The House has been listening to some lengthy discussions on social security and on other important matters with the idea of finding employment for returned soldiers and others when the war is over. The matter has been discussed from every point of view, and the Government is doing its utmost to deal with this very difficult situation. But I have not heard any speakers putting forward any real solution. There have been lots of criticisms but no real solution has been put forward. Last Session Parliament passed a Bill for the development of our base metals and I would like the Government to give the House some information as to what progress has been made in regard to some of these base metals and minerals. The matter is one which requires action and which requires definite concentration. Because if what we are told about our gold mining industry is true, if it is true that our gold mining industry is on the downward path—which I personally do not really believe—then it becomes all the more necessary that we should do something towards the development of assets which so far have hardly been scratched. I should also like the Government to tell us if the development of such resources either by the State or by private enterprise has in any way been retarded by our taxation laws. Arguments to that effect have been put forward but I am sure the Government will be able to tell us whether there is any ground for these contentions. Now, let me say a few words on the subject of post-war employment. The best possible help I can see in this respect is for the Government to give immediate financial assistance to our base metal and mineral production because here is a field offering tremendous scope for the employment of very many men. We are spending so many millions on the war—why should we not spend a few millions on that which is going to solve our entire labour trouble. Because I am sure that the real solution of our troubles lies in that direction. There will be openings for many thousands of men, European as well as non-European. Therefore, the Government must wait no longer, they must act immediately. There is need for action and delay cannot be tolerated. May I, while I am on this subject, quote from a cable from New York giving an extract from an article in a magazine “Business Week.” The article is entitled “Mining—No. 1 War Industry,” by James H. McGraw, Jnr., and in this article it is stated that the nation which controls the world’s mineral resources and makes the most efficient use of them will win the victory. How true and how apt. Then I also wish to refer to what the vice-chairman of the United War Production Board stated in a statement which was recently issued. “A combined War Materials Board on which Britain and the United States are both represented, may help to solve the world wide scramble for raw materials after the war.” Here, again, is South Africa’s opportunity. I should like to refer to another quotation where it is said that Mexico’s great and diverse economic resources, including tungsten, magnesium, mercury, molybdenum, flourspar, mica and lead, have been placed at the disposal of the United Nations. Mahogany, until recently a dead industry, so it is said, is shipped increasingly for the manufacture of aeroplane propellors.” South Africa has many of those minerals and there is an urgent call for an active policy to develop them. I hope I shall not be accused of raising a scare if I say that these base metals may at no distant date be more important to the industrial and commercial development than gold mining is at the present moment. We cannot go back to the old days of importing raw materials required for our secondary industries—there is no need for us to go back—we have those raw materials here in great quantities—they are lying below the surface waiting to be developed. And I again urge the necessity of the Government taking active steps to develop the tremendous wealth which is simply crying out for development. I want to go even further and I want to urge the Government to appoint now—not at some future time but now—expert representatives, especially in the United States, to advance the marketing of our base metals and minerals in the United States and other countries. Here, indeed, is our great opportunity. I have it on good authority that the United States will take all the manganese and chrome that we can supply, and so I could go on with regard to so many of our other base metals, with which this country abounds. Why not appoint experts to enquire into what base metals and minerals can be consumed in this country—what base metals and minerals are required by existing industries. I am sure the result would be surprising—because many of those industries are constantly crying out for metals and minerals which today have to be imported. Many of those industries are held up in their development because of the shortage of metals and minerals which are today lying below the surface in various parts of this country, particularly in the Northern Transvaal. The vista which opens itself up is indeed a great one, all that is required is an active policy, a policy of action, which will give employment to thousands of the young men of this country who will ere long be coming back from the fighting line. And what new industries cannot be established to exploit our large variety of base metals and minerals which are actually known to be available? Up to the present our secondary industries have depended solely upon the gold mines, and on our war activities. What will happen when the war is over and our troops return? What are we going to do to create work for all these men? I have indicated one line where thousands can be employed. Let me in this connection refer to the First Report of the Social and Economic Planning Council which on the subject of industrial expansion makes these very important comments—

These remarks are of great importance and coming from a body of the authority of the Planning Council should be seriously considered by the Government. I therefore suggest that the Government should assist private owners with funds for this development. Private initiative has done a great deal but Government assistance is needed to give the enterprise the necessary fillip. We must also think of employment for our nonEuropeans—a section of our population who unquestionably are one of the greatest assets the Union possesses. If there should be a decline in our gold production after the war, what will happen to our Railways, what will happen to our secondary industries, what will happen to our farmers? Surely the time has come when we should use our utmost efforts if not to provide a substitute for our gold mines, at any rate to provide other avenues which will be ready to take up the slacks as the gold mining industry declines. And even if it should not decline, here is an avenue of expansion which will make South Africa a country able to compete in the world of commerce, trade and industry with any other country in the world. I can think of nothing better than the immediate development of our base metals. I have preached this policy for many years and I hope that the day will dawn when our base metal industry will stand second to none in the world. It will strengthen our economic position in the world, it will strengthen our financial position, it will be one of the first steps to bring about that social security which we hear so much about. Freedom from want, freedom from fear and freedom from unemployment, are what our base industry can provide. I can see the day when in these deserted areas of the country, these isolated stretches, thousands of homes of prosperous hard working men will be established. All that is wanted is a little push, a little assistance from the Government. The Government assisted Iscor, why should it not do the same thing for these industries which are crying out for help and for development. Is it not possible for the Industrial Development Corporation to assist in this great project? I would in conclusion ask the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Mines also to give us some information as to what progress has been made so far in this great development scheme which I know the Government has been contemplating—I hope it has now got beyond mere contemplation.

When the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) treated the House the other day to a lengthy speech, he reminded me of an old Afrikaans saying—a blind rooster occasionally picks up a grain of maize. The grain of maize that the hon. member picked up is that the Minister hit only the willing and spared the unwilling. For certainly ten minutes the hon. member for Krugersdorp on that side of the House busied himself with this fact that the Minister of Finance only hits the willing and spares the unwilling. It is a pity that he did not immediately remind us of where the Minister probably obtained his inspiration. Because most Transvalers have more than once observed what happens when a native with a wagon and oxen sticks in a drift. He beats the willing ox and spares the unwilling. It is characteristic of a native driver that he always beats the willing animal and spares the unwilling. The native driver has at least this excuse, that he does it out of stupidity. But here it is done deliberately, and how well the Minister succeeded in that purpose which he had in view appears from the fact that immediately after the Budget speech the Stock Exchange in Johannesburg rose. There remains one consolation, and it is this. There will still be a great deal of debt to be paid at the end of the war, and there will be much opportunity to let that debt be paid by those people who plunged us into the war, and to ensure by means of a capital levy that those people who drove South Africa into the war and who are unwilling today will pay what still has to be paid. With regard to this debate, there was an argument which was used continually—a shelter to which the Government side fled continually: Remember, it is war! No matter what you might say, the counterargument is: But remember, it is war! What does this argument mean now in reality? It means this, that we have a war, and a Government which even in peace time would hardly be capable of governing the country, has now to govern in war time. If hon. members do not want to believe me in this connection, they have but to read the Natal newspapers, in which this Government is bluntly told what they think of it. One man in Durban summarised the position thus—

[Inaudible].

One of the “duds” does not like it. I do not agree with that opinion, because I think that person in Durban overestimated the Cabinet. We have to do with the fact that this Cabinet, which is totally unqualified to govern in peace time in South Africa, dragged the country into war, and thereby multiplied its own difficulties tenfold, and if you point out that the Government is not competent to tackle our difficulties, let alone to solve them, then the answer is: People, you must remember, it is war. We dragged the country into the war, and that is the reason why we are not qualified to solve the difficulties which we ourselves created. Take the Minister of Agriculture. He is a good man, he is my friend, but he has no friend in his capacity as Minister anywhere in the country, not even on the other side. And now he sits there with a smile. He accepts it with a smile. Take the Defence Force. It is a fact that in Pretoria highly-placed officers go round and tell practically anyone who wishes to know it that in connection with contracts scandalous things went on in the past, things that were outrageous. I might perhaps give a few names here, but why should I do that, for all I would achieve by that would be that a few people would be victimised. The figures and the facts which we need to inquire into those matters are denied us, because they may perhaps help the enemy! I do not believe that those facts and figures can help the enemy. Perhaps the enemy would have a good laugh over them. Then I come to the emergency regulations. There sits the Minister of Justice. He will make a speech just now. It will be the same speech that he delivered last year and the year before last. He will tell us how many people he has already released under emergency regulations; people whom he should never have caught. He will tell us how many of them he has sent back to their mothers; how the regulations which are in force are the same sort of regulations which I drafted; how the officials who have to carry out the regulations are the same officials that I appointed. That is all probably true, but it has nothing to do with the matter, because one fact stands out like a pole above water, and that is, that that Minister is afraid to institute a proper inquiry. That is the only answer that will be satisfactory, and that the Minister is afraid to give. Any Afrikaner who is not prepared to admit his guilt, and who is under suspicion, especially if the suspicion exists that he is protecting companions, is in danger of being broken in body and spirit by solitary confinement and other kinds of torture. The Minister can talk ad nauseam—and he will bore us by repeating what he said on previous occasions—the fact is that he is not prepared to accept a proposal that a Select Committee or an impartial body institute an inquiry and bring the true facts to light. The Minister’s excuse will again be that we are at war. The fact that they dragged us into the war is used by them as pardon for all the incompetence of the Government, all the callousness, all the deliberate actions and all the maliciousness on the part of the Government. Another member who also picked up a grain of maize—I want to refer to him in passing …

Did he only pick up one?

