeal. The official states that his case cannot be dealt with because there are hundreds of others waiting. The Minister of Justice is not present and I should like to ask the Minister of Finance to bring my request to the notice of his colleague, viz. whether it is not possible to appoint more Commissioners of Appeal. I understand that the Commissioner of Appeal has already been given an assistant, but the latter has to work under his supervision. Why is there only one Commissioner although the department itself admits that there are hundreds of cases on the waiting list? If a few more Commissioners were appointed the pending appeal cases could be disposed of. I should like to ask the Minister to bring this matter to the notice of his colleague. Why is it not possible to incur this additional expenditure? It will be insignificant as compared to the misery, difficulties and discord which are the result of these delays. I have a similar case in my constituency. This person was a Commandant in the Ossewa-Brandwag. He was interned but he is in bad health. His case is also awaiting appeal. I do not know what the reason is why these people had to be interned. Possibly they made irresponsible statements. But can one blame them for being inclined to make irresponsible statements when one notices the manner in which the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people is being treated. As I said, I do not know the reasons for their internment, but I emphasise the fact that the people have to wait several months before being tried. They may be entirely innocent. But in the meantime they have to sit in jail. I feel this is something to which the Minister should give his attention. Then there is the case of interned policemen. I have here a letter before me from a well-meaning person who requests that certain cases be brought to the notice of the Minister. I should have liked to go into the details of those cases, but my time is too limited. Shortly after the internment of these policemen the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice who is now present, declared that a thorough investigation would be made into these difficulties. I should now like to know whether this investigation has taken place, and if so, what was the result. Surely this was not a secret investigation. The people want to know what the position in regard to this investigation is. My time is up but I want to emphasise again that the Minister should consider the appointment of further Commissioners of Appeal to deal with these cases. Hundreds of cases are awaiting and it is not fair to let those people wait because one Commissioner is not able to cope with all the cases.

I want to turn my attention for a moment or two to the three amendments moved by the three warring elements in the Opposition, three elements which, a very short time ago we were given to understand, represented united Afrikanerdom. They have today become very disunited, but a glance at the amendments would tend to show that whether intentional or otherwise, there seems to be some kind of line of understandable development in the amendments. First of all, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has come back to the old question of the war. Early in the Session he avoided that issue. He came to the House and for once in a while endeavoured to find something in the nature of a positive policy. But apparently he has now given up the positive policy, and he now decides to go back to the war issue. His amendment suggests that we should not grant supply for the reason that provision is made for expenditure on a war in which we are not interested. That is taken a step further by the Leader of the Afrikaner Party, who wishes the Government only to expend money for military purposes on the defence of the Union. He then goes on to say that the money shall not be granted unless—

The amendment is carried a stage further by the subsequent amendment, moved as an amendment to the amendment of the Leader of the Afrikaner Party, by the Leader of the New Order, in which he says—

That must also be tied up with the motion moved by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) in which he indulged in a tirade against Communism and Communistic propaganda in South Africa. It seems to be perfectly clear now what precisely is going to be the line of action of the Opposition during the election which is now before us, and I feel that a word or two ought to be said on that point. To begin with, the Opposition are the least consistent Opposition, I think, that has ever graced the benches of this House. On the one hand we find them railing against Communism and Communistic propaganda, as is evidenced by the hon. member for Beaufort West; on the other hand, we find the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) quoting to us as an authority in this House a gentleman who has been maligned for many years in this House, as one of the arch-Communists in South Africa. Again, we find the Opposition railing against British Imperialism, and yet we find the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) quoting letters which came into his possession through the medium of a gentleman who once led the company for the secession of Natal, to retain the British rule. But again we find that the three warring elements of the ex-united Afrikanerdom are all in some measure opposed to capitalism. I gathered from the motion moved earlier in the Session by the Leader of the Opposition that he, to some extent, at least, is opposed to capitalism. The Afrikaner Party also indulges in tirades against capitalism, and we know, of course, that the New Order considers that the trouble with the world is capitalism, especially British capitalism, and more especially international Jewish capital. That brings me to a situation which has been disturbing a few of us for some months past, who are actually concerned with the abolition of capitalism. There is a tendency in some quarters, as far as we can read between the lines—there is a tendency in some quarters in the Allied campaign throughout the world, to be just a little bit suspicious of Russia. There are signs that capitalism, now that it sees it is not going to be eliminated by Nazism, is already making some kind of tentative arrangement for its continuance after the war, and we find that doubts are expressed in regard to the bona fides of Russia. We find that suggestions are made that possibly the success of the Russian armies is not altogether a good thing, and it has culminated in the last few days in two rather remarkable utterances. I am not in a position to state what the attitude of the Vice-President of America is. All I can say is that the speech made by that gentleman the other day was certainly rather an astonishing speech. The almost incredible indiscretion of the Untied States Ambassador to Moscow yesterday, carries the point a stage further, and I am satisfied that if those two gentlemen are doubtful of Russia, if they represent the feeling in the world which casts doubt as to the advisability of allowing Russia to have a great say after the war, that can only be done in the interests of international capitalism; and, if in the interests of international capitalism doubts are being cast upon the advisability of allowing Russia to have a great deal of say in that peace treaty, it seems rather remarkable to me that these instruments of international capitalism should find as allies the three warring elements of ex-united Afrikanderdom, who have railed against capitalism. That seems to me to be a most remarkable thing. We find that at one time they were allies of Communists; we find that at one time they railed against the Communists; we find them declaiming against Imperialism at one time, and at another moment we find them quoting letters from a British Imperialist, and we find them laying down a policy which can only align them with the forces of capitalism which are afraid of Russia. That is the kind of position they are getting themselves into, and I think it is the position which ought to be put before the people of this country.

What is your position now?

I am going to tell you that now. It is a much sounder one than yours, both in the past and in the future.

Are you going to join the Communist Party now?

I can assure the hon. member that there is one party I do not intend joining, and that is the inconsistent Nationalist Party. Incidentally, the Nationalist Party has brought nationalism almost to a point of virtue. It has become a sacred abstraction to them. But I would point out to them that Communism in many ways uses nationalism as a sacred abstraction, and in their fear with regard to the natives of this country, if the natives ever really become Communistic, they will become Communistic because of a growing native nationalism. But then the Nationalist Party were never able to see any further than getting into power on some pretext or other, and so they find themselves in this ridiculous position today. Let us now deal with this question of the alliance with Russia. I am not in the least afraid of Russia. As a matter of fact, we ought to thank God for Russia, because had it not been for Russia and the Red Army, we probably would not be the free independent country we are today. That in no way derogates from the great efforts made by Britain during the battle for Britain, and during the time Britain stood between Nazism and the rest of the world. But the fact remains that much of the present position in which we find ourselves today, much of the position which guarantees us that we must inevitably win the war, has been brought about by the efforts of the Red Army.

Was that not discussed in the previous debate?

No, it was not, and in any case it makes no difference.

We were stopped yesterday.

I am talking now of the alliance with Russia, which is bound up with the question of Communism. I would remind the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) that so far he does not happen to be the Speaker of the House.1 In regard to this alliance with Russia, does it necessarily mean that because we are allied with Russia, South Africa is going to become a Communistic country? Does it mean, because we are allied with China, that we are going to become Chinese, or does it mean, because we are allied with America, that we are going to adopt the American constitution? Nothing of the kind. Russia has developed in its own particular way. The Russian revolution was caused by the previously existing conditions in Russia itself, and it is many years now since Russia finally abolished this idea of embarking upon world-wide revolution. As a matter of fact, it was abolished at considerable cost in human life, because the original argument between Trotsky and Stalin was precisely on this point. We remember that the argument between those two was prosecuted with very great violence.

On a point of order I want to point out that a few days ago, on Monday, I discussed the question of Communism in connection with this budget debate and Mr. Speaker then ruled that the matter had already been discussed and disposed of during a previous debate and that under those circumstances I could not discuss it any more. The point of order I want to make is that I was not permitted to speak against Communism, another hon. member on the other side should not be permitted to defend it. Whether it is an attack or a defence, the position remains the same. When I wanted to attack Communism during the budget debate, Mr. Speaker stopped me, and I think that under the circumstances the hon. member should not be allowed to reply—for that he was doing—to arguments which I used last week.

Mr. Speaker gave a very definite ruling that in view of the motion which was before the House, dealing with Communism, that issue having been decided, it should not be revived in a subsequent debate, nor should any attempt be made by any speaker to refute any arguments which took place on that occasion. Any new fact that may be introduced, but not in reply to any question that arose during that debate, may be used by an hon. member. If the hon. member will bear that in mind, it will not be necessary for me to interrupt him.

As I understand it, the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) is speaking on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) and I take it that it is quite correct that he should be allowed to deal with that amendment, as I think he wishes to do.

The hon. member is quite in order if he deals with the amendment, but he must not reply to arguments used in a previous debate.

May I point out that when the hon. member for Beaufort West was stopped by Mr. Speaker, the amendment to which the hon. Minister of Finance is now referring, already appeared on the Order Paper.

The point made by Mr. Speaker was that no argument which has been used during a debate on a motion on which the House has already come to a decision, may be used or replied to again in a later debate. The hon. member, however, was busy dealing with an amendment by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) and I allowed it, but I cannot allow replies being made to any argument which was used in a previous debate.

May I point out that the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) was busy dealing with the main argument which had been used from the Government benches in connection with my motion, viz. that there has been a change of heart now in Russia and that it is no longer aiming at promoting a world revlution. That was exactly the argument the hon. member used when I got up on a point of order. As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Gezina is concerned, that only deals with the question of an alliance with Russia, of military co-operation, which is a different matter altogether.

I listened to the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) to see how far he was transgressing the ruling given by Mr. Speaker. I hope the hon. member will observe that ruling.

I listened to the ruling and I am quite satisfied that I am not transgressing it. I am discussing international politics and I am discussing the attitude of these variegated parties over there in relation to international politics. The motion of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) related to Communistic propaganda. I am dealing with the question which has been raised in two specific amendments—to break off relations with Soviet Russia. Why are we asked to do that? There is only one reason, and that is because Soviet Russia is a Communist country and we cannot intelligently discuss those amendments unless we consider that Soviet Russia is a Communist country, and the inference drawn by hon. members opposite is that at the end of the was Soviet Russia, because of the valiance of her army, will have a preponderant say in the framing of the Peace Treaty and that because of that South Africa is in dire peril. I want to deal with that because the people of this country will have to realise what are to be the issues at the next elections, and what are the issues at the moment. I have suggested that the tendency among international capitalists is to create the suggestion that the desirability of being-allied with Soviet Russia is something the people have to be made aware of. We were told that we were fighting for the maintenance of Democracy. We have departed a long way from the original conception—we are fighting now for a far better life. We are not fighting merely for the adherence to Democracy, for the adherence to our present life ….

And you start off by supporting Stalin.

That is all my hon. friend can tell us—he is a very juvenile politician, and he may still learn. We are fighting for a better life, and the problem arises: “How are we to achieve that better life?” Are we to get it by throwing over our Allies?

The Prime Minister says that you have a better life.

Never mind what the Prime Minister says; I am talking now, and you had better listen to me. Now, my hon. friends of the Afrikaner Party over there dealt with the question of international capitalism and the sinister influence of international capitalism. Well, I agree with them on that. The hon. member for Gezina also dealt with that. I disagree, however, with them where they want to substitute the system of the hon. member for Gezina for that of international capitalism. If I had to choose between international capitalism and the hon. member for Gezina, I would have to choose international capitalism … better the devil you know than the devil you know better. International capitalism is at the root of our difficulty. If they say that international capitalism has been the cause of this war and other wars, then I agree with them, but I disagree with what they want to substitute for it. The hon. member for Beaufort West wants to substitute concentration camps and a ghetto. The Leader of the New Order wants something else, and the Leader of the Afrikaner Party has some ideas about the traditional relationship between black and white. Well, whatever ideas he has …

You are talking through your neck.

Quite. I may be talking through my neck, but when the hon. member starts talking through his hat, I think he had better listen to me …

You are not worth it.

When a member of the Native Affairs Commission talks to me about the traditional relationship between black and white he simply talks through his hat. The hon. member wants to go back to the relationship which has existed in the past—he wants to go back to conditions of fifty years ago. The trouble with hon. members over there is that they always look back to the past. The position of the Union must be seen, must be looked at against the background of development—must be looked at against the background of a revolutionary world, against the background of swift-moving changes in this country as well as elsewhere, and the future of the Union is bound up with the future of the rest of the world. But let me say that if they want Communism—they are going the right way about getting it. Communism will get here very much more quickly through the attitude they adopt, will get here much more quickly through the remarks of an hon. member like the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) than through the propaganda they say is going on. If an hon. member says that the native people, the native children, should not be given a decent meal every day, then that sort of thing is apt to create Communism in this country. The hon. member for Vredefort has not said anything about that, because he believes in what he calls the traditional relationship between black and white—whatever that may mean.

Take my advice and go back to dairying.

You take my advice and go back to the Boer War. The hon. member certainly did a lot of talking about what he did in the Boer War.

More than you did.

Anyhow, I cannot afford to waste my time on the Leader of the Afrikaner Party. We do not pay much attention to him because we know that shortly he will be relegated to that oblivion from which he will never reappear. South Africa in common with other parts of the world will have to make up its mind as to whether it can attain that measure of social security and social justice which it requires through the Capitalistic system, or whether it cannot. These movements which are crying out today tend to the belief that we can somehow adapt the Capitalistic system to give us that measure of economic security which all of us desire. It was put by Mr. Wallace that it has to be decided whether Marxism and some form of democracy can live side by side. I am a Socialist and I am very much concerned that Capitalism is finished, that we cannot solve our economic problems after the war and that we cannot mete out economic justice to all sections of the population in the best way through a system of Capitalism. Capitalism has broken down and if we endeavour to build it up, we shall come a cropper and we shall find ourselves embroiled in South Africa in a conflict which will be even more bloody and terrible than the present one. So I am not concerned about Soviet Russia. I am not afraid that South Africa will turn Communistic — unless the reactionaries get completely and firmly into the saddle, reactionaries such as we have here on the other side. Provided we keep these reactionaries in their places I am satisfied that there is no danger of a Communist revolution in South Africa. But the Union, I am satisfied, desires more than to attempt to rehabilitate the Capitalistic system. I am satisfied the Union and particularly the men fighting for the Union will not be satisfied with a mere attempt to rehabilitate the Capitalistic system. They will not be satisfied with doles and with a little additional donation here and there. When they talk about social security they mean economic security; they do not mean some piecemeal attempt to tackle it here and there. They mean the type of life where they will have security in their employment, where they will have security in everything, and that will not be achieved under the aegis of a Capitalist system, and my hon. friends over there, if I may make a suggestion to them, would be well to take up this attitude—instead of railing against the economic development of the world, instead of holding up bogeys in an effort to gain a few extra seats at the next election—I say that if instead of doing that they were to give some consideration to economic realities, if they were to see the trend of things in South Africa as well as in the rest of the world, if they were to watch the direction in which development is likely to go, they would come to the same conclusion as I have come to. We do not need the ideas of National Socialism, we know what has happened to Germany. We do not want Boer Republican ideas, such as visualised by the Leader of the Opposition. You cannot run a country by sitting on the stoep and smoking your pipe. That might have been very well in the days of the Boer Republic, but those days are past. South Africa is a developing country, a country which will have more economic problems to the square inch than any other country in the world after this war. Those problems can only be solved by the gradual abolition of the Capitalist system, and I hope the country in the forthcoming elections will examine all those Mambo Tambos of these four warring elements over there, and see that they are eliminated once and for ever. I trust that in South Africa we are in future going to pay a little more attention to the realities of the situation, and I want to close on the note that I feel that the South African Government has been very much amiss in the matter of sending some sort of a consular or diplomatic representative to Russia, and I suggest to them that as a gesture—a combative gesture to the Opposition—who evidently is going to make great play at the next election of this Communist bogey—that the Government should decide to send a consular or diplomatic representative to Russia.

When listening to the hon. member who has just sat down, one really felt that one should devote the short time at one’s disposal to the nonsense which has come from the other side of the House. The hon. member first of all accused us of inconsistency. One moment we are supposed to fight for better social welfare, and the next moment we are supposed to be the champions of capitalism in South Africa. I am surprised. But apparently it is only the hon. member who has just sat down, who has shown so much conceit as to accuse other people of inconsistency, whilst he himself is guilty of the grossest inconsistency possible. He is a socialist according to his own words. But now he comes here and wants to make use of the opportunity given him by the Budget debate to act as a champion of Communism under the cloak of Socialism, and as a Socialist and Communist he sits in the ranks of the capitalists. The question naturally presents itself whether the £1,032 which he receives as double salary has anything to do with it. If that is not the reason, then I must assume there is some other reason. Perhaps there is another reason why he and other members of the Labour Party, including the Minister of Labour, remain in the Government, and that is apparently, as he says, that after the war, in the near future, a revolutionary action will take place in South Africa, and that they want to make use of it. Perhaps they remain in the United Party to undermine it from within. That may also be the reason for the division on the other side in regard to Communism. Some of the Prime Minister’s most faithful supporters accuse others in their own ranks of having Communistic tendencies, and we now have witnessed some of them. We know, and the country knows, who of them harbour Communistic tendencies. I have devoted enough time to the hon. member, and now want to come back to the Budget. I make bold to say that his Budget has been received unfavourably by the farmers, more in particular by two sections of farmers who are directly affected by the new taxations which are being imposed. There is dissatisfaction mainly because the taxes are sectional. One section is adversely affected by the Estimates, whilst another section benefits by it. I do not want to repeat what has already been said about it. I only want to say that in my opinion the Budget also reflects the policy of the Government, viz., the systematic promotion of the native population and the coloureds in South Africa to a level where they will be the equals of the Europeans. We see preferential treatment of the non-Europeans at the expense of the interest of the European in South Africa. But, as I said, there are mainly two sections of farmers to whom this Budget is especially unwelcome, and the one section has been mentioned by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren), viz., the wine farmers. The future of the wine farmer is very gloomy. The wine farmer has to face many great difficulties. He produces something of which there is a surplus practically every year. But as the hon. member for Swellendam has made out a strong case for the wine farmers, I shall not try to improve on it, but I want to support his plea and tell the Minister of Finance that he should be careful when taxing the wine farmer that he does not darken and endanger the future of the wine farmer still further, but that he should give the wine farmer a chance for the future. We notice that the Minister is taxing the wine industry to the tune of £3,400,000 in one year, whereas the wine farmers themselves only receive £270,000 from their industry. This surely is out of all proportion and the taxes cannot be justified. The second group of farmers which does not welcome these taxation proposals which bears disproportionally upon the various sections of the people, are the tobacco farmers of South Africa. We all know that the tobacco farmers are not prosperous people. The tobacco industry provides thousands of poor people in our country with a living. I make bold to say that there is no other branch of agriculture which provides a living to a larger number of landless European farmers than the tobacco industry. The people engaged in tobacco growing are poor people, to a large extent bywoners. The Minister will perhaps again put forward the excuse that the higher tax which was placed on cigarette tobacco last year showed that it made no difference to the price the farmer receives. He has already announced that the general assumption is that this new tax on tobacco will also have no detrimental effect on the farmers. But the tobacco farmer is also engaged in producing something of which there is an overproduction in South Africa, just the same as the wine farmer, and experience has shown that when the tax on tobacco and wine is increased, consumption falls off. When the consumers have to pay more for an article and have to pay much more for it, the consumption must go back, and it is only during this abnormal war period with its greater and increased demand for these particular products, that the consumption can rise in spite of the taxation. But there can be no doubt that as soon as normal conditions return, the tobacco farmers will be hard hit. I do hope that the Minister of Agriculture will take care that this does not happen. He is the man who fixes the prices for the products of the farmer. But I want to put one question to the Minister of Finance: Is he able and prepared to give this House the assurance that the increased taxes on wine and tobacco are of a temporary nature only and that they will be abolished as soon as the war is over? The Minister will not and cannot promise that. The whole country has also understood the position to be that the higher tax will not apply to the war period only, but that it has come to stay. There are enormous war debts which will have to be repaid and in South Africa too the necessary reconstruction will have to take place after the war, and large amounts will be required for the so-called social security. For those reasons the higher tax will remain in force. Form the Government side we hear much talk about social security, although they do not possess an efficient and clear cut scheme. The tax on tobacco which is now being increased will no doubt detrimentally affect the tobacco farmers. Do you know what the total income of the tobacco farmers in South Africa amounts to? The gross income from tobacco amounts to £1,600,000. From that amount have to be deducted the wages and all overhead expenses; out of that amount provision has to be made for the payment of interest and the insurance against damage by hail, etc. And tobacco growing is a branch of agriculture which entails very high working expenses. Much manual labour is involved in it. What will be the net income of the tobacco farmers more or less? It will certainly not be more than approximately £750,000 and I believe that many hon. members do not realise that whilst the net receipts of all the tobacco farmers amount to £750,000, the Government collects £6,400,000 from the tax on tobacco. Light tobacco is taxed with 1s. 6d. per lb. The pipe tobacco is the tobacco which practically always causes the surplus and for which there is only a small home market. The co-operative stores are usually full with this kind of tobacco. But the Minister comes along and places another 6d. per lb. taxation on that tobacco. If that is going to be a permanent tax, then I am afraid that after the war we shall again be amassing tremendous surpluses in the near future. The farmers will then be faced with ruin. I can well understand the Minister saying that he has consulted the manufacturers and that they are satisfied. They have reason to be satisfied, for who is paying the tax? The consumers. The manufacturers simply increase their prices. But when a higher tax has to be laid on tobacco, why not take part of the profit which the tobacco manufacturer makes. We know that they are making enormous profits. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) said the other day when the cost-plus contracts were under discussion, that it appeared that one contract for £64,000 for supplying tobacco to the Defence Force—I take it that most of it was for cigarettes—had yielded a profit of £16,000 on that one contract over and above the profit to which the manufacturers were entitled and which the department was prepared to pay. They are compelled to repay that £16,000. Such are profits that are being made, in spite of the fact that it was found that the contract price was still below the wholesale price. Now we can understand that the tobacco manufacturers are satisfied. They simply put up the price and their large profits remain the same. But the farmers will be detrimentally affected, for under normal conditions the consumption must decline. Owing to that the farmers will perhaps have to limit their production again and then the manufacturers will again have an excuse for importing, free of taxation, tobacco from Rhodesia in accordance with the trade agreement concluded with Southern Rhodesia. Labour may be cheaper there and they will be able to make still bigger profits. We are entitled to demand that the state of insecurity at present prevailing in agriculture should be removed. We have the control of the control boards, but they offer no stability to the farmers. We do not want to abolish the boards, but we plead for reformed control boards, which will at last remove the abuses which still exist in regard to farming, the abuses of fluctuating prices and bad distribution. We have witnessed what happened in regard to potatoes when a maximum price was laid down without a minimum price being fixed. The farmer is not being protected against the speculator. This budget with its new taxes is certainly not designed to give more security and stability to the farming industry but on the contrary makes the future of those two branches of farming still more insecure.

I agree with all those members who have said that the Minister’s Budget has had a universally good reception throughout the country. I think the taxpayers realise that they are engaged in a war which has been forced on the freedom loving peoples of the world, and that it is their duty and their privilege to contribute to the cost of that war to the best of their ability, and that if they are called to make further sacrifices or contributions to carry on the war to a successful issue, the taxpayers of the country are willing and ready to do so. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) the other day, accused the Minister of being the greatest spendthrift Minister of all time. He said that he—the Minister-had dissipated and spent that great heritage of surpluses which this country had enjoyed before the war broke out, the Havenga surpluses. Well, my reply to that is: it is true that these surpluses had been spent, and that many more millions have been spent, and are being spent, in order to preserve and hold a greater heritage, and that is the heritage of the freedom of our country—the heritage of which the foundation stone was laid on the battlefields of Flanders, and our boys up North today are doing their best to maintain and hold that heritage on the battlefields of Libya and Tunisia. The large majority of the taxpayers feel that no sacrifice is too great—certainly no financial sacrifice—to maintain and hold that freedom which we so dearly won. I want to congratulate the Minister first of all on taking the firm stand which he has taken in connection with the fixed property profits tax. I know that there has been a great deal of criticism about this tax, there has been a great outcry about it, but I ask the Minister not to take any notice of that outcry or that criticism. It mostly comes from the land speculator element who hoped during the course of this war to “make snug,” the outcry comes from them because they see that opportunities are not given them to make excessive profits on land transactions. We know that this tax was imposed primarily to prevent inflation, and while it cannot be said that it has achieved that object entirely, I do say that it has had the effect of preventing inflation in a fairly marked degree. It is true that the tax has not yielded the amount anticipated.

Why not?

There are two reasons for that. The one was that the tax applies to properties acquired after the war broke out. That is to say, if a purchaser acquired a property after war broke out and subsequently sold such property, he would have to pay a certain tax. Now, most of the fixed property transactions that have gone through up to now, the large majority of them, are of properties that were acquired by the seller before the war broke out, and consequently this fixed property tax does not apply. The second reason why this tax has not yielded the anticipated amount is because of what one might call the “wholesale evasions” which are taking place.

Hear, hear.

I do not know whether the Minister and the authorities are aware of the extent of these evasions. I can assure the House they are considerable. There is no doubt about it that when one hits the pocket of the land speculator element, there are always people ready and willing to come to the rescue and to indulge in ways and means of evading and side-stepping taxation. That is what is going on in connection with this tax. That is one of the reasons why the tax has not yielded the amount anticipated. I can only ask the Minister to instruct the responsible officials to exercise the utmost vigilance in connection with the transactions which go through and on which the tax is payable under this particular Act. I know it is difficult, in fact almost impossible, to bring the culprits to book in cases of evasions. One can only ask that the authorities carefully scrutinise and investigate all transactions where the fixed property tax is payable and that the authorities will call for all details, documents and proofs, in order to ascertain what the real transactions were. I make this suggestion because I am not satisfied—by no means satisfied—that the real transactions are being disclosed. There are people today to whom an oath means nothing at all. In these fixed property transactions the seller and the purchaser have to make declarations as to the purchase price of the property, so that transfer duty can be paid, the profit assessed, and the tax collected. There is no doubt that these people—both seller and purchaser—do not hesitate for a moment to employ all sorts of subterfuges to evade the tax. It has been suggested that the tax should be removed and another tax imposed by way of additional transfer duty. This, say the objectors, would give the Government the amount they seek to collect. I am not in favour of such a suggestion but I put it to the Minister that the transfer duty tax which is assigned revenue belonging to the Provinces should be taken into review with a view to increasing the duty payable. The Provinces are crying out for more and more funds for hospitalisation, for health services and other purposes. Why not take the hint given by the interested persons—the land speculators—and why not increase our transfer duty and so give the Provinces some much-needed reserve.

And keep the Fixed Property Tax?

Yes, and keep the Fixed Property Tax in force. The revenue levied from the additional transfer duty must of course go to the Provinces for hospitals and health services. That will be a step in the right direction.

When business was suspended, I had just finished my remarks about the Fixed Property Profits Tax. I now want to say a word or two about the activities of what are known as Unit Certificate Trust Investment Companies. There are three companies at present carrying on business in Johannesburg. They are the Unit Certificates Trust Co., The Fixed Trust Investment and the Selected Unit Investment Trust Company. I do not wish to be understood to be questioning the financial stability of these institutions. As far as I know there is nothing at all wrong with their financial stability. I, myself, am owner of a few hundred subunits in one of these companies. But the aspect of their activities to which I wish to direct the attention is this: A trust company is registered with a directorate of perhaps four or five members of the public. This company then proceeds to buy a large number of shares in the various gold mining and industrial companies. A unit is made up of about five thousand or six thousand shares in about a dozen or fifteen of the best gold mining industrial concerns. These units are then cut up into a number of subunits and the latter are then subscribed for by the public. These activities are increasing by leaps and bounds. For instance, the Unit Certificates Trust Co. has already reached its forty-first unit, that is to say that roughly speaking that company has acquired and has disposed of, to various members of the public by way of sub-units, roughly 250,000 shares. No doubt the activities of the other companies are very much similar to those of the first-mentioned company, although perhaps not so large at present. The only point I wish to make is this: I hope the Minister will study and examine the ultimate result and effect on the policy, the profits, and the distribution of dividends of the various gold mining and industrial companies concerned. The four or five directors of one of these Trust Unit Companies can conceivably come along to a meeting of one of the large gold mining or industrial companies, armed with the voting power of possiby the majority of shares in that company, and this will enable them to dictate the policy of the old original company. Is it desirable, I ask, that the control of these various old established companies be concentrated in the hands of a few directors of these Unit Certificate Companies? Before I sit down, I just want to make one last appeal to my hon. friends on the opposite side in regard to the war situation, and, in doing so, I want to use sportsmen’s language: I want to speak as a sportsman to sportsmen. I think it was Napoleon who said that the English could be described as a nation of shopkeepers. I do not know how true that was when it was said, but I would say this, that if anyone described our South African nation as a nation of sportsmen, he would be coming very near the truth. I say this because we possess all those qualities and attributes of sportsmanship which are to be found in and are associated with a true sportsman, i.e., the attributes and qualities of fairplay, of loyalty to one’s team, of not hitting below the belt, of the ability to give and take, and so on. Now, I want our friends on the opposite side to regard our South African nation as a team which has entered for a great world contest. The trophy or prize we are competing for is world freedom, freedom of man’s soul, freedom of all those things which we hold dear. It is that very freedom that enables hon. members opposite to stand up in this House …

Don’t spoil a good speech.

It is that very freedom that enables hon. members opposite to stand up in this House and to vilify the great leader of our party, a man whom Lloyd George said was one of the foremost statesmen of our age, and a man who we all know to be the’ greatest Afrikaner of all time. This is the freedom we are fighting for.

Is Lloyd George a judge of Afrikanerdom?

Now, sir, I make my appeal on behalf of all those thousands and tens of thousands of Springboks, men and women, sons and daughters of our nation of sportsmen who have gone to the fields of Libya, Tunisia and elsewhere to fight for that freedom which enables and entitles those gentlemen to do this vilifying. In making my appeal I want to use the words of Mr. Churchill when he made his appeal to the French people on the eve of their capitulation to Germany. It will be remembered that Mr. Churchill said to the French people on that occasion: “If you can’t help, don’t hinder us.” That is all I ask of hon. members opposite: “If you can’t help us, if you do not want to play alongside us on the field, then play the game off the field. If you can’t help, us, don’t hinder us.”

We notice every day that the maize position is critical. It is so critical that a few days ago one could not buy a pound of maize in the constituency of the Minister of Agriculture. I want to ask the hon. Minister what he is doing to ameliorate the position? If the Minister should agree to meet the farmers half-way in regard to the expenses connected with the early drying of maize, the farmers will be in a position to solve the difficulty to a great extent, and much maize will be available in future. The early drying of maize means extra expenditure. With the price the farmers are receiving now for their maize it is impossible for them to incur that extra expenditure. The Minister has been asked here what the price of maize for the following year will be, but so far the Minister has refused to reply. It seems to me that the Minister has laid down a fixed total amount for the whole maize crop, and that he first has to see how much maize there is before he can figure out what price can be paid per bag. No consideration is given to the cost of production. There is only that fixed amount, and the farmers are supposed to be satisfied with it. If there is overproduction, the price will be based on the export price which will be obtained. The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) said here that the farmers wanted to have the price doubled. He also said that the price of land had doubled. Nobody expects to receive double the price for maize. It is possible that the price of land has gone up 100 per cent., but the hon. member knows what is going on. Speculators buy up farms; other people buy farms to invest their money, for they are afraid of the taxes, and in that way the price of land has been forced up. The Minister knows it, and the hon. member also knows that many things which the farmer requires to produce has risen to double their former price. The price of maize has not gone up 100 per cent. It has been pointed out that rentals have gone up, and the hon. member thereupon said that the maize farmers are not tenants. If he thinks so, he must be a stranger in Jerusalem. If he goes to the high veld, where maize is produced, he will find that 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the maize marketed there is produced by farmers who rent farms, or are share croppers, and not by the big maize farmers. The big maize farmers realise that it pays them better to feed their maize to their cattle. Thousands of morgen of mealies have been cut and turned into silo-fodder on the high veld. Those mealies could have been harvested, but the farmer reckons that it pays him better to sell milk, slaughter oxen and pigs. In consequence of the uneconomic price which the small farmer receives, we find that the position arises where our soil is going backwards and becomes exhausted. The soil cannot stand the rain and also not the drought, and because the soil is exhausted and the price of maize is so low, the farmer cannot afford to apply fertilisers. At the moment he cannot get them even if he is prepared to pay for it. The Minister will find that however normal a year may be, he will no longer get a big surplus of maize. The difficulty is that this problem will continually present itself unless he is prepared to make a thorough investigation into the maize industry and unless he sees to it, as he did in the case of the wheat farmers, that the maize farmers receive a reasonable price which will cover the cost of production. Why cannot the maize farmers be told that the price is going to be this or that, so that the maize farmer may know whether he can produce or not? If he sees that it will pay him, he will do everything in his power to produce. The Minister is perhaps only thinking of maize as such. He knows quite well that the shortage of maize is affecting the production of milk, the production of eggs, the production of meat and many other industries. Once the production of these products has fallen off it is very difficult to raise it again. We so to say lose a whole season through it. I do not want to state here what will be a paying price for maize and I am also not prepared to implore the Minister on my knees to improve matters. I do not want to beg him to do it. I only want to tell him that the maize problem is the country’s greatest problem and if the Minister wants to do something in the interests of the country, then he should investigate this question properly and see to it that the maize farmers are treated fairly and that their interests are not trifled with, as has been the case hitherto.