Yes, only one, and that apparently is all that his crop can take. It was the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell). He told us very clearly in his speech that within a few months the country will give its verdict on the Prime Minister’s policy, and he indicated that the Prime Minister and the Government have full confidence in the result. We want to admit that there are certain factors which may perhaps give the Government confidence that it will have the majority. In the first place, the Government counts on the fact that Afrikanerdom is divided. I want to advise it not to count too much on that fact, because it may perhaps deceive itself. In the second place, it counts on the fact that it has created thousands of war jobs, and that the people who are making a reasonable livelihood out of them will be on the street when the war is over. We saw the other day from a reply of the Prime Minister that he is already denying any promise in connection with the returned soldiers. Those people will simply have to vote for the sake of their bread that the war go on. We know further that South Africa is completely in the hands of British and American interests, and I want to make the prediction that where a seat can be bought, or where a seat can be won by money, sterling and the dollar will ensure that that seat is won. And then there is the statement of Col. Reitz, the former Minister of Native Affairs, the statement which brought him promotion to the gates of Buckingham Palace. We all know that what he said at that time is absolutely true, that this Government dares not allow any other government to take over. If it happened that this side were in the majority, a British-American occupation of the country would of necessity be used to ensure that we could not govern the country. Then there is another consideration—there are thousands and tens of thousands who have already decided that they are so finished with the present worked-out system that they will not vote at all. In certain circumstances there is a measure of consolation for the Government on which it bases the confidence that it will obtain the majority. And then there is a last point in this connection. It is openly said in Pretoria that the Government still has a string to its bow, that it is preparing something that is going to be an ugly shock for us all; that we will find that in the Defence Force, where it is experiencing difficulty, special machinery for the election is being prepared. It is an ugly thing that is being said. It is a very serious charge against the Prime Minister and his Department, and it is therefore with a cetrain amount of hesitation that I want to read two letters that are connected with this matter. The first letter proves that there exists correspondence between a certain H. S. K. Simpson, chairman of the United S.A. National Party in the Newcastle district, and a certain Lieutenant R. McKenzie, Defence Headquarters, Pretoria. The letter is dated October 14, 1941, Post Office Box 56, Dundee. The letter begins thus—

According to my information, this Lieutenant McKenzie is the person who occupies himself especially with the registration of soldiers’ votes. May I say further that I tried to obtain information as to whether there is any other party besides the Sap party with which the Defence Department has got into touch in this way, and I did not succeed. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) should have known of it if such a thing had happened, but he knows nothing whatever about it. This Lieut. McKenzie is the man who has to ensure that soldiers are registered, and the letter then continues—

And then there follows a whole list of names of soldiers about whom information is given. I wish to draw attention to this one—

It is a very remarkable thing. The chairman of the district committee of the Sap party writes to the Defence Department, which is compiling the voters’ roll of soldiers, about people who have to vote at the next election, whose votes they should not take the trouble to register—“our organisation considers his vote should not be sought after.” A man who may perhaps vote for the Nationalist Party, the New Order or the Afrikaner Party, his name they should not trouble to register. I hope the Prime Minister will reply to this. It may perhaps be said now that this Mr. H. S. K. Simpson is but an inferior person. I have still another letter here. It is signed by O. A. Oosthuizen, the general secretary of the Sap party, and the letter is addressed to the Adjutant-General, Department of Defence, Pretoria. The date of the letter is May 13, 1942. It is obviously a reply to a letter from the Defence Department because the file number of the department is on it.

This letter is as follows—

Addresses Personnel on Active Service Registered as Voters in the Electoral Division of Hopetown.

The Adjutant-General is the man who must concern himself with the discipline in the Army, and here we see now that an organiser of the Sap party communicates with him about the organisation of the party in a constituency. We do not know exactly what it deals with, but the following paragraph in the letter throws a little light on it—

Here we see therefore that a party organiser at Belmont made demands on the Adjutant-General. The letter concludes—

Whether he heard from them further I do not know. I do not want to stress this matter too much. I want to say that there are ugly rumours, and I came by chance into possession of these two letters, and I thought that the Prime Minister ought to know what was going on under his protection. If the Prime Minister is not in a position now to give a proper explanation, I want to give him all assistance in that direction by suggesting that there should be a public inquiry.

Here in Hottentots-Holland the same sort of thing took place.

Then it is an old thing already. I thought it was something new. I said that the Government is somewhat optimistic about the election contest, but there are certain things which it must take into account. That the Minister who objected to the description as a “dud”—his people are going to make trouble for the Government. Wherever we look about, the Communists and the Labour Party are actively fencing-off seats against the Government, and when the friends opposite who now feel so safe in their seats come to the nominations, they are going to have trouble.

And what about you?

I am not coming back again, because I am fed-up with the whole affair. And then I want to say one thing to the Government. They count on the division of Afrikanerdom. They may deceive themselves badly. As I see the position between the different Afrikaner groups, it is nearly like the Christian church. We do not all agree about details of the dogma of salvation, but, like the Christian church, we all see the road very clearly which leads to hell—we know that the road of the Sap party is to the abyss. [Interjections.] The noise that comes out of the corner there makes me think of what Napoleon said of the English. He said that they were a nation of lions led by donkeys. And it looks as if those people are busily qualifying for that sort of leadership. Those are a few remarks which I wanted to make about the debate as it has gone on up to now. Now I want to say something about the amendments. Both amendments are good, and we support both of them. But they are both not quite complete, and for that reason I wish to move the following as an amendment to the amendments proposed by Mr. Conroy—

I move this amendment not because I want to indicate that Russia is going to win the war. I fear that these home-fronters must go themselves to achieve their victory if they want it. There will be no Russia as victor to ensure them the victory. But the reason why I move this amendment is that I consider it a blot on the good name of South Africa that we should have any alliance with that kind of people, and that we should in any way identify ourselves with those people as they are today, as they were in the past or as they will be in the future. It has been described for us by someone who is more competent to do it than I, and he did it in this war when he said that the Bolshevist is half-way between the human being and the animal in the process of evolution, with the cunning of the human being and the instinct of the ape. We have to do here with an alliance between South Africa and a government clique which in 20 years murdered more of its own people than all the other nations executed in a thousand years, even if we include the French revolution. Those are the people with whom we now play at brothers. I have a special reason why I propose this amendment and why I very much want to see us withdraw from that alliance. One of these days we shall come to the jubilee of the murder of the Czar and his whole family. A little while ago we had the jubilee of the Red Army, of those executioners who committed the murder, and on that occasion a day of prayer was held in Great Britain. The churches were full and prayers were offered that Providence should be merciful towards these people who have abolished the divinity, who have changed the churches into bioscopes, horse-stables and public lavatories. We here in South Africa were fortunately exempted from that day of prayer. I attribute it to the fact that the Dutch churches would never have tolerated such blasphemy. But while we were exempted from it, and while we are known as Great Britain’s best lackey, we shall have to do something! We cannot allow that there should be a day of prayer for the Red Army and that the narrowmindedness of the Dutch churches should not allow us to take part in it! It is by no means impossible that the Government will decide, as lackey of the British Government, to proclaim a public holiday on the day of the murder of the Czar and his family. Because that possibility exists, it is necessary for us to go a little further into the details of the killing of these people. The people who can best give those details are people like the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister who observed certain things in the Boer War. How the enemy slaughtered and killed off sheep, how they herded sheep in a small pen, stabbed them to death with bayonets and then threw paraffin on them and set alight to them. How that weeks afterwards there were still sheep that lived. To grasp what happened when the Czar, the Czarina, the princesses, the little Crown Prince and two servants were murdered, we must go back to those days of the Boer War, when we experienced that mentality. Just like sheep, they were at that time herded together in a cellar. A few representatives of that glorious Red Army, for which Great Britain prayed, then went to the cellar and fired on those people with their revolvers. Those who were not killed at once they then stabbed to death at their leisure with their bayonets. The bodies were then stripped naked, petrol was thrown on them and they were burned. You can realise, therefore, that where we shall have to celebrate the jubilee of that murder one of these days, the jubilee of that greatest deed of the Red Army, I feel that it is time that we should now abrogate the alliance before we reach that date. If the Government does not want to accede to us in that connection, and if I have to judge according to the attitude of the Government, it will not accede to us, let me then make a modest request to the Government. If South Africa again blesses the weapon of Bolshevism in the future, can we not exclude from that blessing the weapons with which that act was committed? I have said about all I wanted to say, but before I sit down I want to quote a medical opinion, because it is also necessary. I want briefly to quote the opinion of Maclaurin, from the book “Mere Mortals.” He is well-known in Australia. I may say in passing, for the sake of members opposite, that he is a great jingo. He wrote a series of sketches about notable people and their careers, and also about the diseases from which they suffered. He wrote a sketch, for example, about Ivan the Terrible and the malady from which he suffered, and in relation to that he says something about what we find in Russia at present, and with that I conclude—

In these circumstances I move this amendment.

The word “unholy” in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) is not necessary for the purpose of the amendment and should be deleted.

Very well, Mr. Speaker. I therefore move as an amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Conroy—

I second.