I was very happy to notice in the Budget that the Minister is giving an increased special allowance to orphanages. At the same time I want to draw his attention to the fact that if such allowance is paid through the Social Welfare Department, that Department should also have a certain amount of control in the management of these orphanages. In some cases the heads of orphanages are appointed because they are not fit for anything else, and quite a number of cases have been brought to light where the management of these orphanages has been something disgusting. I am also glad that the Minister has given a small increase in respect of health services. Anyone who has perused the Blue Book of the Commission which sat for the purpose of investigating the health and social conditions among natives in urban areas, will realise that that Report gives one cause for serious thought about the conditions prevailing among those natives. And I am glad that the Minister is seeing to it that more provision is being made for the health vote. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) said that no Finance Minister had ever hit the wine farmer harder than the present Minister, by increasing the excise. If it were true that the farmer had to pay the excise or that the consumption of brandy was decreasing because of the excise, there would be some point in what he said. But the farmer does not pay it. The consumer pays it and the sale of brandy is going up by leaps and bounds, not only because whisky is not imported, but also because the export of brandy is showing a big increase. I had a letter recently from New Zealand which said that for the first time in the knowledge of the writer South African brandy was sold on the New Zealand market, and was finding favour there. It shows that this so much maligned Commonwealth of Nations is even helping the poor wine farmer—although his spokesman here is opposed to the present regime. I should like some information about anti-waste. In Great Britain the Municipal Authorities undertake the anti-waste campaign; they sell at a certain price; the waste paper is sold to the mills and from reports I have had the mills sell it at an enormous profit to the public. In Great Britain the waste paper is collected and whatever price it produces is paid as a rebate towards local rates, and I would ask the Minister whether similar steps could not be taken here so that local rates might benefit by the waste collected in the various Municipalities and City Councils. I am very much worried about the position of returned soldiers—not so much the men who have a job to go to or the men who are qualified to take higher paid jobs but I am worried about the tens of thousands of men who before this war were low wage earners, but who now for the first time, through family allowances, have a living wage, and I am worried what is going to happen to these men. I want some information on the question whether the Planning Council possesses sufficient power to provide work for these men, and to give them a living rate of wage for themselves and their families, when they come back. They deserve our gratitude, and the country wants to know in plain facts what exactly the Government is going to do for these low wage earners who are today serving the country at the front. The man in the street today is also worried about these control boards. He is worried at the fact that the marketing position not only in Cape Town but elsewhere as well, has been proved to be most unsatisfactory. I have no personal knowledge, but it has been reported that in the last citrus season millions of oranges were destroyed again. I am not so enamoured either of the report of the Chairman of the Citrus Board in regard to the price at which they sold their oranges last year in South Africa. He mentions the average figure of 1s. 9d. per pocket. Well, I have never been able to buy oranges at that price here. The price on the Cape Town market to the consumer was anything from 2s. 9d. to 7s. per pocket. It is a disgrace in a country producing such a vital product at citrus, in a country where we have undernourishment, in a country where we find natives living in conditions of a squalor and poverty, and sections of our Europeans as well—I say it is a disgrace that in a civilised country we should still allow the destruction of food to go on in the way we are told it is going on here. If there is any difficulty about the distribution of food I feel confident that the Social Welfare Department which is in touch with various organisations, could to a great extent eliminate the difficulty of distribution, and see to it that these oranges reach the proper quarters where they are most needed. I cannot give a solution, but the matter is one which needs tackling. I say this, that this whole system of control boards, the way these boards function, what the powers are, and so on—all these matters need revision, otherwise the consumer will not be satisfied. We want the producer to get a fair price for his products but we do not want the consumer to be charged a price which is out of all proportion—the consumer should not be called upon to pay these impossible prices for these very necessary articles of food. I was also struck by what the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) said about the inequality of income tax; he referred to the divergent amounts paid in income tax by a number of people in receipt of incomes of £2,500 per year. There is a strong feeling, especially among professional men, that there is something wrong. They don’t mind paying their share, we all want to pay our share of the war expense, but the trouble is that they feel that there is an unequal distribution in respect of people who have the same rates of income.

This afternoon there is no need for me to speak about the importance of the agricultural industry. That is sufficiently known and it would simply mean that we would try to make a well-known matter still further known in this House. But still I want to quote here what the Prime Minister said a year ago when opening the Rosebank Agricultural Show—

But apart from the Prime Minister I want to quote another authority, viz. the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) who at the time was chairman of the Agricultural Union of the Winter Rainfall Area. He declared that the agricultural industry in our country was definitely not on a sound footing at the present time. The Minister of Lands on the same occasion spoke of the expectation he and others had that the position of the farmers would be better secured in the future than it was at the moment. But not only the prominent persons I have mentioned, but also the Planning Council in its Report mentioned it as follows—

This is sufficient proof that the basis of the industry is not healthy or permanent at present. But one of the members of the Planning Council in his minority report stated—

The Planning Council suggested that a committee should be appointed to solve the difficulties and Dr. Paul Evans for some reason or other was not satisfied with the proposed composition of the committee. He concluded his objection with the following words, referring to the agricultural industry—

I mention these few instances to prove that the Minister of Finance is certainly not correct in his assertion that the farming industry is so extremly flourishing. May I repeat what I already said in this House on a pervious occasion, namely that the wheat crop of the past year was a hopeless failure in my own constituency. This was due to nothing else but weather conditions over which the farmer has no control. And now, when the farmer cherished the hope that he would be able to square matters and would make up for the losses of last year, he is faced this year with a shortage of fertilisers. I may just say that somebody informed us yesterday, and he is a responsible person, that he recently received a letter from a young maize farmer who said that his maize crop was worth £900 some time ago. Somewhat later it was worth only £300 and now ten days ago, only £137. The person concerned stated that that farmer calculated the whole thing very carefully and that he was inclined to accept those figures. The maize farmer furthermore said that if it did not rain very soon, his maize crop would be worth £37. I mention these problems to complete the picture of the difficulties the farming community is faced with. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) mentioned the potato market. I do not want to dwell on that point again. We know that for a time it was a failure. In my own constituency where we have viticulture, the wine harvest is very small indeed, due to the vagaries of nature. You remember perhaps that during October and November last there was a strong east wind blowing. That wind not only caused damage to the vineyards but the farmers in the Western Province, and especially in the Paarl district, in many cases lost their entire plum crop. Such are the whims of nature of which the Secretary for Agriculture spoke when he said that it is an exception that nature is 100 per cent. kindly disposed towards the farmer. And now, after the wine farmer has had a poor yield, his industry has to pay £1,400,000 in order to carry that penny on every tot; and on top of that there are still people on the other side who talk about a tax on wines.

The farmer does not pay that tax.

I want to mention some further difficulties. I do not intend coming here with lamentations. I only mention facts. There is the difficulty of farm labour. I can testify that there actually are wheat farms further away from the town where a month ago not a single coloured labourer could be found on the farm. I want to give you an instance of the wages on the farms. I know the case of a man who had four coloured men on his farm during the past year. One of them joined up. According to the regulations he could have been stopped, but who wants to stop a man if he wants to go. There were thus three labourers left, and those three received three shillings per day and a free house. Then one of them came to give notice. The farmer offered him 3s. 6d. if he would stay and said that as the cost of living had gone up, he would give them all 6d. per day more if they would stay, That labourer went away and an investigation revealed that he went to work for the people who are sawing timber for the mines, and because the price of wood is so high those people are able to pay the coloured labourer 5s. 6d. per day, and they have to work from 8 in the morning until 5 in the afternoon. That means that the farmer has under present-day conditions to compete with those employers. But I specially want to say something about the fruit industry, and I have only got five minutes left in which to do it. I do not want to enumerate all the difficulties and troubles of the fruit farmer, but I want to start straight away with the inland marketing of fruit. I want to quote from a very useful broadcast talk which was given by nobody less than the Secretary for Agriculture. I think he put the matter very aptly and correctly. On the opening of the “Eat more fruit” campaign in 1941—exactly two years ago—the Secretary for Agriculture said—

That is how the Secretary for Agriculture put it and that is putting it very correctly. In amplification of what the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Brits) told the House the day before yesterday, I just want to say the following. When war broke out the Government called into being a Deciduous Fruit Board. Although the hon. member for Losberg said: “Down with the Board”, I want to ask the Minister: “Please don’t.” But I want to add that the hon. member for Losberg did not say: “Down with the Board under all circumstances.” He said that we should give proper representation on it to the Transvaal, and I fully agree with that. If it be necessary to expand the Fruit Board, so as to give it control over the fruit industry as a whole, then it will be essential that the Transvaal should at least be duly represented on it. But do not abolish the Board, although we may differ from its actions in some respect. May I just give an explanation of what the actual position is? The fruit which used to be exported in the past is the only fruit that is being controlled at present. It thus happens that the farmer—and I am one of them—who used to export part of his crop only, finds that only that part falls under the Fruit Board, and that he has to market the other part as well as he can. One-third of the fruit has to be packed in boxes and two-thirds go into the storage cellars of the Fruit Board at the price which they fix. I just want to say that the hon. member for Losberg was 100 per cent. correct when he said that the fruit growers in other parts of the country who are not exporters, feel that they are being unfairly treated. As the Fruit Board is unable to export, and we know it cannot export at present, it puts the fruit which would otherwise have been exported on the inland market, and in that way the other growers are, of course, placed in a very difficult position. I just want to add here that the hon. member for Losberg definitely was not correct when he stated that the deciduous fruit farmers are generally the well-to-do section of the farming population. I had the privilege of being a member of the Fruit Exchange for ten or twelve years, and I also was its chairman. I served on the Financial Committee of the Exchange, and I know what I am talking about. I can state that the export fruit farmers of the Western Province are certainly not the most prosperous ones. For the fruit that is being packed in boxes for the Deciduous Fruit Board the farmer receives a fixed price, and in regard to grapes the marketing of the Deciduous Fruit Board is such that they lose 2s. on every 10 lb. box. We feel somewhat sorry for the Minister of Agriculture in that respect. On the other hand, we are glad that the Department can now realise that if the marketing system is not changed radically, and if our inland trade is not restored, these fruit farmers will simply be ruined, for the State may be able to lose 2s. on a 10 lb. tray of grapes, but no farmer can lose it. In view of that, I am glad that the Department is suffering this loss, but I do hope that it will not continue suffering that loss. I just want to say still the following, if Mr. Speaker does not stop me. I have before me a list compiled by the Deciduous Fruit Board which went to the trouble of comparing the prices the farmers realised on the markets for their products and the ruling retail prices of those products. I cannot go into the details. I only want to say that the average profit in thirty of such cases which were investigated, amounted to 114 per cent. It varied between 30 per cent. and 372 per cent. in some cases. One hundred and fourteen per cent.! That may be the answer to the question why the farmers are complaining and why the consumers complain that they are paying too much and are rightly complaining. I just want to mention one more matter, and that concerns the fruit we get here in the dining room of the House. I do not know whom to blame for it; certainly not the Minister of Agriculture, but one cannot buy fruit here for less than 8d„ and if a man does not want to buy 8d. worth of fruit, the only thing one can do is to get a friend to share half of it. Why are we not able to buy 4d. worth of fruit?

If the hon. member has any representations to make in this connection he should make them to the committee concerned.

Then I shall leave it at that.

Before coming to the Minister of Agriculture I first should like to ask the Minister of Finance something. As far as I know the people who speculate on the share market, who speculate in gold shares, escape taxation. Take for instance Sir Ernest Oppenheimer. He is one of the big speculators in gold shares; he makes thousands and thousands of pounds and according to my information he does not pay income tax, nor super tax, nor excess profits tax. I think that the Minister of Finance needs just that money, and I do not think that he wants to encourage gambling, but in spite of that he does not tax this gambling. I shall be glad if he will tell me in his reply why the policy is being followed that these people need not pay taxation. Take for instance one of the gold mines, Western Reefs. Six months ago the shares stood at 35s. but now they have gone up to 55s., i.e. a rise of approximately 60 per cent. and such profit is not subject to taxation. I reckon that these people should be the first ones to be taxed. I now come to the maize question. The Minister of Agriculture last year announced a price of 15s. and I thought that meant the price at the elevator. We reckoned that that was a fair and reasonable price and that the farmers could come out on it, but in practice we found that the crop was only very small and that the price was not sufficient for the farmers. Some farmers who harvested a good crop made a profit, but generally speaking no profit was made on the crop. When I speak of maize prices, I mean prices without the bags, or in other words prices at the elevator. We, the farmers, feel that we do not yet know how high the price of bags may still go and we do not want to have anything to do with it either; we want to have a price for the contents of the bag and we want to have nothing to do with the bags. The Minister and his Department should see that we have the bags. When living in times like the present it is always desirable that a Government should lay down a definite policy. Take for instance the maize question. Last year we had a shortage and not a surplus and as soon as there is a shortage the price of an article should go up to its import value. The import value of maize was £1 7s. 6d. last year, but our farmers only got 15s., i.e., 12s. 6d. less than the import value. I therefore want to point out that the fixing of the price at 15s. was a protection for the consumer but not for the maize farmer. I now want to discuss this year’s position. I am prepared to admit that the maize farmers should be tied down to a certain extent and I am prepared to meet the consumer half way. In some years we have a surplus. We have already produced as much as 33 million bags. This year that will not be the case. We now have to lay down a certain basis. As soon as less than 24,000,000 bags are produced, there is a shortage in the country. We could now determine that the price of maize be fixed at 15s. per bag without the bag. For every 1,000,000 bags of maize produced less, the price to be increased by 6d. per bag, and for every 1,000,000 bags produced above the average the price to be 6d. per bag less. That would mean in other words that if the crop were for instance 23,000,000 bags, the price would be 15s., but as soon as it would be 22,000,000 bags it would fetch 15s. 6d. per bag and if the production should be only 21,000,000 bags, the price would be 16s. and so on. But if there is a surplus the price would be 6d. less for every million bags produced over 23,000,000 bags. I again want to point out that if the Minister had not fixed the price, the maize farmers would have received 27s. 6d.; so they lost 12s. 6d. But we are prepared to make concessions. There was a time when the export value of maize sank to 5s. 9d. In such a case the consumer has to help us and pay more than the export value, but that will be to the advantage of the consumer too, for if there is a rise in the export value, as is the case at present, he benefits by it. If that scheme were accepted, the maize farmers would know where they stand in future and I reckon that that is both desirable and fair. When the production costs rise, the price should be increased and when the cost of production falls, the price should come down. Then we shall know where we are. That is for the coming season. Let me say that all human beings make mistakes, but as soon as one sees that he has made a mistake, one should be man enough to make good that mistake. The Minister honestly thought that this price fixation of 15s. was a good one to the end of the season. The crop was, however, poor and no maize is left. We hear that the natives, the consumers, are, so to say, starving owing to the shortage of maize. The Minister can obtain maize, but he will have to pay more than 15s. for it. The farmers who now have maize standing on their land, maize which is ripe, but not yet dry, will not harvest it unless they receive something extra, for they know that there will again be a small crop next year, and they will not want to run the risk to harvest maize which is not quite dry during the present rainy season. That is too great a gamble and they run the risk of suffering losses, especially, too, since when the maize does not fluff properly, some grains will remain behind. In my own constituency a thousand or ten thousand bags of this season’s maize can be harvested, but then the Minister must put up the price and make it worth while. Otherwise the Minister will not get maize. I am worried about the consumers who are the best friends of the maize farmer. I do not want to see them die from starvation, for they are the market of the future. Otherwise we shall again have surpluses in future. What is to become of the poultry farmers, the dairy farmers, and the pig breeders? Those people are prepared to pay high prices today. As the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Egeland) pointed out, they are prepared to pay £3 per bag for maize, but the Minister is obstinate and does not want to meet us half way. I warn the Minister. I feel sorry for him, and I therefore warn him. When I told him at the time that he was not entitled to fix the price at 12s. 6d. because much damage might still be done to the crop, what did he reply? What is his reply today? I am glad he has changed his opinion. According to my opinion, the crop is not going to be more than 20,000,000 bags, but when the Minister is prepared to accept the basis I suggested, then the maize farmers will know what they can expect in future. They will support the Minister with their production, although they will not vote for him. I want to suggest that the Minister should meet their wishes at the moment, so that they will harvest maize of which the moisture content is still high. Tell them: I pay you 15s., plus 20 per cent., plus the difference which there may be between the present price and that of next season.

Plus what?

Pay them 20 per cent. on the moisture content basis, plus the price which he will receive during the coming season. Then the farmers will be prepared to harvest, but not before that. The Minister shakes his head. I want to warn him that the poultry farmers who are being annihilated and the dairy farmers who are being ruined, will come and settle accounts with the Minister. They are prepared to pay £1 5s. Give us a free market just for two months, and I shall be able to sell my maize for £2 and £3. The Minister does not want to give me the right to sell my products as I can. Why not? Because he thinks I shall be making too much money. We are prepared to sell at a reasonable price, but then the Minister should meet our wishes. If he does not accept my suggestions, then I wash my hands in innocence.

I want to submit to the Minister of Finance a proposal by which he may obtain a further means of taxation. It is pretty evident that the Fixed Property Profits Tax which also relates to immovable property, is not realising expectations. Whether or not the future will show any better result, I am not able to say, but what I do say to the Minister is this, that he should impose a duty upon the gross amount of the purchase price of immovable property. That certainly is a definite sum upon which he can make his estimate, and then he will know more or less where he is standing. I know that it was suggested by hon. members earlier in the debate, that the Minister might consider a war levy property tax, which would be equivalent to what I am suggesting, namely an increase in the transfer duty.

And keep the Fixed Property Profits Tax?

As to that, I am not suggesting anything, I am not over-optimistic about the proceeds of that tax myself, and therefore I say the Minister might consider taking the actual results of past dealings in property and basing his estimate upon an amount which is known to him over a number of years. I want to say that as far as the Cape is concerned, there is nothing new in an increase in the transfer duty. From 1884 to 1896 we paid 4 per cent.; it was then reduced to 2 per cent. and then we were put back to 4 per cent. from 1908 to 1913. I do not know what the effect may be in the other Provinces, because I do not know what they have been taught to expect. The figures as to property sales in the past were given by the Minister to the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). They were £43,000,000 in 1941—I am giving it in round figures—and £59,500,000 in 1942. It is evident that he would be able to collect upwards of £1,000,000 from that particular source. The next question I want to put to the Minister is in regard to a matter, about which I put a question on the 23rd of last month, and that is I suggested the exemption from estate and succession duty of the estates of men who have been killed or have died on active service. I am afraid I put my questions badly, and that the Minister did not quite understand that I do not ask for a limited exemption, I want total exemption. Moreover, I do not want to confine exemption to cases where children only are the beneficiaries, because there may be cases where parents, or even brothers and sisters, may be in need, and any benefit that may be resulting to them on the death of a soldier should be exempt. I do not think the State should derive any benefit from the estate of a man who has sacrificed his life in its defence, and I therefore appeal to the Minister to give this matter his attention. Although in his speech he said there is no intention to amend the Act of 1941, I appeal to him to reconsider the matter. Then, I want to refer to remarks made from time to time by members of the bench upon the need for legislation on obscure questions of law with which they are called upon to deal. The Minister of Justice is not here, but I hope that the matter will come to his notice. Whenever there is a case in which a judge thinks it necessary to draw attention to the need for legislation, I think the Minister should try and consider more seriously than perhaps we have done in the past, that these remarks would not have been made by the bench unless the judges consider that there is urgent need in the public interest for clarifying a legal difficulty. Because, after all is said and done, when these questions are left in doubt and where they are obscure, it is the public which is wasting thousands and thousands in litigation in order to get a clear interpretation. Where the highest court in the land, the Appellate Division, draws attention to a matter of that kind, remarks from the bench should be taken seriously into account. I want to refer to some remarks made by Mr. Justice Tindall, in a case reported in 1942, Estate Phillips v. Commissioner for Inland Revenue, on page 50 of South African Law Reports, Appellate Division, where he said—

When a judge makes a comment of this kind, I think it is necessary for the Minister to introduce legislation to deal with the matter. Some of these questions are creating the greatest doubt and difficulty in the minds of lawyers, and thousands of pounds are being spent in litigation.

I hardly think this question should be discussed on the budget debate.

Well, sir, may I just say, in conclusion, that I hope I have drawn sufficent attention to the matter, and I hope the Minister will give it due consideration.

I am very sorry that the Minister of Agriculture has not yet made a statement in regard to the maize position. During the debate little was said about it and we expected the Minister to make a statement. This year, more than ever before, the country has come to realise that maize is a very important food, because there is a shortage of maize. We read in the newspapers that the people, even in the Minister s own district, are no longer able to buy a pound of mealie meal. That is the position right through the country. There is a shortage of maize and maize products. I believe that the Minister, as the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) pointed out, is able to solve the problem. Part of the new crop is available but not at the price which the Minister is prepared to fix. There is quite a quantity of maize which can be harvested and prepared for the market, but then the Minister must understand the position of the maize farmers. Last year the maize farmers were satisfied. Last year no estimate of the size of the crop was made known and nobody knew what the actual position was, and the farmers felt satisfied with a price of 15s. Nobody knew what the crop actually amounted to. When they started harvesting the farmers found that the crop was still much smaller than they had expected. Thereafter the Minister came along and declared that the price for the crop of next year would be fixed at 12s. 6d. Even the hon. member for Ventersdorp identified himself with that and I do not blame him, for nobody knew what the future had in store. We all expected that the crop would be an abnormally large one, but that prospect was nullified by the drought in February. For that reason it has become necessary that the Minister should make a statement and tell the farmers what he intends doing to first of all alleviate the shortage in the country; is he prepared to give up the price of 12s. 6d. which we considered to be a preliminary price, and is he prepared to lend his ear to the request of the farmers for a higher price? If so, the farmers will be prepared to supply him with maize for the two months during which there will still be a shortage. Then we shall also know what the crop of the coming season will amount to. Four of five weeks ago the Minister told the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) that the maize farmers are satisfied and that only the hon. member himself is dissatisfied. I want to assure the Minister that the farmers are not satisfied. This year the Agricultural Union and Union Grain are also making estimates because last year no crop estimate was published by the Department of Agriculture, and it is already perfectly clear from the estimates drawn up by those bodies that there will not be a maize surplus this year, but rather a shortage. And to prove to the Minister that the farmers are not satisfied although he said they were, I have here quite a number of wires from farmers’ associations, which were sent to us and which of course were also sent to the Minister—quite apart from the resolutions of which we read in the Press; one of these resolutions was for instance passed in the Kroonstad constituency. Recently we had a conference of farmers’ associations at Vermaak. It was a mass gathering of maize farmers and at that meeting it became clear that the maize farmers had lost at least one third of their maize crop in that part of the Transvaal, and there are other parts of the country where the position is still worse. At that meeting the farmers decided to confirm a resolution passed by the Agricultural Union a few days before and in which the farmers asked that the price of maize should be fixed at 17s. 6d. per bag—the farmers decided to endorse that resolution of the Agricultural Union and to ask the Government to fix the price of maize at 17s. 6d. per bag. In this connection I want to express my agreement with the remarks of the hon. member for Ventersdorp in regard to the question of bags. The bag problem is a serious one today. There is a scarcity of bags. Last year we had difficulty in obtaining bags, but quite apart from that if we go today to a merchant or a shop to buy something we have to bring the empty bottle or tin or whatever it may be. The farmers have to buy their bags every year; they have to supply their wheat in bags and the consumer buys the wheat in the bag and afterwards again sells the bag to the farmers. Therefore the farmers insist on the price per bag being 17s. 6d. plus the price of the bag. We no longer want to be responsible for the bags; we think that the consumer should either pay the price of the bag, for after all it becomes his bag after he has bought it and he can again sell it, or should return the bags to the farmers. My request to the Minister is therefore to make a statement which will reassure the farmers and to tell us whether he is prepared to pay a price which will enable the farmers to recoup through the new crop the losses they suffered on last year’s crop. Tremendous losses are being incurred because no maize is available.

The Minister is fast asleep.

Today there are hundreds of poultry farmers who have to send their poultry to the market to be sold because they have no maize to feed their poultry with. There is not even sufficient for human consumption; there is not enough maize to feed the people. We know that maize is the only and most important food of the native population. They cannot do without maize. There is maize which could be brought on the market today if the Minister were only prepared to meet the farmers’ wishes. If a bag of maize is worth less than 17s. 6d. to the producer, then I do not know what it is worth to the consumer. To the consumer a bag of maize is worth 25s. The price of fowls, the price of eggs and the price of butter fully justify that price, and as I said at the beginning it is now clear or rather more clear than ever before that maize has become an important staple food in this country. It is a product without which the country cannot do any more. The country must have maize and whilst the maize is there the Minister wants to let the people such as the natives starve. Why should the farmers be compelled to sell their fowls and pigs today? Why is the Minister unwilling to help them? If the Minister expects that the farmers will sell their maize for 15s. per bag I am afraid that he will not get the maize, but if he fixes the price of maize at 17s. 6d. per bag, I can assure him that he will have sufficient maize on the market in future.

We have listened very carefully to all the speeches from the opposite side of the House, and while those members were talking, even when they were supporting these Estimates in broad outline, it appeared that each of them found fault with the taxation proposals in one way or another. Each of them appealed to the Minister to make a change here or make a change there, and I am afraid that if the Minister were to make all the changes he has been requested to make, nothing would remain of the taxation proposals. It only goes to show that discontent is prevailing throughout the country at the present time. We on this side of the House should like to support wholeheartedly this amendment which has been proposed by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). The reasons referred to therein, make us feel more convinced than ever that on the 4th September, 1939, we took the right course when we voted against participation in this war. At that time we wondered whither it would lead us, for we felt that we had a Government in power which certainly does not place South Africa first in this respect. But we never dreamt that even this Government would have landed us in the position we are in today—not even this Government. But what surprises us still more is that the Government is carrying on in a more foolish manner than ever before. At the present time we are still seeing how the war expenses increase from month to month, and that the things we undertake become increasingly bigger, and that it is continually demanding more and more from South Africa. I think this Government has surpassed itself in the attempts it has made to carry on the war. We have in South Africa a small European population of slightly more than 2,250,000. After all, it is only the Europeans that count when South Africa will have to be helped out of this state of chaos into which it has fallen. The Europeans will be responsible for this public debt. Now we find that this Government is today competing with other great countries of the world. We have a small European population, and our Government competes with great Powers. It sometimes reminds one of that saying of the frog and the ox, where the frog came to the ox, looked at it, and said: “I wish to inflate myself; I want to be as big as that ox.” It inflated itself, with extremely fatal results. I am afraid we are doing that today. We want to compete with and rival countries who today have populations of millions and millions. We should remember that we have only a small population. We are not half-way through the war yet, and today already we can see what the consequences are going to be for us in this country. There is hardly a single section of the population which is not already feeling those consequences. It appears from all the speeches that are made, even on the opposite side; it gleams from those speeches that everybody is feeling that the shoe is pinching already. There is not a single section of the population today, who is not feeling the consequences of these war expenses. It may be said that we could not expect anything else in time of war. When we consider the last war, if we think what that war of a few years’ duration cost us, and how long it took us to recover, I am afraid of the consequences of this war. At the present time already we have exceeded by far the expenses we incurred in the last war, and we know what the reaction was after the last war. When we take that into consideration, I am afraid of the consequences of this war. As I said at the outset, in all the speeches by hon. members on the opposite side, there are clear signs of dissatisfaction visible. They may try to explain it away to the best of their ability, but there is dissatisfaction, and that gleams from their speeches. If it goes like that in Parliament, where my hon. friends have the responsibility to support the Government, how much worse is that dissatisfaction presently existing among the people on the platteland? How much more intensely do they feel it? But the hon. members, of course, have the responsibility of supporting the Government, whatever they may do. I am afraid there is going to be a reaction. It is already beginning to show its head in the country. If the Government and the Minister of Finance want further proof that this is so, I should just like to refer them to the motion introduced during this Session by the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson). I should like to refer to what the Minister himself has done during this Session. He piloted the Interest Subsidy Act through the House; he has helped the people thus far, and now he feels it is necessary to help them for a further period of eight years. The farmers are worried about the future, and, although the Minister of Finance today has boasted of the farmers having paid back more than £3,000,000 of their debt to the State last year, we should like to assure the Minister that it is only mock prosperity prevailing in the country today. The farmers are worried about the position, and I need only refer to the motion introduced in this House itself. I am almost scared to talk about the matters affecting the Minister of Agriculture, but his shoulders are broad, and he just has to bear it. There is intense dissatisfaction throughout the country at the present time. That discontent is largely due to the control there is over the produce of the farmer today. I would at once say that we do not disapprove of control, but I think the Minister himself will admit, and I think his Department will admit, that the control that is being exercised, is not exercised in the best interests of the farmers. One defect we find is that when the prices of products rise, the Government immediately steps in and fixes maximum prices, but those very same products may fall in price until nothing remains of it, and yet the Minister will not intervene and say he is going to help the farmers. We also wish to protect the consumer, but at the same time we wish to see that where the farmers produce, and as the Government has appealed to the agricultural community to produce, that the farmers also are protected. We then would also ask the Government to protect the farmer so that his product will not be given away for a mere song when there is over production. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Agriculture whether he thinks it has been wise also to compete in the production of various agricultural products. We have already had the results of that. I do not wish to suggest that the Minister competed in the open market, but he competed with the farmers by the mere fact that he produced. I should like to ask him whether he cannot leave that to the farmers. The Government has appealed to the farmers to produce, and they have made a splendid response; they have produced to such good effect that there is no shortage in any respect today, except in the case of maize, and that is due to circumstances over which the farmers have had no control.

It is bad control.

Somebody here says it is bad control. I cannot refrain from saying a word or two with reference to the wool agreement that has been entered into. I cannot help saying that the Minister most certainly did not act in the best interests of the farmers when he entered into that agreement. The fault we find is that the Government has not taken firm action in the interests of the farmers. Take that wool agreement. We find that that agreement has been entered into on a loose footing, and the matter was settled last year only. The contract was drafted last year only—I think it was in March. The matter simply continued in the old manner; the Minister cannot deny that that agreement was at 10¾d. per lb. for our clip. It is not expressed in the contract, but the contract was signed in March of last year only. Had that contract been signed at the beginning when the contract was entered into, the Minister most certainly would have heard much more about it; but we only heard of it at the beginning of last year. Australia at least had the courage to approach the British Government and to tell them that the Australian farmers could not eke out on it, and I understand that the agreement between them at the present day still reads that they may make further representations to the British Government from time to time. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he also has taken steps to make representations to the British Government together with the Australian Government.

Do you think that extra 15 per cent. fell out of the blue?

No, I did not think it fell out of the blue, but I should like to point out that when the price in Australia was increased by 15 per cent. the price in South Africa was also increased. Is that not an admission that the South African farmer was entitled to an extra 15 per cent.? We feel that the action taken by the Government was not sufficiently firm, and that it has been left to the British Government to do as it thought fit. I am afraid my time has nearly expired, but I would conclude by expressing the hope that that amendment by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) will be accepted.

In spite of what members opposite have said, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his having managed to levy £9,000,000 extra to make up the necessary deficit, and without placing too heavy a burden on a single section of the people. Where the Minister has resorted to the use of the railways as a taxation machine in these abnormal times, I agree with him, but I cannot agree with him in discriminating between the different classes of passengers. I do not know why the natives and coloured people have been exempted. I would suggest here that a tax be imposed on third class tickets, but on a smaller scale. I would suggest that a tax of 22½ per cent. be imposed on first class tickets, 15 per cent. on second class tickets, and 7½ per cent. on third class tickets. Then I should like to suggest also that this tax be payable on free tickets also. Members of Parliament will then also be included. I should further like to say a word or two with reference to the excise duty. I am worried about the ever increasing tax on cigarettes and tobacco. I am afraid the consumption of these commodities will decrease, with a consequent restriction upon the production which would have very prejudicial consequences for a large section of the people, and especially the farmers of my district. I hope the Minister will keep a watchful eye on the position, lest things go too far. I should like also to say a word or two with reference to control boards. Much criticism has been levelled at the control boards of late, both in this House and outside. Much of that criticism has been justified, and I think the time has arrived for the Minister to have a thorough enquiry made into the administration of those boards. I say emphatically the administration of the boards. In many cases unfair criticism has been levelled at the boards in many ways on the part of interested parties, and here I should particularly like to mention the marketing and commission agents. We appreciate the services rendered to the farming industry by these people in the past, but now that the farmer has at last reached the stage of taking his own business in hand—the marketing and distribution of his products — we object to those people putting a spoke in our wheel at the present day. They are instigating a campaign throughout the country in opposition to that policy of control, and I say in all earnestness, that if we did not have control, however defective it may be, the farmer, and not only the farmer, but also the consumer, would have been in a very sorry plight. There is one fundamental principle embodied in that control, and that is to ensure a living price to the farmers for their products, and also to deliver those products to the consumer at the least cost. The man who is undermining that policy by criticism is acting to the detriment of both the farmer and the consumer, and they will square accounts with him. I should like to warn those hon. members in this House who are attacking the Control Boards, that they are saddling the wrong horse. I once again would request the Minister at this stage to have a thorough enquiry instituted into the administration of those Boards, to see whether the policy is applied in the proper manner.