The leader of the New Order said that I would deliver the same speech as last year as that he would find it boring. I do not expect to make a speech that will have the approval of that hon. member. I want to say to him immediately that I do not intend to follow him where he characterised the propriety of the debate. He has referred here to what a person in Natal had said about the debate. Well, even in Natal one finds lost persons. It would have been easy to follow the hon. member in that strain. But if I may use the English expression: Modesty forbids me. I do not think that his own supporters will consider that the hon. member brought the tone of the debate to a high level. Nor will I follow him in that, for this reason that I hold that where the Department of Justice is attacked, no matter in what manner that attack is made, then it behoves me to reply seriously. He said here that he expected me to make certain remarks again about the emergency regulations. That is not necessary, because the hon. member has admitted that my remarks were perfectly correct. He also said that I would make the excuse that we are at in the war. That is no excuse, but a justification. Naturally one must adopt different measures in time of war than in time of peace. The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) is the last person who can contradict this, for we know that he was prepared, in order to maintain neutrality, to introduce regulations that were more far-reaching than the regulations introduced by the Government to maintain law and order in time of war. That is sufficient reply to what the hon. member has said.

What about the application thereof?

The hon. member speaks of the application. I do not want to tarry long at this. He has come here with a vague allegation, but brought no single example to show where the regulations were wrongly applied, or where under the regulations injustice has been committed. He wants a Select Committee to be appointed to conduct an investigation. Now just imagine that. In time of war, if we appoint such a Committee from this House, then we must play open cards with it and we must submit all the facts to it. All the information that the Government possesses as to where undermining influences exist we shall have to make known, and not only to the Select Committee but to the whole public, and to all those people who are anxious to know how the Government is able to get on their tracks so quickly and to arrest them so expeditiously. I really do not need to go further into that point. I am not prepared to deal with vague allegations here, but only with statements that can be supported by facts. The hon. member has moved an amendment that we should sever our relations with Russia immediately. I want to ask him how it came about that Russia is now fighting-on the side of the Allies. Is it not due to an attack that was made on Russia? Why did he not at that time, if he looked upon Russia as such a danger, raise the matter here in the House when Russia was fighting with Germany? No, then the hon. member for Gezina came to this House in September 1940 and said: We have now come to the last hours of the last Session of the last Union Parliament. I am not surprised that he now tells us here that he is tired of this House and that he intends to retire. All I can say to him is—it is a well deserved rest. I will not speak further about the hon. member for Gezina. An attack has been made here on the Department of Justice by a leading member on the other side, the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart). He has mentioned specific cases here, and I want to deal with these. He attacked me for not being present here. But he is not here now to listen to my reply.

Did you let him know that you were going to speak?

I naturally let him know. I sat here till 4 o’clock in the afternoon but he let other members speak before him; he waited till the last minute, when he made his attack on me and then he took the train to the North. He could very easily have come in earlier, so that he could listen to the reply. I do not want to go into that. I merely mention this because the attack was made on me. The hon. member was entitled to make the points which he did make even though there were no grounds for them, and I agree that the administration of justice ought to welcome criticism. Where the criticism is justified we must ensure that matters are put right, and where it is not justified we must reply immediately to it. There are no grounds for his criticism, but I accept it in the spirit in which it was given, and I will reply to it to the best of my ability. I have of course one difficulty, and that difficulty, particularly as regards this case, is that we have to do with sabotage which has created a very serious situation in the country. Hon. members know that together with sabotage there was yet another movement that had a more serious object in view. Hon. members on the other side know as well as I do what the fact is. The difficulty with which I have to contend when I reply is that I do not intend to divulge the name of anyone who has given us information and who has helped us. In other words, in order to justify the position completely from the side of the Government it would be necessary to divulge here certain information, important information, that we cannot divulge, and I shall not do so. It stands to reason. I want to go further. I am going to protect those people on my own iniative. I would have done it in any case, but I do it particularly where we know that intimidation is being employed against witnesses, that they are being threatened with abduction, and that in some cases they were even killed. Thus I think the hon. member will agree that I would be neglecting my duty if I did not protect these people under all circumstances. Before I go into the cases that have been mentioned here I just want to say: It stands to reason that the persons are not arrested, they are not even taken into custody, but they are taken to be interrogated. One for instance gets good information that Mr. A. was at a certain place. There are three Mr. A’s. If one now investigates all three and finds out where they were, then one can immediately release those against whom nothing can be said. It is the duty of the Government to deal with these matters thoroughly. We must get the right Mr. A. It often happens that the man immediately gives us information that completely exonerates him, and then we let him go. Others again are held for a little while, some admit guilt and give information. In many cases we can set to work successfully on the information gained, but the information has to be carefully investigated to see that the blame is not thrown on innocent persons. One can get information, and we realise this, where a man in order to save his own skin tries to shift the blame on another.

He is perhaps forced by instilling fear to give information.

The hon. member speaks of instilling fear; that is untrue, and I will prove to him that it is untrue.

You know it is true.

In the other House, in the Senate, there is a Senator of whose own family has been taken in custody. The Senator belongs to the same group as the hon. member, and he has declared that he at first believed the talk of coercion, but that after he had instituted investigation he found that this was decidedly untrue. The Senator has decidedly denied that this is true. I do not want to go into that, because I do not want to be deflected from my argument. I want to say, however, that I believe that many hon. members get information that is totally untrue. Someone who has made a statement before us may later want to deny it, and then give hon. members completely untrue information. He does not want to place himself in a bad light and says things that are devoid of truth. What is true, is that the statements that are made are made voluntarily. Such persons may realise that they are in trouble, that the Government may be able to prove the case against them, and they also know that if they assist the Government and give information that will lead to the sentence of those who are concerned in the matter, that they will then be set free. Just take the case of Kroucamp. He was head of the Stormjaers. He gave every information to us and a complete list of all concerned. Of course, if Kroucamp had not given the evidence, and had not been willing to do so, then the Government would never have revealed what Kroucamp did, and Kroucamp might possibly have told hon. members there any story, and hon. members would have believed it and would have condemned us in connection with it. But not one case where this was done has been proved, not one case where this was done has been proved in a court. Naturally we shall help the people who give information as far as possible so that they may not get into trouble unnecessarily. But I want to come to a few cases. There is the case of the two Kolbes, which has been mentioned here. Of course, they were held for questioning. The case in connection with which they were interrogated was later solved, and hon. members know about it. I do not have to go into that. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) has mentioned names in connection with certain cases, and these names I shall also mention. In other cases, where no names have been mentioned, I can guess more or less what the cases are to which reference is made. There is the case of young Van Rensburg. I do not want to say too much about that. He is facing a serious charge of sabotage. Now the hon. member says that he particularly objects to the fact that persons are not allowed to see their legal advisers. It has become clear that it is impossible to allow this in time of war, in view of the fact that some of the legal advisers did not go there with the object of helping those people in their defence, but to assist them as regards sabotage, and to find a connection with people outside. For that reason it has come about that they are not allowed. Take the matter of wire-cutting, to which I want to refer briefly. It is known to hon. members that wire-cutting took place from Vryburg right through the Western Transvaal, Northern Transvaal, Eastern Transvaal, Northern Cape, and the Eastern, Northern and Western Free State. Now it is being said that we have arrested and locked up Afrikaners in a reckless manner. Hon. members know how serious this matter was, and they also saw for themselves how some of the wire-cutters expressed their gratitude in newspapers controlled by members who support the Opposition for the sympathetic treatment of the Government; and as regards all the instances of reckless incarceration of so-called innocent Afrikaners, we have the position that nearly one hundred per cent. of them have admitted their guilt.

Under compulsion.

And let me say further that in a few cases in which guilt was not admitted, the Government set them free because they gave evidence, and in a few other cases we set people free even when they had admitted guilt, for the sole purpose of letting nobody know who gave the information. But the police were 100 per cent. successful in the arrest of wire-cutters. It was the policy of the Government to lock them up and to investigate their circumstances thoroughly, and that policy we have followed has saved them from undergoing long terms of imprisonment. Their parents are grateful, and I think I can say with pride today that the sympathetic attitude of the Government has yielded outstanding results in the country. I shall come to the case of the Oosthuizens in a moment. We have heard from the hon. member of a woman supposed to have been locked up with a native woman. The woman was locked up apart, in a separate cell, and such women take exercise in separate yards, not with coloureds—they have nothing to do with the coloureds. Then there is the case of Visser and Van Blerk. The hon. member has quoted certain allegations made during the trial—these were denied under oath. Then he mentioned the case of Mrs. du Preez in Durban—I think that was the case. She never sat in goal for one day. She was taken for questioning and after a few hours they let her go again. The case of the young boy Ferreira I have gone into specially, and the allegation in connection therewith is absolutely untrue. This stands in connection with the Benoni case. It was at first thought that the person who lost his life in the Benoni case formed part of the sabotage, and later it appeared that this was not so, but the case of Ferreira was investigated and there is not a word of truth in what the hon. member indicated. Now I come to the fairly serious case of Oosthuisen. Now I do not want to read out everything at the start, but later I shall give the rest also. I say beforehand that I shall not read one little part. That little part would strengthen my argument still further, but I want to prove that even without this the Government is still on sound ground. The other bit will only strengthen my case. I am just saying this because I do not want to make debating points in connection with this case. Fortunately it is a case in connection with which the hon. member for Winburg came to see me. We caused the case to be thoroughly investigated. His objection was firstly that we had waited too long, but the accusations were of a serious nature, of a very serious nature, and it was necessary that the facts should be thoroughly investigated. It was done through a responsible official, and I think the best is for me to quote the letter which the Commissioner of Police addressed to the hon. member for Winburg—

It is quite clear that if he could legally demand payment, then nothing would have prevented him from doing so. He did not do so. The only thing which could have been considered was an ex pratia payment, and he would not apply for it, and it would unfortunately have been impossible to pay it. On the available facts we cannot justify it. But now I just want to add something which I did not quote—

When we asked the brother to make a statement in support of anything that would justify it, or that would impart even the appearance of justification as regards an ex gratia payment, the brother refused to do so. I think I have dealt with the case sufficiently. I just want to say in conclusion that the policy is to apply the Emergency Regulations in such a way that they are only employed where it is absolutely necessary for the protection of the State; we are not setting to work recklessly, and we are also not taking people into custody on statements which have not been substantiated. That is also my reply to the Leader of the Opposition, who spoke here in another debate. Quite a lot of propaganda is being made to the effect that the Government does not view sabotage seriously, because where young men have been sentenced and where it has appeared that they have been incited, there they have been treated gently. I only want to say that where we got evidence that was right, there we did not hesitate to bring, the people to justice and they were also sentenced in some cases. We know what the hon. member means, but he may be assured that the Government acts against everybody who has to do with sabotage, and will bring such a person to justice.

I do not want to reply to the speech of the Minister of Justice, in which he dealt with the charges of the hon. member of Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart). The hon. member for Winburg will reply to that himself, but I as a member of the legal profession want to take serious exception to the fact that the Minister of Justice had dared to stand up in this House and to accuse the legal profession of abusing their profession when they visit persons in the gaols …

I did not accuse the legal profession, but said that members of the profession acted in that way, and I did it consciously, and on good grounds.

It comes to the same. The whole legal profession do not go to the gaols, but only individual members. The Minister has cast a blot on the legal profession. To what is it going to lead? That in future if someone is accused of any crime then the Minister will have the right to intervene; and the right which existed of old, that a member of the legal profession may visit and advise an accused person in gaol, will disappear. I strongly deplore the attitude of the Minister. The Minister will now be able to deny admission to attorneys and also advocates. Does the Minister realise what a serious charge he has made against the profession, even while he is the head of the profession? It is not necessary to go into the rest of his speech, but we must protest seriously against the accusation. If he has proof that members of the legal profession are making themselves guilty of malpractices, then why does he not take action? This ought to be done in the interests of the profession. On behalf of the legal profession I want to disapprove here emphatically of the standpoint of the Minister. We do not agree with the standpoint he has taken in. If anyone takes an oath in the court in connection with evidence, then he is asked to swear that he will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. When we have to do with the Government side then we find that they also apparently have taken an oath in connection with the war. They have taken the oath that they will devote all their time and all the country’s money and all then-attention and all their energy solely to the interests of the war, the whole war and nothing but the war. They have time for nothing but the war. That is the oath they have taken. I have listened with interest to the speeches of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) and other members in reply to the serious criticism that has been expressed by members of this side on the Budget. Much serious criticism has been exercised and not only that, but the Government has been virtually accused that it has gone to work with criminal wastefulness, that the grossest irregularities are taking place, and the Minister of Finance has been accused of submitting a totally false balance sheet, that the people are being misled, and that the true position is not being revealed. And what was the reply to that? “Do you not know that there is a war in progress?” In other words, participation in the war must compensate for all malpractices. It reminds me of a joke, quite a good joke, that I heard from the old people who took part in the Boer War. It concerns someone who was always very argumentative, particularly with young people who did not have the privilege of taking part in the war. And as soon as he was cornered he would ask: “Where were you in the Boer War?” If one had said that two and two are four, he would argue that it was five, and when he had no other argument, then he always asked: “Where were you in the war?” Precisely the same is happening here. We may use any argument, but as soon as they are cornered they say: “It is war, what about the war?” That must serve as a reply to all accusations. You get that evasion in connection with anything. It is surprising that one gets it from persons who are otherwise accustomed to think about things—many of them of course do not think at all. But there are some of the hon. members who are generally susceptible to convincing arguments, but now they have only one refrain: “It is war.” Does not the Minister and do not hon. members on the other side realise that because we are in the war it is essential to be more precise regarding the expenditure of the country? It is particularly necessary because in a time such as this one finds persons who want to misuse the situation and they must be brought under the impression that the Government is doubly careful. Do the Government and its followers realise that if they perpetually use the excuse: “It is for the war”—and that because it is for the war it does not matter—that they thereby encourage those people who want to abuse the situation? People are begining to say: “It will be overlooked anyway,” and they simply proceed with it. Who could ever have thought that when we declared war on 4 September, 1939—it was not even precisely a war declaration but a pious decision of Parliament that we shall only participate passively in the war and would sever our friendly relations with Germany—that after 3½ years of war we would have spent no less than £100,000,000 on the war in one year? I say “a hundred million pounds,” for although the amount in the Budget is £96,000,000 we know that under other votes there is at least another £4,000,000 additional that can be ascribed directly to our participation in the way. The hon. Prime Minister has rightly said that if you once participate in the war then your participation is unlimited, then you cannot set boundaries or limits to it. I agree with him, but he did not say that on 4 September. Only after the decision of Parliament was taken, only after the House of Assembly had been overwhelmed, and the decision had been taken, only then did he come and speak about an unlimited responsibility, and then one does not know where one will land. It reminds one of the time when we as boys climbed the mountain and threw down stones. At first we struggled to dislodge the stones, ultimately we managed to dislodge them and they began to jump slowly, and later they made great leaps and you did not know where the stone would end. That is what is happening here. In the first year after the declaration of war we had to vote £14,000,000 for the war, and the Minister of Finance said that this was an enormous amount. He was right. But in order to pacify the public a little he said that we need not be afraid that the burden would be placed on posterity. It will be met from revenue and from cash. In all the newspapers it was said under bold headings: “We pay for the war as we go along.” That was the impression they tried to create and the “Argus” of a few days ago is even trying to create that impression, although they have amended it a bit. They now say that we shall pay for the war “As far as possible” out of current revenue: That is a great amendment, but they still want the impression to continue. But on a previous occasion the Minister indicated that he did not say so, and I want to quote his words from Hansard—