I just want to say to the Minister of Finance that if he wants to take heed of the signs of the times, then he must only listen to the criticism on the Budget that comes from his own side. Then I just want to say this to the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie): He will still see a great deal of this difference between white and coloured, as for instance, the passengers on the railways, so long as that Minister is Minister of Finance. This is only the beginning, and if we continue with this alliance that we have accepted so keenly, then those hon. members will realise that this is only the beginning of the sorrows. I want to confine myself here more particularly to the Minister of Agriculture. We are quite prepared in this time to allow and to ensure a limitation of prices as regards our products, but then we want the hon. Minister, as Controller, to take into proper consideration the prevailing circumstances. We shall be satisfied if in our case also a cost-plus calculation will come into operation. But I fear that this very seldom comes into consideration when it concerns farming products. I want to remind the hon. Minister that after the last war there was a tremendous easing, and there will again be periods of easing in the future, and then it will be demanded of the farmers to regulate their prices in those circumstances. For that reason it is so utterly unfair to fix a maximum price only at this time, and not to ensure that things do not collapse underneath. We are convinced that a time will again come when the whole position will collapse. Millions of pounds are being spent today and blown into thin air, and the time will come when these millions will again have to be collected, and someone or other will have to pay for it. We have no objection to a limitation of prices, but then we want that limitation to have a reasonable minimum. Maximum prices have been fixed by the Minister, but he did not see to it that a remunerative minimum price was fixed. We want to give him the example of potatoes. If he had left those prices alone potatoes at a certain stage would obviously have risen to £2. I will admit that this is too high to the consumer. But if the farmer had received £2 for a certain period, and he now gets 5s., then he would have had a reasonable average price. He would have been able to balance his budget in one way or another. But now the Minister fixes a maximum price and he does not bother about what happens below. We have the instance of our mealies. The Minister went and fixed the price, and from the commencement we told the Minister that this price is too low. I am convinced that there are people in the Minister’s Department who have the necessary brains and the necessary knowledge of these conditions; I expected that they would advise the Minister. But what is the position that we have got? I am convinced that the Minister did not give his serious attention to this matter. We told him that this price which he fixed was too low. We raised objections to the way in which the Minister concluded the wool agreement. We on this side agitated, and members on the other side said: Thanks very much. What are the proofs that we have today? An increase of 20 per cent. has been allowed. That is a proof that we were right that the price was too low. I say the price is still too low. We had the phenomenon of Australia agitating for a higher price, but our Minister in South Africa sat still, and it was only because there was a linking-up in the contract that we got the increase. It was reasonable that we should have tried to obtain the benefit of any increase. It behoves us, however, to begin thinking now about what will happen after the war. It may be that for a year or two the prices will rise, and that they will then collapse. We know the circumstances that prevailed in the past, and we realise what the position in the future will be. Now we expect of our Minister that he will take this situation into consideration. We were prepared to have a fair and reasonable price fixed but then it must not be such as to be detrimental to our farmers in a period of rising prices, and then when prices decline the Government simply washes its hands. No, we want a position where the matter cuts both ways. If the farmer makes sacrifices, then the other sections of the community must also make sacrifices. Now take the position of the mealie farmer. The position is very difficult. If a restriction had not been put on the price then those prices would have soared to £2 and higher in the past year. There are also other products that must be used today by our stock farmers who want to feed their stock products, whose prices have not been fixed and which are now fetching tremendously high prices. Our price was fixed at 15s., and consequently the mealie farmers were the people who had to suffer the loss in this period. They had to suffer the loss of the difference between 15s. and the price of £2 that mealies would probably have fetched. If we dislocate the law of supply and demand and create an artificial position then we must know that we are building up the whole position artificially and on artificial conditions. You cannot have an artificial situation on the one hand, and on the other hand simply shrug your shoulders. If the farmer must make a sacrifice in these circumstances then the other section of the community must also be prepared to make sacrifices in other circumstances. When potatoes were 35s. per bag the Minister fixed the maximum price at 25s„ but when the price declined to 5s. he washed his hands in innocence. That is a most unfair and a most unreasonable attitude. We must be reasonable. We are in the position this year where we shall apparently get a crop that will provide only for normal consumption. The Minister is now going to fix the price. It is fair and reasonable that he should do so. We are prepared in these circumstances to visalise the position of the country and we want to be reasonable and to allow the Minister to fix the price. But then we say to the Minister that we want a price that is reasonable and that will not bring the farmer a loss. On the one hand we have the position that the mealie farmer has had a small crop and that production costs have soared tremendously—and the Minister has done precious little to exercise control as regards our production costs. We say that the Minister must take this price increase into consideration, and that he must give the farmer a reasonable price. What is a reasonable price? Represented by all parties, we tried outside this House to get into contact with the Minister to discuss the question with him. We have not yet been allowed in the circumstances to discuss the matter with him face to face. We do not know what the actual reason for it is, but I am convinced that such a discussion, aloof from party politics—because we do not want to drag our bread and butter into politics, and we want to keep it outside the mud of politics as far as possible—will enable us to come to an agreement. I am convinced that such a discussion will result in reasonableness on both sides, and will probably lead to an agreement. Unfortunately that discussion has not yet come. I do not know what the reason is why it cannot take place. Consequently we have now to touch on this matter with the Minister, and I want to tell the Minister again that if we have a crop of twenty-three million bags, then a price of 15s. per bag, without the bag, is a reasonable price, but nothing more than reasonable, and it must not be lower. I want to identify myself with the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) as regards the prices he mentioned here. My time has expired, but I would just like to touch on this point in connection with the farmer who has his own product milled. Formerly the farmer could mill free, but now the position has altered, and if we take a bag of mealies to the mill, then we get 180 lbs. of meal for 200 lbs. of mealies. The miller can take a portion of it for bran. The result is that the farmer in these circumstances suffers a loss. It is the man’s own product that is being milled, but yet the Minister demands that arrangement. We want a reasonable arrangement of matters, and we do not want the Department of Agriculture to be looked upon in the existing position as a Department that is drifting about aimlessly. We want them to take this position into thorough consideration. We particularly want the Minister to give his attention to distribution. There are today many serious complaints about this, also as regards the mealie producer. I have not time to show how many complaints there are that mealies are transported from one place to another, and then returned again. Where the position is now such, what will the position not be if there is again a surplus of a few million bags? We can imagine how lamentable the position will then be. If the Minister does not take the distribution of mealies into particular consideration, and in view of the complaints there already are on all sides of the House, then we can imagine what a lamentable position there will be in the country if there is again a surplus.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the members on the opposite side of the House, and a few on this side, I have no wail, no grouse. The Minister has come forward with new taxation, and, speaking as one of the Rand members, the backbone of the whole of South Africa, if I may put it so, as far as finance is concerned, I have recently been up there and have not heard many wails from them either. I think the Minister has been clever in again increasing the income tax, and again including the luxury tax. He is carrying out the regular United Party policy, making the rich man pay for the poor man, and helping to uplift the poor man. Mr. Speaker, I was very much impressed with the speech from this side of the House by the hon. member for Pretoria, East (Mr. Clark), who made an appeal to members on the opposite side of the House, to their sportsmanship, to co-operate in the war. Hon. gentlemen on this side of the House said he was possibly asking far too much. I remember speaking on a previous occasion and referring to some hon. gentleman on the opposite side as the Pied Piper of Hamelin, but Mr. Speaker, when I heard the lamentations and the protestations from the opposite side of the House when the hon. member for Pretoria, East, was appealing to them for their co-operation in this war, when I heard the undertone over there, it made me think that the description I had used was wrong, and it was not a case of the Pied Piper of Hamelin I should have referred to, but the Paid Piper of Hamburg. I think that is a better term to use. All those protestations we have had from the opposite side, asking us to pull out of the war, and also to break with Russia, to my mind is a case, putting it in a few plain words, of the Paid Piper of Hamburg speaking.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. gentleman interjects over there. Surely he does not think that I referred to him as the Pied Piper. If the hon. gentleman will remember the story, there were lots of rats and mice that followed the Pied Piper. I certainly did not refer to the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) as the Pied Piper. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Minister of Finance for recognising the Governor General’s Fund, and agreeing to contribute pound for pound. I want to tell him that it is a very, very fine gesture on his part. I want to remind him that the good soldier and the good dependant have always looked upon the Governor General’s Fund as charity. Now, at last, we have got the Government recognising it, and we will find that those good soldiers and good dependants will now come along and put in their claims. It shows also that the Government recognises that today it is the dependants who are the ones to be looked after. In the future, when the war is over, it will be the soldier himself who will have to be looked after, and the Government has given a pledge that they will look after the soldier. Before I leave the Governor General’s Fund, may I whisper one word of warning into the Minister’s ear? It is being said in the towns and in the rural areas, for that matter, that some of these inspectors who are making investigations for the fund, are not as discreet an sympathetic as they might be. They have gone into different homes and made suggestions to claimants that they might sell this or that piece of furniture and this or that ornament. Sir, we must remember that the Governor General’s Fund was inaugurated to try and keep up the standard of living that the family enjoyed before the soldier joined up. These inspectors must be more discreet. I have not much time at my disposal, but I can quote the Minister numerous cases of people being refused assistance for paltry reasons. Now I want to appeal on behalf of the single man who has an indigent parent in receipt of an invalidity pension. The Pensions Department have a ridiculous schedule—excuse me for putting it in that language—in terms of which they consider that a man who can support a parent should be in receipt of a minimum salary of £17 per month. I have never struck anything more ridiculous from a practical point of view. I have no grouse so far as civilians as concerned; if our Pensions Department is prepared to allow a man to be earning up to £17 a month before they think he can support a parent, I have nothing to say. But when a man joins the army he draws 3s. 6d. a day. He may have given up a position worth £17 a month, but he is now getting £5 5s. a month in the army, and he allots half his army pay to his indigent mother or father to qualify for a separate allowance. What does our Pensions Department then come along and do? The man gets his parent this small allowance, and then the Pensions Department takes the invalidity pension away from them. This is detracting to a very great extent from recruiting, it is stopping numerous young men from joining the army, men who are breaking their hearts to join, and breaking their necks to get into the army. I do feel that this is a matter which the Minister should take up. I am sorry the Minister of Labour is not in his seat at the present time, because I have something to say about his Department’s treatment of the returned soldier. We have a Civil Re-employment Board under the chairmanship of the Minister of Native Affairs. That is a very fine body, and doing a fine job of work in looking after the soldiers interests. But my grouse against the Minister of Labour is this. The Government’s policy is that no man will be discharged from the army until such time as he has a job found for him, and the Army Re-employment Board is not the body who has to find the man a job. That is the Labour Department’s job, and sir, there is no co-operation today between the Labour Department and the Employment Board. What happens is this. You find that a man for discharge is sent to the main dispersal depot in Pretoria, where he is interviewed by a civilian labour employment officier. This officer finds out all the details about the man, what work is suitable for him, and then if he finds the man is from Cape Town or Port Elizabeth, he is sent to a sub-dispersal depot nearest his home town. Under a scheme inaugurated by the Defence Department at the request of the Army Re-employment Board, subdispersal depot have been established at various centres to help the Labour Department in finding work for returned soldiers. Various employment officers at Pretoria, Johannesburg, Cape Town, Bloemfontein, East London and Port Elizabeth, as well as some senior officers in the Labour Department, are deliberately sabotaging the efforts of the Government to find work for the returned soldier. They are doing it in a way which is very simple indeed. What happens is that a certain firm may want a man, and they have a preference for a returned soldier. They might want a clerk at £40 a month, and you will find that possibly a poor white or a tailor or a boot-maker is sent by that employment officier, and naturally the soldier is returned as unsuitable. Another one is sent, and he is just as bad. But immediately afterwards the firm is told that there is no suitable soldier on the books, but the employment officer says: “There is a very fine friend of ours who is a well-qualified clerk, but who is a civilian.” This man has never been in the army, never would fight to help his country, and that man gets the plum job. The soldiers today are seething with discontent as far as the employment officers in the Labour Department are concerned. I appeal to the Minister to pull the wool from his eyes. The Minister has been noted as being the chief questioner as far as the whole country is concerned, he is regarded as No. 1. Commerce and industry have received so many questionnaires from his Department that today they are fed up. I suggest in all sincerity that the Minister should apply a questionnaire to his own Department. I know he is sincere, and will do everything he can for the returned soldier, and I suggest that he pokes his nose into his own Department very thoroughly, and sees whether he cannot get them to carry out the policy of the Government. The whole country knows that the Labour Department seethes with anti-Government officials. The reason is, all the loyal men have joined the army, the Minister has allowed them to go, and today terrific powers are being left in the hands of the present disloyal staff, who are busy spreading dissatisfaction amongst returned soldiers, and are doing it very effectively too. Our labour employment officers have to deal with both soldiers and civilians, and I think it is wrong. This is where the break-down is occurring. I suggest that he should start a separate returned soldiers’ section in his Department. He has loyal men there who are at present in the army. As I speak now, two names flash through my mind of men who are both senior officials in the Department. They are in the army, and are at present in South Africa. God forbid that any of the present disloyal civilian staff should control this new section. Either of the two senior officials I am thinking of, would be eminently suitable to run this new soldiers’ re-employment section. These men could be called, and it would be in the interests of the soldiers to have them controlling such a section. There is a big job of work to be done to place these returned men in employment, and there will be a bigger job to face when the war is over. The sooner the Minister starts something of the kind I have suggested, the sooner will he do a fine service for the country and for our fighting boys.

It is a peculiar position we have here. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) stood up, and his first words were: I want to congratulate the Minister. But his whole speech was nothing but complaints and criticisms. Now we have again had the Captain of Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth). He began with an eulogy, and he ended by exercising criticism. If the Minister of Finance listens to all the criticism on his side of the House then he must realise that conditions are truly deplorable. I have not, however, risen to speak about the criticism that has come from the other side, but to sympathise with the Prime Minister. I know he is a busy man, and if the Prime Minister should get as much trouble with the work of the Minister of Agriculture as the poor member of Parliament gets as a result of it, then I feel sorry for him. I have here in my hand a pile of papers and it seems as if I shall have to get a private secretary to deal with all the difficulties in connection with the work of the Minister of Agriculture. I do not want to detain the House long, but I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that a large part of the country is faced today by a position of starvation. The Minister may perhaps say that I am exaggerating, but I shall give proof of what I am saying here—that that danger actually exists. When war was declared we said that the Government was plunging the country into a war without making the least provision for all the requirements of the country. We were plunged into the war, and the Government did not make the least plan to put the agriculturist into a proper position as regards his production. We hear of a shortage of mealies, and about the difficulties of the farmer, and about increased production costs, but this Government knew that the farmers of South Africa in this country of ours with its poor soil cannot produce unless provision is made for fertilisers. What is the position today? Our farmers are falling over one another to obtain fertilisers. If we ask 20 or 30 tons then we get 2 tons or 3 tons or 5 tons. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture what the position of South Africa is going to be in the future. What is the position going to be if our land becomes increasingly exhausted? And that simply because the Minister was shortsighted and did not make provision for the necessary fertiliser. The Minister and his Departement knew that South Africa did not have its own shipping, and in the days when shipping was plentiful they should have tried to ensure an accumulation of fertiliser for a number of years. They did not do so. And now the position is that we get letters and telegrams by the dozen to draw our attention to the deplorable condition in connection with fertiliser in our country. I am not going to quote all the letters I have received, but I will just read out a telegram that I received this morning from the farmers’ association in my constituency—

I can go on quoting letters, a dozen if you will. What are the conditions? Last week there was not a single bag of mealies obtainable in Rouxville. Our district is sparsely populated, the farmers have to ride far to the town, and last week there was not a bag of mealie meal to be bought in Rouxville. In Zastron last week there was also not a bag to be bought. The farmers now have to dismiss their labourers. They cannot do it, because it is now the time to sow our winter crops. What must they do? I went to the Minister and laid a specific case before him, and he said that he would see that the farmer received a permit. I saw the secretary of the Maize Control Board and he promised me that the farmer would receive a permit for 40 bags. The matter has been pending for months. Here I have in my hands the permit which the farmer has sent back. I do not want to tell the House what the man said I could do with the permit. But the man expected 40 bags, he has big farming activities. What was allowed him for the month? — 360 lbs. of mealies. He can do absolutely nothing with it. In our area farmers have now in a large part of the constituency resorted to giving the natives wheat meal. We imagine that there is a great quantity of wheat. You will find out shortly that there is a shortage. What is four million or five million bags if the farmers begin feeding their natives wheat? I could still have sympathised with the Minister if the starvation situation developed while he could do nothing about it. But while these deplorable conditions were developing the Minister permitted supplies in our country to be wasted. While we could not get mealies for our servants in Rouxville, where farmers had to travel 20 and 30 and 40 miles to the town and back without being able to buy a single bag of mealies, without a pound of mealie meal being obtainable, a special call was sent from Bloemfontein to Zastron Station, and special buses were sent to Zastron Station, to transport the mealies of Zastron, mealies of the Free State, over the boundary to Basutoland. That, while not a single bag of mealies was obtainable for our farmers. While we cannot buy our people a spoonful of mealies, you can step over the boundary into Basutoland and there you can buy white mealie meal and wheat meal as much as your heart desires, and that as a result of the export of our mealies. Our farmers are being left in the lurch, and are being told that there is no mealies. If there is something that is a veritable scandal in our country then it is that the Minister allowed the product of the Union, that we need for our own use at this stage, to be exported from our country. Our own people are suffering hunger, but the mealies were exported to Basutoland. If there was a shortage of mealies in Basutoland I would not be so merciless as to say that we should not send them food, but when potatoes were sold in Cape Town for 2s. 6d. and 3s. per bag, thousands of bags of mealies were being sent out of the Free State to Basutoland. Surely the Minister could at least have made a plan, he could have made a contract with the Imperial Government, if he had used his brains, to sell the surplus potatoes to Basutoland. Then they could have lived there and the farmers of the Free State and the Transvaal would have had mealies and would not have been in the position in which they are today. I now want to ask the Minister what his intention is? Must the matter just go on like this, must the farmers in the Southern Free State just dismiss their natives? Does the Minister realise what the position is? At the end of last year we in the Southern Free State had a devastating hailstorm that caused thousands of pounds of damage. I approached the Minister of Agriculture for help, and he gave a certain measure of help, but as soon as he came in touch with a little official who said that the help was not necessary, the Minister attacked me and said: “You are crying wolf, while there is no danger.” I hoped and trusted throughout the whole Session that the Minister would attack me in connection with the matter. Then I would have quoted letters to show what the actual position is. But when there was one little magistrate who said that the help was not necessary the Minister got a fright, and the farmers remain in the lurch. The hail caused tremendous damage, and a large group of farmers could not pay their interest because they did not get a crop. I can prove it. Now they are without food. In addition, the mealies were destroyed by frost, and a large part of the country requires help, requires mealies for their own consumption. There were meagre supplies, even though the crop failed last year, and they struggled along with these, but now a position of emergency has arisen in the South-Eastern Free State. Today the natives are fed partially on green mealies because there is no other way out. The farmers are in distress. They have to let their servants go, or in one way or another have to try to obtain mealies. You know, Mr. Speaker, what the position is. Early in the season there was a small supply after a crop failure, then the shops and businesses got a certain quota of mealies. Now, at the end of the season, after the farmers have used up their own supplies, the quota to the traders has been brought down to one-ninth. I have here a letter from a trader to whom 28 bags were allotted. This month he got a permit for three bags. There are two shops in the town, and there is a location of more than 500 natives, apart from a large number of poor whites who also eat mealie meal. I have had no report from the other shop, but if it also gets three bags, then it means that six bags of mealies will be available for the month for the 500 natives and for the poor whites and for all the native servants in the area. Is that not an impossible position? We do not want to be unfair. If there is no mealies, then the Minister can do nothing about it. But the Minister got up here some time ago and said that we had unfortunately supplied 200,000 bags to Rhodesia, but that nobody could have foretold at the time that there would be a shortage. The Minister said that he did not know this at the time. But he knows it today, and three weeks ago a special gang of workers were sent from Bloemfontein to the station at Zastron to convey the mealies stored there to Basutoland. We cannot neglect to protest against this, and I demand that the Minister should at least assist the South-Eastern Free State. We cannot go on like this. There is starvation.