Those were the words of the Minister of Finance, that we are not laying a burden on posterity. I also do not think it is fair that posterity should pay for the shortsightedness of this Government. But what is the position today? There is no longer any talk whatever about us not laying a great burden on posterity. Posterity will get a very heavy heritage in the form of an enormous national debt. It has already been pointed out that our national debt at the outbreak of war was £285,000,000, and at the end of the current financial year the national debt will have mounted to £470,000,000 an increase of £185,000,000. The Minister of Finance has told us that for every £1,000,000 we spend it will mean that in future there will be £30,000 a year less available to utilise for the benefit of the country. But what is more important, and that must be emphasised, is that the old national debt of £285,000,000 was almost totally productive; it was money that was used for laying railways, and as we know the railways pay interest on it. It was money advanced to the Land Bank and the farmers paid interest on it, it was money advanced to the Iron and Steel Corporation to develop that industry and thereby the country, and it yields interest. If there was a small portion that did not yield interest then against that stood valuable Government buildings throughout the Union. Against the national debt of £285,000,000 there were assets and interest-bearing investments. But what is the position with the £185,000,000? Practically the whole sum is unreproductive debt, and future generations will have to find the interest and suffer for it. When the war broke out South Africa was undoubtedly one of the most fortunate countries in the world as regards its financial position. But what is the position today? In the short space of 3½ years the national debt has increased by £185,000,000, and besides that £94,000,000 has been squeezed in that short time from the income of the population for the war by taxes. In the previous war the national debt increased by £28,000,000 as a result of participation in the war and as a result of the rebellion, and we then thought that it was an enormous sum. Here we now find that we have already sacrificed £185,000,000 from loans and £94,000,000 from revenue to the war. It is a terrible amount in view of our small population, our small European population, who will ultimately have to pay the debt. And that small European population consists mostly of poor people who cannot afford it, but they are the permanent population who will have to remain here, who have no other country to go to if the pressure in future becomes too severe. That will happen in respect of many of the supporters on the other side who are today sucking out the country, and who will leave the country like rats leave a sinking ship. Then the small, poor population will remain to bear the heavy burden, and it is particularly they who are opposed to the war. That is the greatest injustice of the war, that the people who are opposed to the war will ultimately have to bear the debt, after the others have left the country. We have a population of 2,200,000 Europeans and our national debt at the end of the financial year will be such that it works out at £200 for every man, woman and child of the European population. And this is only the beginning of our sorrows. We see how the war expenditure becomes greater and greater every year. Every year the amount becomes greater, and therefore I say it is like a stone rolling down from the mountain and that takes ever greater jumps and that no one knows where it will end. What of the future? The gold mines are a temporary asset, but they pay a considerable portion of our country’s financial liabilities today. But when we speak of the gold mines many people are under the impression that the gold mines belong to the capitalists who control these mines. The gold mines are, however, an asset of the State and of the people of South Africa. Those people only have the temporary right to develop the mines, but these mines are a State asset. Why are the mines not used as much as possible so that we may obtain as much as possible from them? Why is this not being done, and the permanent taxpayer thereby spared as regards the future? Let the population get a chance to pull themselves straight so that they may be able to go on when the gold mines have become exhausted. If there is one industry in the country that should come forward voluntarily and say, “We shall give whatever we can contribute to the war,” then it is the mining industry, because I would like to refer to what Hitler has said in connection with gold. He has said that all the raw materials that Germany requires can be obtained without gold, and that gold is of no value to him under any circumstances. For their own survival, the gold mining industry ought to contribute all they can to the war. But the Minister of Finance does just the opposite. He does not even tax the gold mining industry as much as he taxes other sections of the population. That pet child of the Government, the gold mines, is being taxed less than any other section. As compared with last year the gold mines will have to pay about £900,000 more, which boils down to an increase of 4 per cent. on the previous year, while all other sections of the population are taxed 15 per cent. more. The income-tax payers have had to pay progressively more ever since the start of the war, and today they pay 65 per cent. more than at the start of the war, because there was previously a rebate of 30 per cent. on income tax. A person who then had to pay £100 income tax, paid only £70, but today he not only pays the £100, but £15 in addition. £45 on £70 means an increase of 65 per cent. But the gold mines are being cuddled. Take also the extra taxation on the railway tickets. I do not want to go deeply into this because other hon. members will do so, and they will indicate how unreasonable this is, particularly towards the platteland, but I want to point out how there is an exemption of that extra taxation which is particularly in the interest of the gold mines. People who travel third class do not pay the tax, and they are particularly the natives of the Transkei, the Northern Transvaal and other parts, who go to the mines, and for whom the mines should pay. They get exemption, and the mines get the most benefit therefrom. And yet that is the industry which is assured of a fixed price now and in the future, when the depression comes, which will come as certainly as day follows night. The depression will come after this war, and if the ordinary farmers and citizens will have to make great sacrifices, and if there is unemployment and a decrease in prices, if people will not know where they can get their food from, then the gold mines will still be assured of a fixed price. Today while the price is high—and it is a good thing—the mines for the greater part are working low grade ore, but if difficulties come they still have the ore of higher quality on which they can concentrate. Thus, if a depression comes, then the gold mines can yield still greater profits than today. Why should we not use them today and get from them what we can? Then we shall place the farmers in position to put their farming on a sound basis, and then we shall also be able to tax the commercial man less and to help him to stabilise his business, so that he may meet the future with greater confidence and can withstand a setback. We do not know what may happen to the gold mines, because we do not know what the prospects of gold are. I shall be glad if the Minister will pay a little attention to this point, and will give us a little information. In Canada and America practically no gold is being produced today, they have closed their gold mines deliberately and in other countries also no gold is being produced now. We are still producing fully, but we also know that South Africa is today producing more gold than it needs for its trade balance purposes, that is to meet the difference between import and export. In America and Canada, as I have already said, no gold is now being produced, and I would like to know what, according to the Minister the position of gold is going to be in the future; what danger exists regarding the over-production of gold? We know that people with a knowledge of these things have already said that it will apparently be necessary to restrict gold production and to control it after the war, and if this happens what is the position going to be? This is another reason why we must tax the gold mines more heavily at this juncture than is the case today. The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) has rightly pointed out how this Budget has been applauded by the gold mines. The share market rose, because they expected to be taxed much more heavily. If there is one industry that considers itself lucky then it is the mining industry, from which the Minister should have taken more. The gold mines are rejoicing and the shares are going up, which shows that they have been treated very mercifully. The hon. member for Kensington makes his statement that the voice of the people has made itself heard and that the people are satisfied with the Budget on the ground that the gold mines have applauded the Budget and that the shareholders have applauded the Budget. But the capitalists and the mining magnates, or the shareholders, have never been acknowledged by us to be the voice of the people. We want to see how heavy the burden is that the true citizens of the country must bear. Now the Minister evidently finds fault with the steps taken by some people to invest their surplus capital in fixed property, or in other assets of a permanent value. He evidently prefers that the people should buy Union Loan Certificates or should in other ways invest the money on behalf of the State. I must say that I cannot blame the man in the street if he is panicky about the Loan Certificates of the Government, and if he places more confidence in the value of fixed property. If we see, however, how the Minister heaps up debts year after year and makes the debt burden heavier year after year, while no assets are being created against the debts—all burdens on which interest will have to be paid—then one cannot blame anybody if he begins losing his confidence in the monetary value of our country. We do not know how long the war will last, but what will be the position when the war has ended? What will be the value of money? I do not blame anybody who prefers to invest money in fixed property, and I hope the people who are so concerned about the war, for example hon. members on the other side, will invest their money in Union Loan Certificates and thereby show their eanestness and that they are prepared to sacrifice their assets. I expect and I fear that our monetary value will decrease enormously if we go on as we are doing today and I can understand why people should be trying to put their money into things with an intrinsic value. Nobody wants to encourage speculation in land, nobody wants to encourage people to buy land at the higher value than the productive value, but on the other side we also want to warn our farmers that there is a tendency today to sell land without keeping account of the decrease in our money value, and without asking themselves what the monetary value is going to be. When they receive the money for their fixed property, what are they going to do with the money? They must be careful not to sell land while later on, as a result of the decrease in our monetary value, land of the same value cannot be regained for the sum. The Minister of Finance has pointed out with a certain measure of pride that we have paid off our external loans in London, that while in March, 1941 the external loans in London still amounted to £94,600,000, these have now been reduced to £16,750,000. It sounds very nice, but I would like the Minister to play open cards and tell us why these loans have been repaid. Let the Minister tell us why loans payable 20 years and more hence have now been suddenly paid off by him. Why has the money been drawn from South Africa and paid off to England? Was this done at the request of England? Who asked for it? We know that the Reserve Bank here sat with gold, an enormous quantity of gold of the gold mines. The Reserve Bank sat with the surplus of gold and with that the overseas loans were practically bought out. The Government has floated loans here in our country to take over those loans from the Reserve Bank. It sounds very nice and good, but I would like to know clearly what the position is. The Reserve Bank buys about 14,000,000 ounces of fine gold from the gold mines annually and pays £115,000,000 for it, but only 11,000,000 ounces of gold are needed to equalise the trade balance that is to wipe out the difference between our importation from overseas and our export. A considerable quantity of gold remains over, and with that the loans are now being repaid. Evidently the remaining £16,000,000 that we still have in loans overseas will be paid off this year. What will then become of the surplus gold that the Reserve Bank must buy from the mines? What is the position? This is so important that I hope the Minister will make a statement on it. We know what happened after the last war. I do not want to go into the reasons, but England repudiated its debt to America. South Africa, however, paid its debts in full to England, and now we are even going so far as to repay loans that are payable only after 20 years. We have had no benefit from the repudiation of debts by England. England had all the benefit of it, and we paid. Why must we at this juncture take enormous amounts for war purposes while the probability exists that there will again be a repudiation of debts after the war? Now the Minister is sucking our country dry of money that could otherwise have been used for the development of industries in South Africa. If England does not pay her debts after the war—which is quite probable—and writing-off takes place, then we shall have nobody against whom we can write off our debts, and South Africa will again suffer loss. The Minister of Finance has said again that not only rich people contribute, but also poor people, poor people who save a few pennies and put these in loans, and precisely they will perhaps suffer loss if there is an ultimate repudiation of debt. I hope the Minister will give a clear reply to the questions I have put in connection with the repayment of loans. Why have they been liquidated so far ahead?

The hon. member who has just sat down joined the chorus of the other side in trying to frighten the country about this huge war expenditure of ours. It is true that this war costs us a great deal of money but I do not agree with the hon. members that that war debt we are incurring now is unproductive. The freedom that we are going to have after this war will be some reward; surely then it is not unproductive. The hon. member rightly says that posterity will have to pay the interest on the money we are spending now. Posterity will be thankful to us later on that we did spend this money, and that we left them the heritage of freedom. But accepting that this expenditure on war is unproductive, what is the position of our finance today? In spite of this big expenditure our financial position in this country is stronger than ever.

When business was suspended, I was saying that posterity will not bear us any grudge for passing on a very small burden, but I would like to ask the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) whether posterity would not have had a grudge if we had remained neutral, if we had allowed this country to be invaded by the Germans or the Japanese and the whole of our economic and financial structure had broken down; what would they have said then? Then they would have had a grievance. But is that burden that we are supposed to pass on to posterity so very great? It is true that we are spending a great deal of money and that we are borrowing a great deal, but the fact must be borne in mind that the interest on our national debt has been reduced very considerably. Does it make any difference whether we pay 5 per cent. on £250,000,000, or whether we pay 2½ per cent. on £500,000,000? Whether the taxpayer has to pay or whether posterity has to pay does not enter into mathematics. If we had said that posterity will bear the burden …

Is that big finance? Do you believe that yourself?

If it is said that posterity will bear us a grudge on account of the war debt, what about the reproductive debt that we are passing on, that has been built up on our railways and other public works? Today we have an amount of £180,000,000 invested in the railways. What will they be worth to posterity? They will be worth twice as much as £180,000,000 to posterity, so on that score posterity will certainly not bear us a grudge. But with all that, is it not remarkable that our financial stability is so very much stronger in spite of the money we have spent, in spite of the millions we are spending on the war? Today our national debt, whatever it is, is held in this country, and from a debtor country we have become a creditor country today, where formerly we owed millions outside the country; today we owe it in the country. I think the hon. Minister is to be congratulated on the conversion of these loans. The hon. member for Pietersburg and those who follow him look at this matter through smoked glasses. They know that the people who are paying these taxes are satisfied. They cannot quarrel with them, so they begin to quarrel today with posterity. But the hon. member also referred to the gold position. He said that he did not think that the gold mines were paying sufficient in this war. Frankly, I am not quite competent to deal with that question, but I know that certain hon. members from the Rand will tell us that the gold mines are suffering under that extra taxation. I hold different views on the matter which at this stage I do not really care to elaborate on. But I would like to ask the hon. Minister this question: Whether, on account of the increased cost of production on the Rand and the consequent shrinkage in the revenue from the profits made by the mines, we cannot put up the price of gold. That price is not static today. Why should not the price of gold be raised by 5 per cent. or 10 per cent.? Everybody would be happy then. Gold is a commodity which has an excellent market today. And let me say this, that when we buy anything from abroad they make us pay for it; everybody does, and when Brazil or the Argentine sell commodities to us they are merciless in the profits they make, so is it quite out of the question when we have it in our hands to raise the price of gold? I suppose the Argentine and Brazil are being paid with gold. If the price of gold is put up, the Minister will be happier, the shareholders will be happier and we will all be happy.

Happy days are here again.

I would like a little enlightenment on the point. Why the price of gold should not be raised on account of the increased costs of production. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) dealt with the other taxation. He said that the revenue, the normal and super tax and so on, would not come up to expectation. He drew a vivid picture of empty shelves in the stores, and that none of our expectations will be realised. I hold quite a different view on that. I think the Minister is wrong and the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) is wrong too. The Minister is wrong because he is going to get very much more money out of his normal and super tax and out of his excess profits tax, too, than he budgets for, and good luck to him. And why do I say he is going to get more? Trade is buoyant and nothing can prove that better than the clearance figures of the banks. If you look at the clearing houses of the Union for the year 1939, an amount of £925,000,000 was turned over. In 1940 that rose to £1,022,000,000. In 1941 it rose to £1,192,000,000 and in the last year, that is in 1942, the amount rose to £1,328,000,000, and it is still on the up grade. During the half year from June to the 31st December, 1942, the amount reached its peak of £672,000,000 in a half year. I mention that half year figure particularly because that trade is behind us. We have that in hand. Nine months trade has passed, and I predict that the profits are not going to diminish. And those shelves are not empty. Stocks are fairly plentiful so I predict that the Minister will get a most agreeable surprise—his figures will be very much better—his revenue figures, than what he budgets for today. He has increased the normal tax, and the super tax by 15 per cent. and I am satisfied.

The decreased figure does not allow for the increased rate.

No, I know. But anyway that if that figure is affected by these returns, you are in for a jolly good time.

I hope so.

There is no slackening off of trade; it keeps on rising, and with these figures the profits will be rising judging by these banking returns one can assume an increase in value and turnover which will lead at least to a 10 per cent. advance of the gross profits. The profits will lead to a 10 per cent. advance, and your merchants and your distributors will not be hit so very hard by this extra tax, such as the companies tax, which has been increased form 3s. 6d. to 4s. Assuming that the increase in turnover will lead to a 10 per cent. in crease in gross profits. The 3s. 6d. company tax on a profit of £100,000 amounts to £17,500 leaving a net profit of £82,500. Whereas with a 4s. tax and allowing for an increase of 10 per cent.—although I think the increase of profit will be greater than 10 per cent.—it will be nearer 20 per cent. for the next year—we will have a profit of £110,000, and the taxation at 4s. will be £22,000, and the net profit of that firm will be £88,000. That is £4,000 more than the firm would have made when it paid 3s. 6d. There is no speculation about it. It cannot be otherwise, with this buoyant trade, everything points to that. So the extra tax which has been imposed on trading concerns will not be felt by them. As a matter of fact with this increased turnover, because of higher prices, they will make bigger profits than before.

The consumer pays again.

Yes, quite right, the consumer always pays. And so your trade profits special levy and your excess profit tax and your special savings levy will also respond. If shipping improves, which everyone hopes, then there will be very much greater revenue from customs. I should just like to mention this tax on passenger tickets which no one seems to like and which some hon. members contend is unconstitutional. Personally I do not care whether it is unconstitutional or not, because I think it is a very fair tax, I think it is right, but I think the Minister might have tackled it in a different way. Your Railways with a capital of £180,000,000 are paying interest to the Treasury. And I presume that they pay interest at the same rate as the Treasury is paying. The Railways today are making a profit. They are making a war profit. They are making profit out of the war and the Minister has always told us that no one should be allowed to make profits out of the war, but he allows the Railways to do so. Why not take some of that war profit away from them? It is perfectly true that the Minister of Railways has ideas about conserving his finances and building up funds which may be required later on, but it is only fair and right that if that principle of war profits is carried to its logical conclusion then the war profits which the Railways make should also be taken from them. Anyhow, that is what I should do if I were Minister of Finance. I would say: “You pay the interest on the money at the same rate as you paid when these loans were entered into; if there is a difference of even 1 per cent. on £180,000,000—which I think there would be — you would be getting £1,800,000 per annum as contribution towards the war.” Why not? I hope our sticklers for constitutional methods would not object to that. There is no reason at all why the Railway fares should not be increased if it is necessary to do so, but let the Railways themselves increase the fares, and let them pay the Treasury Bank the war profits they are making. It would be an easy matter for the Treasury to charge the Railway the rate of interest at which these moneys were originally borrowed—and transfer the difference in the interest to the the Treasury. That would give the Minister a great deal more money than he expects to get out of these increased railway fares. There is another matter I want to bring before the Minister, and that is the money he is getting out of war risk insurance. He informed me that up to 1st January we have already collected £1,000,000 out of war insurance policies. I think it will probably be £1,250,000 now, and all the money is eventually to go towards the repayment of the national debt.

What is left of it.

The Minister thanked some of these people who gave the Treasury money without interest. Well, this war insurance is also a voluntary taxation. The people who pay it know as well as the Minister that the danger has passed now, and for many of them there is no need to go on paying that insurance. It would be to the Minister’s interest to encourage the insurance, and those who have given that voluntary contribution up to now should get some little recognition, and I think the Minister should say: “We can take your risk at a little less,” and those who have been insured for three or six months should be allowed some concession. Allow the concessions to the churches and the charitable institutions and to sporting bodies—and also to the municipalities who have insured and contributed largely to that fund. If the Minister adopts that policy, that little nest-egg will grow. I think the Minister would be wise in following that course. Time does not permit me to go further into these taxation matters. I only want to say this, that these taxation measures have been well received, and I feel that there is no question about the stability of the country’s finances. I am very much more concerned about the future. I have before me the report of the Social and Economic Planning Council—a very fine document on which I congratulate the Government. I hope that these committees which the report suggests will be instituted right away. I want briefly to refer to some industrial matters, but particularly to the fishing industry. In 1940 we passed the Fisheries Act here which was intended as a war measure. Nothing has been done. We would not be short of meat today if we could have fish as a substitute. I want to appeal to our new Minister of Commerce, who is endowed with the vigour of youth, and I want to ask him to give this matter his attention. In conclusion I want to say a few words to the Food Controller. We are told that there is a shortage of meat and that shortages of foodstuff are imminent. We are told to conserve our cattle. I know the Minister is opposed to rationing, and I know that control is no good unless you ration. Let me suggest to him that we should have a meatless day in this country, a butterless day, and, if necessary, an eggless day. In that way our resources will be conserved. We should benefit from our experience and realise that the conservation of our foodstuffs is a matter of primary consideration. Let the Minister increase our grain elevators tenfold, and build cold storages all over the country for the preservation of food, then nothing will be wasted.