I think anyone with a spark of humanitarian feeling will welcome the Government’s decision to provide one meal per day for needy school children.

They are providing it.

One could be also enthusiastic about this scheme, but for the fact that it has obviously impressed some people as being a first step towards social security. At least one hon. member of this House made the remark that it was going a long way towards social security. I hope the Minister at any rate does not share that view, and is not asking the country to believe that this scheme bears any relationship whatever to a scheme for social security because the fact of the matter is that it does not bear any such relationship. The scheme is nothing less than poor relief, and putting it at its best it is generous poor relief. At the same time if it is poor relief it is charity, and the very foundation of social security is that it is insurance for which the beneficiary has himself to an extent contributed. It is the very antithesis to charity in any form. And this scheme, while it meets a very urgent and pressing need, and will be welcomed for that reason, should not be magnified and misinterpreted as being an instalment of any social security scheme. How it can be said to be related to such a scheme is difficult to understand when it does not meet any of the considerations on which social security is founded. It is not going to help the breadwinner to earn a sufficient wage to meet the necessities of life. It is not going to enable the breadwinner to face the future with a reasonable measure of confidence and not be in dread of what the future may hold. One could say that of a very substantial increase in old age pensions, one could say that of a scheme of family allowances, although they only cover one aspect of social security—but none the less they would be interpreted as an instalment, but that does not apply to a scheme to provide children with a very urgently needed one meal per day. That is not social security. Now, it is right to say, I think one is entitled to say, that the very fact that there is nothing reflected in this Budget which is at the very least a first instalment towards social security is nothing less than disappointing. It shows on the part of the Minister a want of foresight. It shows an inability to interpret what has caught hold of the imagination of the whole country—and it has caught hold of the country’s imagination, because there is in it every justification and there is in it an urgency which no Government can deny, and no Government can reasonably fail to recognise. When the whole country has allowed this movement to become crystallised into a demand it knows what it wants and it wants nothing less than social security—and now the Minister has come forward without anything savouring of a suggestion of social security either for today or tomorrow. I welcome the decision to supplement the Governor General’s Fund on a £ for £ basis, but I think that, too, illustrates a want of foresight. The fact that the Government did not anticipate that our soldiers would not be prepared to see in the Governor General’s Fund other than a charitable institution shows a want of foresight, and the Government would have been wise if it had introduced this scheme a year ago, or even before that. I am not very much concerned whether the soldiers’ view was justified—whether they were right in thinking that when they were sent to the Governor General’s Fund they were sent to a charitable institution. I am not concerned whether they were justified or not in that view, but that is their view. Now, I want to say a word on the question of food control. If we had had a food controller functioning as a food controller should, this scheme for meals for children would have come into force long ago. I make no reflection on the Minister who today discharges the functions of food controller. Any Minister placed in the same position would be faced with the same difficulty because they are fundamental to the situation. But the policy of the food controller’s responsibility should be that he is to see that the food resources of the country, such as they are, are made available to the widest possible circle and that under no circumstances must food be destroyed. But if the food controller has at the same time to concern himself with the interest of the producer, the farmer, and in the case of certain foods, with the millers and others, there is necessarily set up a conflict which no Minister attempting to discharge those multiple functions can avoid, and I say that even now there is a pressing need for a food controller entirely independent of a Government Department, and certainly independent of the multiplicity of boards from which we are today suffering. Now I want to say a word about the special grants board which was created last year in terms of the War Pensions Act which we passed. I rather imagine that many members saw in the proposed board a board which would meet the cases of men who applied for pensions and would be met with some legal and technical difficulty. The board would come to the rescue of some men and would see that justice would nevertheless be done. I understood that the board was set up to meet such cases brought before it. One’s experience is, however, that the board is serving as a device—I say this with some reluctance—to permit the Treasury io escape its responsibilites. Men are encouraged to make application to this board, and by far the majority of cases which end up in being successful receive a grant, not an annual grant, but a fixed sum of a very limited amount. I want to quote a case in point. I know of a man who lost a leg, completely in war service, and he was given a grant of £24. Not £24 per year, which would have been bad enough in itself, but a lump sum of £24 payable at £2 per month. Now I look at this Budget not only to see the figures in it, but to see what the spirit is behind it. I look at the Budget to see whether it foreshadows some substantial change such as we are looking for in the post-war period, and I fail to see it. The Minister has said that it may be regarded as a drastic Budget. It is far from a drastic Budget. But it should be. If it were a drastic Budget it should serve those needs which are so pressing. Before I conclude I want to throw out two suggestions to the Minister, as to the direction in which he might be able to pick up some revenue. I think the Minister would have been well advised to have increased the tax on cheques. That would serve not only the purpose of increasing his revenue, but it would discourage the practice which is prevalent today, largely I think among housewives, of using cheques for very small household accounts—and I think it would be particularly advisable to discourage that practice in view of the paper shortage and for other reasons. Then another suggestion I want to make is that there should be a tax on luxury meals. I think it is entirely wrong that there should be in the same community men and women who can go to a select restaurant and pay excessive prices for food when the vast majority of the people are in dire need of the bare necessities for sustenance.

The Minister of Railways and Harbours devoted a large part of his speech to his new policy of promotion in the Railway Service which he wants to follow in future. I do not want to go into that this afternoon. I hope that we shall get another opportunity of discussing this, but I want to go into the financial position of the railways. The Minister of Finance is busy taxing every source he can find to tax. He has now gone so far as to tax the railways. In order to defray increasing war expenditure he is now going to tax the railways with the approval of the Minister of Railways, and that while the Minister of Railways is boasting that he has great surpluses. He has one surplus after another, and he prides himself on having achieved new records practically every week. The railway revenue has risen to almost £900,000 per week, and the Minister expects to reach the £1,000,000 mark. Those are records that were never attained in the past, extraordinary revenue. The Minister prides himself on the fact that this has been achieved, and at the same time he boasts that the railways have made a contribution to the war that is very remarkable. He boasts that the Railways are an important link in connection with the war effort. I find fault with the Minister that where today he has this great revenue he does not use the revenue to make the railways safe for the future. We know that railway revenue is extremely sensitive to economic fluctuation, and the least depression that comes causes railway revenue to drop tremendously. We had an instance in the depression of 1932, when the revenue of the railways dropped to £25,250,000. Today the revenue is almost £50,000,000, practically twice as much as in the depression year of 1932. Thus in periods of prosperity and welfare revenue soars, and in times of depression, as soon as a setback occurs, it drops tremendously. The Minister expects that there will be a depression after the war, that difficulties will come. In his Budget speech he indicated that some such thing must be expected. Now, one would expect that the Minister would follow a wise policy, that he would ensure that the railway finances are made strong and sound, so that when the depression comes they would be able to withstand the shock. But this Minister uses the railways as a war machine, uses the railways to promote the war. He should take every possible step to strengthen the finances, so that in time of depression it will not be necessary to cut salaries. I would like to refer to a few things that the Minister mentioned. He told us that in the year 1941 no fewer than 1,098 special trains ran for the transport of soldiers, and that in 1942 the number of trains that ran for this purpose was 1,466, and he said that the transport on behalf of the Department of Defence accounted for the enormous loss of almost £1,500,000 in nine months. He calls this remarkable. On that follows the peculiar statement that if the traffic increases, and he must choose between civil transport and military transport, he will give preference to military transport. In other words, he admits openly that the railways are being used as a war machine. I would have thought that the Minister as a business man and as a member of the party which in the past perpetually emphasised that the railways are a business undertaking, that he would ensure that the railways are actually used as a business undertaking. But he does not do this. He allows the Minister of Finance to levy taxation on railway travellers. Another important thing that the Minister does not bear in mind is this: Approximately £60,000,000 is invested in rolling stock for the railways, in passenger coaches, goods trucks, and locomotives. It appears from the report of the General Manager and from the report of the Auditor-General that locomotives are now being used which should long since have been deposited on the scrap heap, but because the stock cannot be imported, the Administration uses the old stock to keep the traffic going. Unfortunately I have not the latest figures, but I will just make a comparison with the figures I have. In the last year before the war £3,700,000 was spent in purchasing locomotives, and in the first year of the war the amount dropped to £500,000. The Minister shields behind the fact that he cannot buy locomotives today. We urged in the past that he should equip the workshops in such a way that we can manufacture our own locomotives. Today armament is being manufactured in the workshops, which proves that we could have manufactured locomotives if we had arranged for this. Then it would not be necessary to send millions out of the country every year for the purchase of locomotives. But the Minister hides behind the fact that he cannot buy. As regards trucks, it appears that in the last year before the war a sum om £4,100,000 was spent on new trucks and wagons, but in the first war year the amount dropped to £1,150,000. Trucks are built in our workshops, but today armament is being manufactured there, and the Minister says that he cannot get new rolling stock. The General Manager said in his report that the Railway workshops are used for war purposes, and because the workers are engaged in that they cannot keep our rolling stock in proper condition. You can see signs of decay in any compartment. Reparation work is not being seen to at all. The Minister will say: I shall try to struggle through and repair the passenger coaches, and when the war is over I shall do that work. The renewals-repairs funds stand at £7.000,000. You find that those funds are not being strengthened to make provision for the depreciation that is taking place. The traffic on the Railways today is enormous, and I declare that those funds are not strong enough today to restore the depreciation that is taking place. The Minister should not boast of surpluses; he should make these funds stronger. Many admissions came from his side that the Railways are contributing to the war effort. Others think that the Railways are not doing enough and the Minister defends himself against these people who say that the Railways do too little for the war effort. It is a remarkable admission. We know that the hon. friends who sit behind the Minister will let the Railways sacrifice everything for this war. They want to see the war through and they do not care what conditions prevail on the Railways so long as they see the war through. The hon. Minister should warn his friends that as a result of the war position he will lose millions of pounds at a later date: The Minister allows the Railways to be used as a taxing machine, and that shows that pressure is being brought to bear on him. I say that the Minister is busy losing millions of pounds today which he might have collected to make the Railways financially sound. I want to ask the hon. Minister how he can allow the Minister of Finance to tax the Railways. The Minister knows as well as I do that this taxation which the Minister of Finance has levied is in conflict with the Act of Union. We had the heftiest opposition in the past when the old Nationalist Party did anything on the Railways that they considered to be contrary to business principles. When ’he old Nationalist Party decided to take on European labourers on the Railways there were hefty objections. We were heftily attacked and we were told that non-European labour was cheapest and that the Railways must be run on business lines. Those European labourers were called “white loafers” and it was said that they were the cause of the accidents which took place. The Nationalist Party was heftily attacked because it departed from that principle of running Railways on business lines. It surprises me that the Minister lodged no protest against this tax which the Minister of Finance is levying. The first-class and second-class passenger is being taxed, but the third-class passenger is exempted. The mines import hundreds of thousands of natives from the native territories. If a taxation of 10 per cent. was levied on third-class tickets then this would have yielded an extra income of £100,000 per year. The business man and the farmer must pay this tax, but the mines are exempted. That is what it comes down to. The tariff reserve fund now stands at £7,000,000. He considers £10,000,000 adequate to ensure that in time of depression there shall not be a decrease in salaries. On salaries and wages a sum of £22,000,000 is being paid out. The interest paid by the Railways amounts to more than £6,000,000. That gives a total amount of more than £28,000,000. That is what is being paid out in salaries and wages and interest. In the 1932 depression the total revenue of the Railways was only £25,250,000. What guarantee has the Minister that the revenue of the Railways will not again drop to £25,250,000 when we get another depression. If this happens, then the Minister can realise for himself that this small amount of £10,000,000 in the reserve fund will not be adequate. He will be obliged to act as did die S.A.P. Government in 1921-1922. He will be compelled to cut salaries and wages. I say that if the Minister does not strengthen these funds, and if depression again overwhelms us, he will again have to do as was done in the past, namely to cut salaries drastically. Mr. Burton also used the Railways in the interests of a war effort. He also made all sorts of promises to the workers that their salaries would not be touched. But what happened? In 1921—’22 the substantive wage scale of all grades in the Railways was decreased and a sum of £1,380,000 was saved. The war allowance was taken away, and there an amount of £2,898,272 was saved. In 1922, when the living costs were higher than during the war period, the Minister was compelled to take away the war allowances, and those people had to do with less than they got during a period when the living costs were not so high. The Railway staff in 1921—’22 was decreased from 93,664 to 76,404, thus by 17,260. Those people rendered loyal service during the war to the Railways, and thereafter they were dismissed. 17,260 were dismissed and thrown on the labour market in a period in which there was wide-spread unemployment. They were thrown on the street. I mention these facts to warn the Minister that he is again heading for such a state of affairs. In 1921—’22, 300 mechanical artisans were paid off, and thereby an amount of £391,000 was saved. I just want to indicate in what a serious position the Railways were at the time. The Railways were even obliged to increase the rent of Railway houses, and thereby a sum of £44,000 was saved. In the mechanical department short time was introduced and thereby £150,000 was saved. On May 5, 1923, no fewer than 3,250 out of 5,384 mechanics worked short time. Their working hours were reduced to 35 hours per week. The European labourers on the Railways—there were only 4,704—were reduced by one-third, and cheap native labour was taken on in their place. These drastic economies took place as a result of the depression after the war. After this war there will assuredly be another depression. Then where will the workers land? After all this destruction we in South Africa shall get a depression, and the whole world will get it. I want to ask the Minister, now that there is an opportunity, to strengthen his reserve funds and not to use the Railways as a taxation machine. In connection with the policy that is being followed of paying off European labourers, I will just refer to something that to me is disquieting. The number of nonEuropeans on the Railways is increasing while the number of European labourers is decreasing. When the old Nationalist Party came into power this was also the position, and they altered the position. The number of European labourers was then increased and the number of non-Europeans was decreased. Now one finds again that the number of non-Europeans on the Railways is increasing and that the European labourers are being decreased. The Railways are again going to be made black. I now want to quote from the Minister’s Budget Speech. He used these words—

I have no objection to him protecting the non-Europeans. But listen to what the Minister says further—

We thus expect that the Government is going to make a statement in connection with the matter—

He states further—

What is the Minister going to do now? He now says that work which is today carried out by graded European staff can be done by non-Europeans, and he mentions even ticket examiners and clerks on stations. He is of the opinion that non-Europeans can supersede the non-European staff as ticket examiners. When I read this statement of the Minister, then it seems to me that we are going back to the old conditions under which Europeans were pushed out by non-Europeans. We propose a segregation policy, and the standpoint of the previous Government was that there must be reserves for the natives, and that in those reserves the natives would have their rights. We have no objection that natives should occupy clerical positions in those areas where there are only natives, but in areas where there are Europeans only Europeans must occupy these posts. If the standpoint of the Government has altered, and it is now the Government’s policy to appoint non-Europeans as ticket examiners on trains, or to appoint non-Europeans as clerks at the stations, then this side of the House will lodge the strongest protest against it. It is no excuse for the Minister to say that these non-Europeans will serve only non-Europeans. It is the thin end of the wedge. We have non-Europeans on the trains today who sell beds. We say that that occupation belongs to the European. In South Africa Europeans ought to do that work. Non-Europeans can do it in the reserves, but not here. I want to warn the Minister that if he persists in this he will get the strongest opposition from this side of the House. Another disquieting phenomenon is this, that the Minister now wants a native trade union on the railways. The same Minister who killed Spoorbond—or who is busy killing Spoorbond—the same Minister is today prepared to recognise a native trade union. In other words, the Afrikaner who built up a great trade union and who was proud of that trade union, is being obstructed, while the Minister wants to recognise a native trade union. The Minister has himself admitted that the members of Spoorbond have given loyal service to the Administration. He gave them the greatest praise. The same Minister whose object it now is to kill that trade union now says that he is prepared to recognise a native trade union. I say now that after this departure from the policy of previous Governments, which the Minister is proposing today, he will get the heftiest opposition from this side of the House. The Minister is busy today developing his harbours on a great scale. During the past three years a sum of £11,000,000 was spent on capital account. While we are having these great surpluses we are busy borrowing and sending up our interest account. Before long we shall be paying £7,000,000 in interest. We are proceeding every year in spending unproductive money; the interest account is becoming bigger and bigger. Before the war the harbours always worked at a loss, and after the war, when the Mediterranean Sea is again open, they will work at a loss again. It is only now that the harbours are yielding a profit. The millions of pounds that are being spent in accordance with war measures on great harbour works in Cape Town, Durban, Port Elizabeth and East London is unproductive debt that the users of the railways will have to pay. Dry docks are being built; that is capital expenditure, and after the war those works will no longer be necessary. I have said on a previous occasion that our harbour facilities are sufficient for shipping around the Cape in normal times, but that work is continued with the exclusive purpose of promoting the war effort. The railways are being plunged into debt, and when the war is over the railway officials will have to pay for it all. The Minister is using the railways today as a war taxation machine. It is a prostitution of the Act of Union, and it violates the principle of running the railways on business lines. The very people who say that this expenditure must be made in the interest of the war effort will protest the strongest when the depression comes and a portion of national money is taken to pay a portion of the salaries and wages of railway workers and for the purpose of buying rolling stock. Today, however, they are using the railways as a war taxation machine exclusively in the interests of the Empire.