From this side of the House criticism has been expressed on the budget, and on the taxation proposals, by my leader, by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), and by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Conroy). I do not want to go into that matter, but I would like to bring one matter to the attention of the Minister. It is viz. the tax on tobacco. We know that taxation is unpopular, but if ever there was an unpopular tax then it is this tobacco tax. We feel that this tax presses not so much on the consumer but on the producer. The Minister will perhaps know that the producer of tobacco is generally the middle-class farmer and the poor farmer. There must be no discrimination, but it is these classes who occupy themselves with tobacco growing. I believe the Minister has had representations from the co-operative societies and other bodies that represent the tobacco farmers. I hope he will be helpful to that section of our farmers. I have really risen to plead for another class of our farmers. They are viz. the Transvaal fruit farmers. I have tried on a former occasion to bring to the attention of the Minister that the interests of the Transvaal fruit farmers should also be looked after. There was a time when we looked to the Western Province for our fruit. But now it is no longer the case. The Minister of Finance should know that the Transvaal produces as much fruit as any part of the Cape. Further I want to say this, that in the Transvaal it is also the middle-class man and the poor farmer who occupy themselves with fruit culture. What do we find now? Of late those Transvaal fruit farmers have been neglected in a shocking manner. They are even downtrodden by the farmers in the Western Province with the assistance of the Citrus Fruit Board. I can almost say that it appears to me as if the Government is more concerned about the fruit farmers in the Cape Province than it cares about the interests of the fruit farmers in the Transvaal. In the Transvaal it is mainly the middle-class farmer and the poor farmer who grow fruit. In the Western Province the reverse is precisely the case. In the Cape Province the fruit farmer is the well-to-do man. Just travel about the Cape Province and you will see that the well-to-do farmers are the fruit farmers. I have said that we in the Transvaal are not only being overlooked, but we are being downtrodden, and I hope to Le able to prove this. As the Minister will remember a Deciduous Fruit Board was created to look after the interests of the exporters in the Cape Province. Let me say clearly that the exporters before the war were the well-to-do people, the people who had the necessary equipment and who were equipped for export, the people who had the necessary capital. The small farmers could not afford it, and it was the well-to-do people in the Western Province who exported, and the Deciduous Fruit Board was created to help them. How is that Board now composed? According to the reply the Minister gave me the Board consists of twelve members. One of them is an official, one is a consumer, while ten are producers. Of those ten members there is only one to represent the whole Transvaal and the whole Free State, while nine of the members represent the Western Province. We feel that this is a very important matter. As I have already said, that Deciduous Fruit Board was created to look after the export of fruit. But the Minister of Commerce and Industry told us the other evening over the radio that the fruit farmers must no longer look overseas but to the markets of this country. There is no longer any market overseas, and we must see how the inland market can be exploited. We must keep open the internal market for our fruit. We feel therefore that the Deciduous Fruit Board no longer answers its purpose. It was created to look after export before the war. The Minister can tell me if my figures are right, but I take it that the position is as follows: Before the war about 1,500 fruit farmers were engaged in the export of fruit. On the other hand I estimate that the smaller farmers whom I mentioned in the Transvaal and in the Cape, who did not participate in export and who were not represented on the Board, numbered between 3,000 and 4,000. I am quite certain that their number is at least double the number of those who exported fruit before the war. In addition to that we have this meagre representation which has been given to the Transvaal and the Free State. How can one man, no matter how able he is, represent the whole Transvaal and the whole Free State as against nine representatives of the Cape? What is happening now? That Deciduous Fruit Board buys the fruit of the 1,500 fruit farmers at a fixed price of 2s. 6d. per box for peaches and 3s. 6d. for a box of grapes. I do not know if my figures are precisely correct, but the Minister can tell me. What is happening now? I want to tell the Minister immediately that we have no objection to those people being met in respect of the losses they are suffering because they cannot now export fruit. But what we do object to is that those people are being assisted at the expense of another section of farmers. The Deciduous Fruit Board buys the fruit of those 1,500 farmers at fixed prices, and sends the fruit to the various inland markets. If that fruit fetches 1s. per box—and it happens fairly frequently—then the Government adds 1s. 6d. in order to bring the price at 2s. 6d. The Minister shakes his head, but that is my information. Our objection is that these 1,500 farmers, or as many as there happen to be, send their fruit to the Johannesburg market with the aid of the Government, and compete there with the fruit of the other farmers. We get nothing from the Government, while at the same time the Deciduous Fruit Board competes with us on the market, and gets this subsidy from the Treasury. I want to mention an instance. Supposing a Transvaal farmer sends 100 boxes of fruit. He gets 1s. per box, which is often the result of the terrible competition on the market; he has to pay 5 per cent. to the agent, which means that he gets out £4 15s. The Cape farmer sends 100 boxes. He gets 1s. per box, viz. £5. And then the Government contributes 1s. 6d. per box, so that he gets another £7 10s. from the Treasury. Thus I receive £4 15s. for 100 boxes and the Cape farmer gets £12 10s. for 100 boxes. As regard the boxes, I take it that our expenses are equal. Why this position? Take a man who sells 1,000 boxes. The Transvaal farmer gets 1s. per box if he sells 1,000 boxes, or a total of £50, but the farmer in the Western Province gets £50 for his 1,000 boxes plus £75 from the Government, or a total of £125. The Transvaal farmer gets £50, less £1 5s. for commission, or £48 5s., and the Cape farmer gets £125.

A scandal!

It is a scandal. As I have already said. I put a question to the Minister, but I cannot get a reply from him. I asked him what the annual sum is that is paid to the fruit farmers in the Cape. My information is that it amounts to £300,000, that 1,500 fruit farmers in the Western Province get a subsidy of £300,000 from the Treasury. What does the Minister of Finance say about that? We in the Transvaal do not get a penny. I am not jealous of the farmers here. Give them another £300,000 if you will, but keep them away from our market up there. Do not crush us with the aid of a subsidy from the Treasury to the farmers here. Help them, but do not crush us to death. If there is open competition we shall square accounts with the Cape farmers ourselves, because they cannot compete with the Transvaal farmers today. The Minister must not think that I want to quarrel with him, but he must know what the position is, and that it cannot longer be tolerated. Even in the Cape there appears to be trouble. There are small farmers who do not enjoy those privileges, and who are equally dissatisfied. Take the case of Mr. Dorfman, of Stellenbosch, who now transports commodities on his lorry to sell here direct to the public. There is another side to this question, and that is the distrust that exists of the Deciduous Fruit Board, of the inequality that is being created by the Board. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but the assurance has been given me that a certain quota is available to exporters, and that the Rhodes Fruit Farms and the Cape Orchard Co. and a few others get their full 100 per cent. quota. I want to ask the Minister if this is not so? Is it true also that they have their own representatives on the Deciduous Fruit Board? There, of course, they can look after their own interests. Is it right? I want to ask the Minister of Finance, who has to keep a vigilant eye on financial matters, if he is satisfied with the differentiation that is being made, that certain people are stuffed full of money, while others have to do without? Is it right that 1,500 fruit farmers should get £300,000 from the Treasury, while 3,000 or 4,000 others do not get a penny? The Minister will ask what should now be done. My answer is: Away with the Deciduous Fruit Board. The Board has no right to exist. It was created to promote export, but the Minister of Commerce and Industries said over the radio the other day that we must no longer look to the external or overseas market, but to our internal market. Let us then get rid of the Deciduous Fruit Board, which is costing thousands of pounds and is causing improper competition. If the Minister does not want to abolish it, then give us in the Transvaal equal representation on the Board. I hope that with these few words I have given proof that the Transvaal is just as important, if not more important, than the Western Province as regards fruit, but not grapes. We can claim the same representation, so that the Board can set to work in a fairer manner. The distribution system is also in a hopeless position. If I want to buy peaches here in Cape Town today I must pay 3d. each, while a person on the Johannesburg market can get three dozen for 1s. Why cannot we get peaches cheaper in Cape Town? The distribution of the Board is wrong. Give us proper representation on the Board. We do not ask compensation from the Government; we can easily compete with the Western Province farmers, but do not support farmers out of the Treasury to eliminate us up there. I hope the Minister will give careful consideration to this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped not to speak on this debate, because there is very little time left for private members who have important matters to lay before the House. But, sir, certain speeches have been made on native affairs which now stand in Hansard, and unless they are corrected, people who read Hansard and who want the facts, will be misled. I had hoped to make an important statement on the Civil Employment Board, but I am now letting that stand over entirely. The question of the financial side of native affairs, taxation and so forth, I will leave to the Minister of Finance to answer. Certain attacks were made on him, but I do not propose to defend him, because the hon. Minister is quite capable of defending himself without my poor efforts. Several speakers have raised points here on the general policy with regard to native affairs. Certain members have attacked the Government for spending too little, and other members, including the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein), who raised his voice to high heaven because the Government is spending too much. There I think we have a case where the two statements cancel each other out, and I think we can leave it to fairminded and reasonable people both outside and in this House, to decide whether the Government is not now following the right policy. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) stated that there has been no development of the land in the native reserves.

I said not enough.

I read your speech last night, and that is what I gathered from it, that a very poor effort was being made as regards development in the native reserves. Sir, that is not correct. If he looks at the Estimates for the current year, he will find that £25,000 has been put down for soil erosion, and if he looks at the Estimates for the ensuing year, he will find a further £20,000. I admit that since the war started the development has not been what it should be, but I think it is only fair, and I think the hon. gentleman would have been fairer if he had admitted that a great deal had been done.

I was talking about the last Estimates.

Have you seen the new Estimates? I have not seen them yet.