For years the Wool Council has been busy persuading the wool growers of South Africa to assume statutory powers to place the wool industry under the Market Act; the establishment of a wool factory has been linked up with this in the past. If they succeed in that attempt it will mean that our wool industry will be placed under the Marketing Act. I just want to say that the Control Boards in South Africa are not too popular, to say the least of it. They have been put there to deal with products used here in South Africa, but with wool the position is totally different. We have to do here with a product that must be sold overseas. I am quite satisfied that after this war we should obtain the co-operation of other wool-producing countries. I would go so far as to say that I agree with what has been suggested in a debate in the British House of Lords. I quote here from a newspaper cutting of 9th March, 1943—

I would like to suggest to the Minister that that co-operation should be sought, and, as suggested here, we should keep account of all the consuming countries. It is today perhaps not so much the case as before the war, but after the war wool will definitely have to compete with artificial wool and artificial silk. We do not know what is happening in Germany regarding artificial wool and artificial silk. The same applies to Italy and Japan, and to countries of the world which have been occupied. We shall have to compete, and therefore I hope that the Minister will be very careful before he gives his approval that our wool should be placed under control. There is a strong feeling with some that this will be done. As regards the wool factory, we may make a success of it as long as the war lasts, but I feel that a great deal is ventured in establishing a wool factory after the war. Before the war countries such as Austria and France and Germany caused an investigation of the position in South Africa, with the object of erecting a wool factory here, and they just dropped the matter, and I think that where they could not undertake it, it would be venturing a great deal if we tried it. Then I just want to say something in connection with the mohair industry. As a result of the fact that there is no purchasing scheme, and as a result of the fact that there is no shipping space, the mohair industry is in a different position to wool. Two years ago the Minister of Agriculture formulated a scheme under which the farmers could get an advance on their mohair. The Department fixed a very adequate price, and, although the farmers did not make use of the advance, it immediately fixed and stabilised the price and the farmers could then sell at that level. Unfortunately the position today is that the position has again become acute, and I want to urge the Minister to call that mohair scheme into life again, and that he should increase the price fixed at that time by 20 per cent. I feel convinced that if we had shipping space today there would be no difficulty in disposing of our mohair at a very good price. My time is unfortunately very restricted. I just want to say something briefly about the Budget, however. There was very little reaction to be seen on the other side, but what I did notice is this: When the Minister announced a 15 per cent. increase in income tax, there was a fair amount of whistling on the other side. It appeared to me that there was a chance for the Minister to climb into the pockets of hon. members on the other side. We are also sensitive when the Minister takes money from our pockets, but I just want to say to the Minister that I feel that he has introduced a very well-balanced Budget here. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) said here that there are only two sections who will welcome the Budget. He said that the mines and the coloureds and natives would welcome the Budget, the mines because their taxation had been increased by only 2½ per cent., and the coloureds and natives because they would not be taxed on their railway tickets. But the argument that the taxation on the mines is increased by only 2½ per cent. is a false argument. When some time ago the taxation was increased from 9½ per cent. to 11½ per cent., it was also said that there was only an increase of 2 per cent. That is not at all the case. The present taxation is not increased by 2 per cent., but there is an increase of 12½ per cent. Then the report of the chairman of the Citrus Control Board has been criticised in this House. I have no time to go into this, but I would just like to say this, that if the hon. member who criticised that report had read the report carefully he would have a totally different opinion regarding the matter.

I would like to raise my voice against this budget, particularly because we look upon it as a reprehensible waste of public money. We on this side have introduced certain amendments, and we are going to support those amendments for the reasons already mentioned. The time at my disposal does not permit me to deal with the various amendments, and therefore I will confine myself to one or two facts. In the first place we must take into consideration that we have a small European population of no more than 2 millions. In 3½ years we have spent more than £400,000,000. If we assume that a family consists of 5 persons, then you can calculate that every head of a family in the country is already saddled with a sum of £1,000. Where is this going to end if the war lasts much longer? War expenditure will of course increase progressively, as we have seen during the past 3½ years. It may easily happen that every family head in the country will be made responsible for an amount of anything from £1,500 to £2,000. Then we ask: Whither are we going if we plunge down the abyss head-over-heels in the economic sphere? It is impossible to go on like this. We must insist on the Government, and especially on the Minister of Finance, to formulate plans to decrease those expenses, because it has been proved here time and again that there is a reprehensible wastage of public money. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) declares in his amendment that the Government has neglected to submit a positive policy to the House for the solution of the social and economic problems of the country. In connection with this, I want to emphasise that the economic and social problems of the country can be solved by further development. I want to support the hon. member for Pretoria, West (Mr. Wallach) regarding the appeal he made to the Government to make money available for the development of base metals. In my constituency any kind is to be found, but the Government remains neglectful as regards assistance to those people to develop those base metals. We have there extensive chromium and asbestos mines, but there are many other things awaiting development, but support from the State department remains in abeyance. The amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) refers to the native policy. There is no doubt that in the agricultural sphere we are today retrogressing more and more. There are not enough workers on the farms. On my own farm 5 natives have been recruited, and that notwithstanding the fact that I tried to keep them there and went to the magistrate and generally did all I could. They have left without my permission. The magistrate wrote on my behalf to the Department, and the reply was that they were sorry but the natives were no longer there and that I had to make the best of it. Agriculture is being put back in this way and is being harmed more and more. As regards the amendment of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), which I would like to support, Mr. Speaker has ruled out the word “unholy”. We must take into consideration that we are perpetually told that we are fighting for Christianity. Russia does not acknowledge Divinity, and the saying goes that a man shall he known by his friends. If the Government has an alliance with Russia then we cannot describe it as otherwise than as an unholy alliance, an alliance that we should terminate as speedily as possible because we cannot allow that our people, who are a Christian people, and where it is said that we are fighting for Christianity, should go with such an unholy combination. I want to refer to a few other points. I am sorry the Minister of Lands is not here, because I wanted to direct a few words to him about irrigation. For many years we have been making representations here in Parliament about irrigation and the conservation of water. My district is crisscrossed by rivers that carry the water to the sea if they are not dammed up. We had a short drought, and if the necessary provision for water had existed, the people’s crops would not have dried up. The Minister’s reply is that he is busy with greater schemes. The Minister is busy with a scheme to put the whole Free State under water. But while he is busy working out his scheme he neglects the smaller schemes in the other districts, such as Middelburg and Lydenburg. Small dams that can see the people through in the meantime can be made there. Then I just want to direct a few words to the Minister of Agriculture. There is a shortage of food, particularly mealies. But the Minister of Agriculture is going to be the cause of there also being a shortage of wheat. This is being used as poultry feed. The people did not want to do away with all their poultry and pigs, and they are using wheat as poultry feed.

Only as poultry feed.

Every wheat farmer retains 12 or 20 bags of wheat for his own use. That wheat is now being partly fed to poultry. Further, that farmer has not the right to have the wheat milled as he wants it. The result is wastage. He will not use the wheat as it is milled. He will sift it himself again and again, and more wheat is wasted in that way than the Minister thinks. Allow the farmer who produces wheat himself to mill the wheat as he wants it, and not according to prescription. He has worked for it, and has the right to use it as he likes. Another point is this. I have made representations to the Minister of Agriculture and his Department regarding lamsiekte. We want bonemeal, but because Lydenburg has not been declared a lamsiekte area we cannot get bonemeal. It is alleged that all lamsiekte areas can receive a certain quantity of bonemeal. I have consulted the Extension Officer and he states that there is a large portion of the district subject to lamsiekte, particularly on the Highveld when it is dry. I know of one farmer who has lost no fewer than six head of cattle from lamsiekte. I am sorry that I have not more time because I would have liked to speak further on mealie meal in my area, where there is a shortage. I think that the position has already been emphasised, however, and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will ensure that the difficulties are solved.

Before I come to the Minister of Finance and his excellent Budget, I want to make the statement that in my opinion we have a very weak Cabinet indeed. Because Cabinet Ministers take more notice of back benchers on the Opposition than of members on this side of the House.

And so they should.

When we declared war on the 4 th September, 1939, the people of this country said that they would give their last sixpence in the effort to win this war. The Minister of Finance has followed them on that promise. People said they would give until it hurts but now that it is really hurting we have a plethora of complaints. But the Minister is insistent on preserving certain forms of taxation, and I want to make a few remarks in regard to his methods of taxation, and in doing so I want to support the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Friedlander) in his plea to the Minister to make some alteration in the fixed property sales tax. During the last twelve months—I am speaking subject to correction—about £59,000,000 worth of property has changed hands. The Minister has realised a very small amount by way of tax. The hon. member for Wynberg has suggetsed that the Minister should consider the question of raising the transfer duty from to 2 per cent. to 4 per cent. I believe that this matter was also raised last Session, but I don’t think the Minister gave his reasons why this could not be done. But I want to support the hon. member for Wynberg. I think it is an excellent suggestion and I hope in his reply the Minister of Finance will give his reasons why this should not be done. There is another question which is worrying me, and that is the question of land speculation which is taking place in the Transvaal. I want to draw the Government’s attention to this fact—to the fact that many people are not paying …

Tax evasion.

No, it is not tax evasion, because the hon. member cannot prove that these people are evading the tax, but what I am concerned about is that there are individuals in Johannesburg who are speculating in farms. It is within my own ken—and I know one man in particular—whose earnings are roughly £30,000 per year net. That man has now bought his eighteenth farm, and that is for the purpose of speculation. I don’t blame him for doing so. It is the system which allows him to do so, but I say that a system which allows him to do so is a bad system, and I want to draw Government attention to this fact. The House will realise that if capitalists who have spare money are allowed to indulge in such speculation, it will have a serious effect on the internal economy of South Africa in that land which should be producing crops is lying idle, and it will ultimately reflect itself by way of reduced agricultural products. I hope the Minister will express his opinion on this when he replies to the House and that he will tell us what the Government intends doing to stop this land speculation. I have constructive criticism to offer, but being a back bencher—one who is accustomed to the lowest form of Parliamentary life—Cabinet Ministers would not take much notice of what I and others on the back benches say.

What hypocrisy.

Why emphasise the obvious.

My complaint is that Ministers take far too much notice of back benchers on that side of the House. Oh, yes, we have talent on this side of the House which is not recognised.

One can’t find it.

Another matter which I want to say a few words about is the tax on cigarettes and tobacco. It is an excellent tax and I was amazed to realise how much the Minister is going to get out of it. The thought occurred to me that the Minister in framing his tax did not take into consideration the tenets of the Atlantic Charter, nor of the Bloemfontein Charter, in that the public was promised that the gap between the rich man and the poor man would be narrowed down. Again speaking subject to correction, the Minister of Finance may know something about the United Tobacco Co.—a very powerful concern. Now, the general manager of that concern—I am again speaking subject to correction—earns, I believe, £14,000 per year. I know that by way of ordinary tax and super tax he will pay something like £7,000 but my point is this, that if we are going to narrow the gap between the rich man and the poor man surely such an individual could come out on a mere pittance of say £3,000 per year. In other words, I hope the Minister will tell us what he thinks of placing a ceiling on salaries. The view has been expressed on this side of the House that such a ceiling should be set.

It has also been said from this side of the House.

Oh, yes, hon. members there occasionally have their bright moments, though not very often. I would have liked to have said a few words on various other subjects.

On double salaries for instance.

The hon. member who interrupted should be the very last to talk about that I would have liked to have raised a number of other matters, but I shall avail myself of the opportunity during the Committee stage. Before I sit down I want to say that there is a very strong feeling among returned soldiers that the Government should give some opportunity to discharged soldiers to obtain an agricultural training. The Government has by way of general policy closed all agricultural colleges, and I know that the only way in which discharged soldiers can obtain any land is to apply under Clause 11. But when the soldier comes to apply he may be told that he has not got the necessary training to go farming, and so his application would be turned down. Will the Minister consider placing a large enough amount on he Estimates to open up a few of the agricultural colleges to give the necessary training to discharged soldiers, so that when the time comes to distribute land these men shall have the necessary training.

Before commencing on my remarks upon the Budget, I want to say that I think the system of the allocation of time to members at least on the Government side of the House could be very much improved, and I think the sooner the Whips come together and devise a new scheme …

Perhaps the hon. member will make representations to his own Whips.

I was only drawing the attention of this House to the unfair allocation which exists.

You are wasting your time.

With regard to the Budget, I notice in the “Eastern Province Herald” that their representative had interviewed leading commercial men and industrialists who have expressed satisfaction with the Budget, and expressed the opinion that it was quite fair in such abnormal times as those which we are going through now. And practically all of them indicated that they had no cause to complain. Now I am quite sure that some of my hon. friends opposite will say: “Oh, yes; it is all right for these people; they are big men, the employers. It does not press hard on them.” And they will take up the same attitude as some have done in the speeches when they have said that the Budget presses heavily on the poor man. Now, I fail to see how that can be substantiated in actual fact. After all is said and done, the only things which are generally consumed by the poor man, which are taxed today are tobacco, cigarettes, spirits and beer. Those can hardly be considered necessaries of life. It is quite optional on the poor man himself whether he consumes any of these commodities or not. He will continue just as well along the road of life if he does not indulge in any of these commodities. But, in any case, the tax on these commodities is so small that if a person cuts his cigarettes down by one per day he would be in pocket. If a person cuts down on one tot of spirits per day, or one pint of beer, he would also be in pocket, and the Minister of Finance in all probability would be out in his calculations. I fail to see that my hon. friends on the other side have made good their claim that this Budget presses heavily on the poor man, and they will certainly have to make very much stronger points than they have done to make the poor man on the platteland believe what they say. Now, I want to compliment the Minister and the Government generally for their contributions to the Governor General’s Fund, and for removing the stigma of charity from it. I know quite a few people in my constituency whose circumstances would warrant them obtaining relief from the Governor General’s Fund, but due to the fact that they feel that they would be accepting charity they have not availed themselves up to the present of the services and the finance which this fund could give them. But I feel that with the Government’s contribution to this fund it may have the effect of every soldier and his dependants coming to the fund for that assistance which they are entitled to. Then another little matter I want to refer to is the remarks which have emanated from the other side with regard to the Minister of Justice not taking sufficient preventive measures regarding Communism. He has been taken to task, that he is not preventing the spread of Communism, and he was told that if he had taken stronger measures, I suppose such as imprisonment and even deportation, it would have had the effect of preventing the spread of this particular ideology. Now, I venture to say that that is not the correct way of looking at this question. If severe preventive measures are taken by the Minister, what will be the effect? It will be driven underground, and personally I think that it can become very much more dangerous if driven underground than if it is kept above the Surface. What actually is required is to remove conditions which encourage Communism among certain classes of our people, and the only way in which you can eradicate the conditions in which Communism can thrive is by giving people a living wage, by providing a living wage for every man and woman who wishes to work. If that is done, Communism is as dead as Nazism will be in the near future. I heard a remark just now when the previous speaker, Mr. Klopper, was on his feet, from the other side with regard to double salaries. Now, in the ordinary way one does not take very much notice of the jeers of hon. members opposite, in regard to double salaries, because one treats remarks of that nature with the contempt they deserve. But I feel that I can speak on this subject because on two occasions I have offered my services free of remuneration. Unfortunately those services have not been accepted. Possibly they were too cheap. But there are members on this side of the House who are in receipt of double salaries when the House is not in Session, and some hon. members opposite are apt to forget this point. Those members do not draw a double salary when the House is in Session. Only when the House rises and when they perform a job for which they receive the extra salary—only then do they draw this alleged double salary. And let me tell hon. members that some of these hon. members have given up their businesses to enable them to take up military service, and to do something for their country and help win the war, and I say that the labourer is worthy of his hire. And while one does not take much notice of the average jeer from the other side I was amazed last Wednesday to hear the Leader of the Afrikaner Party (Mr. Conroy) indulge in the same class of jeering at members on this side of the House for receiving double salaries. There is an old English saying that people living in glass houses should not throw stones. And I would say that the hon. member who spoke on that occasion lives in a very much more exposed glass house in regard to a double salary than any other hon. member here. And what is more, his method of getting that is different from the others because he receives his double salary whether the House is in Session or out of Session—and I am not in a position to say what he does for it. But I do think it is regrettable—very regrettable—that any hon. member should besmirch another hon. member in this House for doing something which he himself is doing. I always feelt that if ever there was a case of the pot calling the kettle black it was the other day when the hon. member jeered at some hon. members on this side of the House.

Amen!

I have been limited to ten minutes and I think my time is up. I only want to say that I had intended dealing with the Deciduous Fruit Board and the Citrus Fruit Board. I also had some remarks to make on free meals in schools, but it is impossible for me to attempt to deal with these matters in the time at my disposal, but I hope I shall be able to get in in the Committe stage and advance some ideas on these subjects.

The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Klopper) who complained that the Minister is apparently taking more notice of the Opposition benches than of the other side of the House, apparently forgets that the Minister has a sound judgment on the crticism that is exercised, and he appreciates the criticism of the Opposition. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, District (Mr. Hayward) who so welcomed this budget. Some hon. members on the other side will not want to admit it, but the taxation policy in this budget is directed more specifically against the man with the small salary, the less privileged man. The big people who can pay taxation do not pay what they ought to pay. I want to come immediately to the terrible taxation that the Minister has levied on brandy and beer. With one thing I agree, and that is that he has now gone far in the direction of equalising the excise on imported spirits with the excise that we have to pay here. Hitherto 37s. 6d. was paid on whisky while we paid 72s. 6d. on brandy; now the Minister comes with 67s. 6d. on whisky nearer to brandy. I fear, however, that the same may perhaps happen that happened after the last war. Then there was a Minister who put 2s. 6d. on whisky and took it away again after the whisky trade had brought pressure to bear, and after he had yielded to the ring. But to think that this year £1,350,000 extra taxation is being levied just on brandy, and £650,000 on beer, both commodities that are manufactured locally, is terrible. An hon. member there said that a man who smokes, but smokes one cigarette a day less, need not pay any more in taxation. On that basis the same can be said of a man who can take a drink less. Then the Minister will import less. But what we object to is the principle that the taxation on a product of the land is five times or six times as high as the sum which the farmer gets for the product. That is unsound. We must not forget that the poor man has not many privileges and not much pleasure, and, while I admit that there are some people who smoke too much and some people who drink too much, a tot of brandy will not harm a man after a day’s hard work. This terrible increase in the taxation is unsound. The poor man will feel it most. Then I come to the tobacco tax. The Minister said that when an additional amount of £300,000 was levied on tobacco last year, it had no reaction on the business, that it did very little harm to the business. Therefore the Minister considers he can put on 100 per cent. more, and take out £600,000 in taxation. There again we have a product from which thousands made a living. In addition, a great additional tax is being imposed on cigarettes. These are all products of the land that are being taxed so heavily. They are referred to as luxury articles, but gold is not taxed in the same measure. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, District said that gold is taxed 22½ per cent. higher, but this is yet not 100 per cent. Furthermore, the poor man is affected if he wants to write a letter. The poor people will now have to stop their correspondence or put a halfpenny more on a letter or postcard, and the Minister expects that this will yield £350,000. Telephone calls are increased by 12½ per cent. These are all things that press heavily on the poor man. And then we come to the worst of all, the 15 per cent. on Railway tickets that cost more than 10s. I want to ask hon. members on the other side if they think it is fair to discriminate in this way between the Platteland and the cities. A man who takes a first-class ticket from Paarl or Wellington to Cape Town will not be taxed, but anyone who lives at little farther off will have to pay an additional 15 per cent. every-time he goes to the city for business or for shopping. Is that fair? Can it be justified? It cannot be defended. On the Platteland the less prvileged people who have to travel by train now and again will suffer. They have no motors that they can use. They must travel by train and pay 15 per cent. extra. This will affect the people in the interior, the public officials and farmers and business people who go to the coast perhaps once a year for a little change of air, for their health. It is a considerable amount if they have to pay 15 per cent. more on tickets from Pretoria or Johannesburg or the Northern Transvaal to Cape Town, or Durban or East London. The man who can pay will continue to travel, but the poor man will no longer have that opportunity. Then we come to the additional £15,000 on sugar.

There is no increase in the excise on sugar. No increase in the scale.

Then it is not as bad as I thought. Then I just want to say a few words regarding the Deciduous Fruit Exchange. Our markets are in a chaotic state. The Deciduous Fruit Exchange has obtained control over fruit, over export grapes and other fruit, and they promised when they obtained control that they would open more than 240 markets in the country for fruit. Today fruit is delivered to Johannesburg and Durban, one day 15,000 boxes to Johannesburg and the following day 14,000 to Durban, but the small markets are not developed. Only the big markets are over-supplied, and the farmer gets less for his fruit than he ought to get. In addition to that the consumer still has to pay terribly high prices. But the Government pays 1½d. on packed grapes. The position is chaotic and drastic steps ought to be taken to rectify the marketing problem. My time has expired and I hope to revert to this later.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a good deal in this House about Controllers, and I think we now have a Controller of speeches as our time is very limited. I want to say, before I criticise a particular item of taxation, that I am one of a large number of people in South Africa who greatly appreciate the magnificent work of the Minister of Finance during the war period. He has conducted the finances of the country under very difficult conditions. However, the present Budget to my mind is not without blemish, and I think the Minister of Finance will agree with me in this respect. I wish, in the limited time at my disposal, to confine myself to a matter concerning which I have some degree of knowledge, and that is the railway passengers’ tax. I can only, in the circumstances, state my objections to the tax without elaborating them or arguing in respect of each point. In the first place, the most important objection, to my mind, is that it is contrary to the Act of Union. If a legal opinion states that it is not contrary to the letter of the Act of Union, well and good, but as I understand the purpose of that Act, I consider that the measure proposed is contrary to its spirit. In the second place, the proposed tax introduces a most undesirable precedent in connection with the finances of the Railway Administration in relation to the Central Exchequer. We are imposing a tax upon railway travel today, the principle of which may operate in future in the reverse direction, and the Railway Administration may, in my opinion, be entitled to call upon the Central Exchequer to assist railway finances in time of need. The Minister, in his Budget speech, said he wanted to ease the passenger traffic on the railways. I wish to suggest to the Minister that this is the particular function of the Minister in charge of that Department. The tax itself is discriminatory as between railway users and non-railway users. If it is necessary and legal to impose a tax on railway business, surely it would then be possible to tax goods traffic of the luxury class, and then all consumers served by the railways would be subject to that tax. A further objection is that the tax will only be paid by a proportion of railway users, and it would therefore be necessary to introduce a method of collection and administration which I think the Administration will find very expensive. It is extremely difficult; in fact, it is impossible, in relation to passenger traffic to distiguish between a luxury journey and travel in case of necessity. Furthermore, and I particularly wish to emphasise this point on the attention of the Minister of Finance, the tax falls disproportionately upon the married man’s income. Journeys for health reasons are more necessary from the interior to the coast than in the reverse direction, and therefore the tax will fall heavily upon the people resident in the inland Provinces. This taxation is expected to produce £500,000 this year, and I want to suggest to the Minister as an alternative that it is possible to take the same amount of money out of the Railway Exchequer without fear of prejudicing the Act of Union, or in future prejudicing the finances of the Central Government. In this connection I consider the Defence Department is entitled to a greater sum than has been allowed for rebate in respect of railage during the war period. We have had a considerable discussion in this House in relation to the cost-plus contracts, and I want to suggest to the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Railways and Harbours, that in respect of certain of these contracts for the Defence Department, the costs of which include railage which has been paid by contractors at full ordinary rates, a rebate is due to that Department. This would in my opinion amount to a large sum of money. For the reasons indicated, I urge a review of the tax; but, if the Minister is of a contrary opinion, I hope he will be prepared to agree that in no case shall the fare for a child be subject to the tax. To my mind, to include children would be contrary to the principle which we have always adopted, and that is to assist the family man in the matter of taxation. I will reserve my other comments for the Committee stage.

Mr. Speaker, we have been a few days considering budget proposals, and I suppose there is very little left to be said, particularly when our time is very very limited. I suppose we shall have to endeavour to make our points when we get to the Committee stage. I think I expressed the view of probably the majority of members of this House, and certainly the country outside, when I say that we are very disappointed with the Minister of Finance in so far as he has made no reasonable extra provisions for our old age pensioners. The previous Minister of Finance, Mr. Havenga, was known as the “£2 10s. complex Minister” and I am afraid our present Minister is not going to improve very much upon that. We have heard so much in this House and the people outside have heard so much about social security, that we were hoping that at least some measure of social security would have been given to the public by the present Minister of Finance. I see no better method of giving an instalment of that than by giving our old people some reasonable provision for their old age. One would have thought that the present Minister of Finance, who has a mother, would have realised that the first duty of a Minister of Finance in South Africa, is to the aged poor. We are very sorry indeed to think that the Minister has only been able to increase the old age pension by such a small amount, and particularly in regard to the coloured people. I hope the Minister will have very little to say in the future, and in the coming election, in regard to social security when the Government has not been able to secure our old people. I do not intend to deal with other aspects of this budget, that have been dealt with very fully already, but I would like to say to the Minister of Railways, to whose Department some part of this debate should be devoted, that he is not to suppose that all is well with the Railways, because of the small amount of criticism he has received in connection with his administration. I spent some considerable time on the Appropriation Bill, as did other members of the House in connection with the artisan staff. I was not in the House when the Minister replied to the third reading debate, but I want to assure him that so far as the artisan staff is concerned, they are very much agitated in regard to their terms of service. I don’t want to go over all that ground again, as it was very fully dealt with on the Second Reading of the Railway Appropriation Bill, but I hope the Minister will be able, in his reply, to tell us what his views are in that matter. In regard to other Railway matters, we shall have to leave those in abeyance until the Committee stage, but I would like to mention particularly the catering section of the staff between Durban and Cape Town. That staff is very much overworked, and I and others have suggested that the Minister should consider introducing women stewardesses on the long trips. Something should be done to relieve the situation in regard to the stewards on the long trips from places like Durban and Cape Town. They have approximately three days duty to put in, and the staff is not changed. I think it would be possible to relieve that situation by introducing women stewardesses. There has been certain criticism of the Minister of Agriculture in this House, especially in regard to the cost of living and food control, and I intend to devote a few minutes of the little time I have left to the meat industry. The Meat Control Board was brought into being in 1934, and there have been various boards brought into being since that time. As a matter of fact, one can quite fairly accuse the Minister of shifting his responsibilities to the Control Boards, he has practically handed over the whole of his Department to Control Boards; we have meat control, wheat control, mealie control, butter control and so on, and we shall, as I said in 1934, very soon require a Control Board to control the Control Boards. One would not mind that so much if they were composed of the right people, if by accident or otherwise they introduced some business methods into the Control Boards. One can see, and I think it can be substantiated by argument, that the Dairy Control Board is the only one that is functioning in anything like a business way. We have the spectacle today of a summer season in which we have to pay as much as 1s. 10d. a lb. for our butter. But even that is not so bad as the hopeless muddle of the meat industry, and all these other muddles. I have suggested before that it is time the Minister of Agriculture took over his Department from the Secretary and the Control Board. The Minister of Agriculture was referred to by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) as C.M.G., which means “Collins must go”, and I think the Government is not aware of the agitation outside this House in connection with his Department. If it were not for the war, I am afraid the Government is in for a very rough time at the next election. Of course, it will be a war election, and people outside will forget all the misdeeds of the Government, and in particular the Minister of Agriculture, on account of the war. We have been told in this House that the distributors in the meat industry are getting all the profit, but the meat traders in South Africa repeatedly asked that there should be a complete investigation into the meat trade. But when this question of price control came into being, there was an agitation throughout the country demanding control of the price of meat, and the Controller went to the Food Controller, the present Minister of Agriculture, and said: “You see what is happening, we have to control the price of meat.” The Minister turned round and said: “Yes, all right, get on with your controlling, but I want 100 per cent. approximately on the price the farmers are receiving.” If that is necessary for the farming community, I see no reason why the Government should not be prepared to subsidise the farming industry as far as stock-raising is concerned. If they can pay large bounties, as they have done in endeavouring to get our meat on the oversea market, they can subsidise the internal consumption of it, and then there would be some justification for these high prices that are prevailing at the present moment. It is absolutely useless for the public to get cheap meat or cheap food when you have, on the one hand, farmers demanding certain prices, which the Minister is unfortunately compelled to acquiesce in. I think, Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister would consent to a Select Committee to enquire into the cost of living, and particularly the price of meat in South Africa, it would go a long way to allay public feeling outside. Anything worse than the muddle into which the meat industry has been placed, can hardly be imagined. A proclamation was issued which it was impossible to carry out, and it was not carried out. If only they had some people in control who are concerned in the business, the Government would never have got control into the hopeless mess they have done, so far as the price of meat is concerned. My time has expired, sir, and all I want to say is that the Government should take the public more into their confidence. One half of the trouble in South Africa is that the public don’t know what the desire of the Government is, although we have the Broadcasting Corporation and 101 ways of acquainting the public with what the Government wishes. You take your black-out in Durban or Cape Town. We are told that it is necessary; we are never told why it is necessary. I feel that it is time the Government took the public into their confidence more than they are doing. I hope the Minister of Railways will be able to reply to me in regard to the artisans, and I certainly hope the Minister of Agriculture will be able to reassure the public that it will not be necessary to ration meat.

Before I use the last few minutes of the debate to criticise the budget, I think it is necessary, in view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture refuses to heed all the appeals made to him in connection with maize prices, to declare here specially that we wish that our farmers will not deliver one bag of maize until such time as the Minister sheds his obstinacy, until the Minister raises the price to 17s. 6d. per bag. The state of affairs we are experiencing is due to the shortsightedness of the Minister of Agriculture, to aimlessness, the results of which I prophesied to him three years ago. As the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouche) and other members have said, if there is one man who is responsible for the situation of distress in the country today then it is the Minister of Agriculture. I saw this morning that in the Minister’s own constituency there is not a single shop in which a pound of mealie meal can be bought. The ten thousands of poor Europeans as well as natives who have to go to bed hungry because they cannot get a pound of mealie meal—how long will the Minister take up a stupid standpoint before he gives in and offers a proper price so that the people can sell their mealies? The Minister speaks of 12s. 6d. I say that not only I but hundreds of farmers will refuse to deliver their maize for that, and we shall rather feed it to our animals. That is the net result of the shortsighted policy which the Minister has followed over a series of years. My advice to the farmers of South Africa is to take in a standpoint now, and to show the Minister once and for all that he does not have the sole authority in the country, and they should definitely refuse to sell a bag of mealies.

That is not advice; it is a threat.

If one cannot guide a person with advice, then the time has come to employ a threat. Now I come to the Minister of Finance. He came here last year—I did not speak on the budget then, and it is quite by chance that I got the last few minutes now—and submitted to us a budget that cannot be described otherwise than an “old maid’s Budget”. There were reductions in connection with knitting wool and tea. He has taxed the batchelor in such a way that I thought he could not go any further. This year the Minister has levied the same sort of taxes. It is not now an old maid’s Budget; it has taken another course. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), the chief critic of the Opposition, has rightly called it a coffee-coloured Budget. This is characteristic of the Budget of the Minister. In the first place, he provides for something that is quite ridiculous according to the people who know, that there should be provision for one meal a day for school children, because the sum that he makes available is hopelessly inadequate. It is not even a third of the amount that appears on the Budget. But it nevertheless indicates the direction in which the Minister goes. He is not so much concerned about the European children. If one follows the further course of events and one pays attention to the action of the Minister, then one sees he is concerned about the coloured children and the native children. The Minister comes here and says that it will ultimately mean more than a million pounds, but this year there is £200,000 on the Budget. Of that £150,000 is for the existing milk and cheese scheme now in force in our schools. There is thus less than £50,000 to give a meal per day to the children during the year 1943. I do not think the Minister can be serious in thinking that that amount will be sufficient. I have not much time. I just want to raise one other serious matter in order to direct a warning to the people of South Africa. The Minister, at the introduction of the Budget, used these words—

That is, of course, according to the Minister’s opinion—

The Minister admits that a reformed world will arise—

The Minister does not know how the community will look after the reform; that is a serious question. If we look at that reform that will originate after the World War, what is the direction in which everything is going? To me it is as clear as daylight. Everyone of us knows what the original attitude of the Minister of Finance was. Here I have an article by one of his friends, Prof. Hoernle, that he wrote in this booklet “Commonsense”. It deals with the Atlantic Charter, and what, according to this friend of the Minister of Finance, is the object of the Atlantic Charter? Point No. 1, he says, is this—

1. (1) Greater participation by natives in the Public Service and legislative gatherings.
2. (2) Expansion of participation in the higher grades of the Public Service.
3. (3) Enhanced status in legislative bodies.
4. (4) A native majority in administration and in the legislative bodies.
5. (5) Full self-government with proportional representation for all national groups.

That is the interpretation of Prof. Hoernle, the spiritual colleague of the Minister of Finance, of the Atlantic Charter, of what they have as their object, and for what they say we are now busy fighting. Now I say, if we take the revelations that we have received from time to time from the Minister of Finance and from the Prime Minister, then we can say to the Minister of Native Affairs that he will ultimately have to give in to the greater spirits in the Cabinet.