Perhaps. I may be allowed to go on. The objection to the increase on loan account can be dealt with by the Minister of Finance, who will also deal with the financial side of native education. But in regard to this latter I would like to say this, that the development of native education is receiving the consideration of the Government, and particularly during the recess the Government will go into the matter fully. I said in this House and in Another Place not very long ago, in the course of another debate, that in the last five years there had been an increase of 71 per cent. The hon. gentleman made no mention of that, and, sir, that increase is being maintained, in spite of the war. The hon. gentleman made no mention that loan funds are voted by the Government for the purchase and development of land. I might say that hitherto the development side of it has been dealt with from Native Trust Funds. Whilst I appreciate more should be done, I think it is only fair, and I think the hon. gentleman will agree with me, in saying that a very great deal has been done. Now, I want to refer to items provided in the Estimates of the Trust for the ensuing year. I will give the figures: Agricultural training, Fort Cox Agricultural School, £11,735; experimental farms, £22,770; water supplies, £60,620; veld improvement, £9,800; afforestation, £14,955; livestock improvement, £15,250; roads and bridges, £12,350; stock diseases, £38,735; health services, £62,470; industrial training, £5,685; general development, £33,240; making a grand total of £287,610. Is it not wrong to suggest that nothing is being done? The hon. member then asked for the recall of officers who are in the army, that is to say, officials from the Department. What an example it would be for the greatest employer of labour, the Government, to call officers out of the army in time of war? What would the ordinary private employer, who in many cases, has made great sacrifices to give up men to go to the war? What will he think about it, especially when you remember, sir, that many of these private employers have paid large parts of the salaries of the men who have gone to fight, and have looked after their dependants whilst they are away. I could understand a remark like that coming from the other side of the House, but I cannot understand it from a supporter of the Government. His remarks regarding pensions will be dealt with by the Minister of Finance, but I want to refer to his remarks on invalidity pensions and subsidisation of railway rates. As we know, the Inter-Departmental Committee’s report suggested that railway rates for natives coming from their locations to their work should be subsidised. So far from wanting such a thing as subsidies for this, the hon. member for Boshof was frightfully indignant that the hon. Minister of Finance did not put a further tax on third class fares. There, again, you have both sides of the picture. Matters raised in the report on the conditions of natives in urban areas have been gone into carefully in Another Place, and I gave full details there and also in this House. I showed how heads of departments had been called together to decide how to implement certain recommendations immediately, and how they were to implement certain other recommendations in the near future. And not only that, the departments are being called together again to see what other recommendations can be implemented as soon as it is possible. A great deal has already been done. The hon. member for the Transkei (Mr. Hemming) raised the point about native health. Again I dealt with this fully not long ago in a debate in the House. The hon. member said that no allowance was made in the Transkei for the natural increase of natives, and he further accused the Government of not implementing its part of the contract in the 1936 legislation. Sir, it is not correct to say that no seps have been taken to increase the areas available in the Transkeian territories. Very valuable farms have been bought, no less than 106,000 morgen at a cost of £640,000. The hon. gentleman made no reference to that. Further purchases are contemplated immediately we have the staff, and any farmer will realise that it is no use buying farms if you have no one to manage or look after them. The mere purchase of land will not alleviate the position in the Transkeian territories. The eroded conditions of the country have been investigated by a commission presided over by Mr. Young, who is not only a member of the Native Affairs Commission, but also an ex-senior official of the Department of Native Affairs. That commission put forward strong recommendations of a very drastic nature, such as the limitation of stock and the provision of fencing. I am glad to say that certain of the people concerned have agreed to the limitation of stock, but it is no use trying to do veld management unless you can fence your farms. Any practical farmer knows that you must have your farms fenced so as to let certain camps rest while you graze the others. And you cannot get fencing material today. If you could get it, you could not get the ships to freight it. I can say the department intends to tackle this the moment there is the opportunity to get the material. Now, as to vital statistics and the point made by the hon. member that they are lacking and are essentially necessary, I entirely agree with his remarks, though I do not agree with the figures that he put before the House. Surely he appreciates the fact that the department so recognised the necessity for these figures, that a scheme has been fully prepared or was in process of being prepared, before the war, to get the very information which he spoke of, and therefore it shows that the Government, before the war, was fully alive to the necessity, but owing to lack of staff and other considerations it was impossible to go on with it at the present moment. The Government is fully alive to the necessity, and it will be done as soon as possible. In regard to his remarks on native wages, surely the hon. gentleman knows that the Prime Minister has personally appointed a very strong commission under no less a person than Judge Lansdowne as chairman, to go into the whole question of wages on the mines. Can he therefore expect me to give an opinion on that when that commission has been appointed? His statement that a sixth of the native’s wage goes to meet his fare to and from his home is simply not correct. The Native Economic Commission which sat at a time when the native paid his fare both ways, found that if the contract was for six months it took between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. of the native’s wages, and if for twelve months, the percentage dropped by 33⅓. Since the mines paid the one-way fare, it is the considered opinion of my department that only one-twelfth of the man’s earnings go towards his rail fare. Another important point he raised was the repatriation of tuberculotics to their former place of domicile. It is not correct to say that these cases are not followed up. Under an agreement arrived at in 1939, magistrates are informed that any tuberculotics, or men suffering from miners’ phthisis returning to their homes, are to be followed up, and any case of that kind is entitled to further compensation according to the stage which his disease had reached. Then his statement that no less than 10 per cent. of the children of school-going age are in school in the Transkei, is simply not correct either. The figures are available if he goes to the Cape Department for Education. He will find there that it is categorically stated that 45 per cent. of the children of school-going age go to school in the Transkei.

In the Transkei?

I am talking about the Transkei. I will pass on to the hon. member for Boshof, who I may say I thought made a most regrettable speech in this House. If that is too strong an expression, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw it, and I would say it was almost a malicious speech, once more stirring up suspicion and hatred between black and white, a thing which the representatives of the natives in this House have always studiously avoided, to their honour. Here the hon. gentleman comes forward and tries to stir the whole thing up again. One can only realise that this type of speech is made on the eve of a General Election. I am not going to take up the time of the House in replying to the political side of this, but I am going to give the facts and all fair-minded people can decide after judging, for themselves, what the position is. The hon. member assumes that if you are going to give each child a meal per day, you will arrive at a vast astronomical sum, which will have to be found to meet the final account in that regard. The late Mr. Merriman used to say: “Give me statistics, and I will prove anything.” Sir, the fact is an experiment has been tried in one of the native institutes at Lady Frere, where it is found that a sound good meal can be supplied at 3d. per head per day, provided the other people are prepared to co-operate. What then becomes of all this wonderful story about £6,000,000 to £10,000,000? I don’t think for one moment that it is fair to say that the natives are coming direct to the towns because their children are going to get one meal a day. I don’t think that has the slightest foundation in fact. It is true that natives are leaving the countryside to come to the towns, no one will deny that, but the reason is better wages and industrial development, and not the fact that their children are going to get a meal. I think that is rather a foolish statement. Schools are being established in rural areas, schools are already established there, and what reason, then, is there for the ordinary native to pull up his roots where he is living in order to take his children to the city, where they can get an extra meal? The Native Affairs Department has placed at the disposal of the Education Department a very substantial sum of money to provide for the establishment of rural native schools. In many cases they have been most successful, and, sir, where the farmers are prepared to co-operate it can be done in other areas. There is therefore no reason for the natives to leave the farms. His remark about native education and the transfer of the native general tax from the consolidated revenue to Native Trust Funds, I would like to say something about. It is correct that there have been increased demands for native education, and these have been met by an increased contribution from the general tax to the Trust Fund. That is perfectly true, but I would remind the hon. member that the increased contribution starting from one-fifth to seventwentieths in 1935—’36, and from two-fifths in 1936—’37, to three-fifths in 1937—’38, was provided by the previous Government, and the policy was set by the previous Government. Why does not the hon. member ask his deputy-leader, instead of attacking the Minister of Finance? The present Government has merely extended the policy which was started, and approved, by the deputyleader of his own party, and the leader of the New Orderite Party, and supported by the leader of the Afrikaner Party, and half the hon. members sitting behind. The policy has been extended, but it was started by the previous Government and supported by hon. members on the other side. The present Minister of Finance can only be held responsible for the increase, and it is not fair to say that the hon. Minister of Finance was carried away by the Native Representative Council in making their demands for this. It is true the Council did definitely make representations for an increase of native education, but the increase was based on representations and recommendations of the Native Affairs Commission, which consists of all political opinions in this House. Regarding the transfer of the one-sixth which is now taking place, or which was foreshadowed in the speech of the Minister of Finance, the position is that the estimates for native education showed a deficit of £327,000 and some odd hundreds, and those estimates were laid before the Native Affairs Commission, which unanimously made these recommendations. As I say, that Commission represents all shades of political opinion in the House. The fact is that the Trust cannot finance this amount, and the Native Trust Fund, not having the money, obviously it had to come from some other source. The same applies to previous years, when exactly the same procedure was followed; as the money was required more and more was taken from that general tax and made available for this purpose. The hon. member for Boshof has asked for some comparisons, and I will give him some. The total expenditure for the four Provinces for the current year 1942—’43 on education, is as follows: For the European population, just over 2,000,000, the total expenditure is £9,474,489, you can say nine and a half millions; for the coloured, a population of 769,000 and some odd hundreds, the total expenditure is £1,121,962; natives, taking the figures on the 1936 basis, the population is 6,600,000, or nearly 7,000,000, and the total expenditure on education £1,405,000 and some odd hundreds.

You put that on an equal footing as the European population?

No, you will see the ratio per head.

You want it to be equal?

Not at all, I am showing what is fair. Add to these the following figures showing the amount which the Union Education Department intends spending in the ensuing financial year. Europeans approximately £1,300,000; coloureds £59,000; natives £46,000, out of which money has to be found for two Reformatories, which cost a good deal. Now, let us take the figures for the Cape Province alone.

You have forgotten the Indian figures.

I don’t know what they are, but let us take the figure for the Cape alone. Europeans £3,824,000—coloureds £891,000. Now, you take this and compare it with the whole figure for the Union for native education—£1,400,000. Then let us take a comparison of the amount per child. The hon. member opposite tried to draw a red herring across the trail and wanted us to believe that we were going to give more facilities to natives than to whites. Well, I have the figures here. Europeans £21 11s. 11d., coloureds £5 19s. and natives £2 7s. 2d. The hon. members have tried to draw the inference and they have tried to suggest that we were trying to take away something from the white children. Of course they dare not do it here—but that is what they will try to do outside. They tried to suggest that we are taking something away from the white child so as to educate the native, and of course, we know that that is going to be one of their cries in the General Election. People who have not got the opportunity of knowing the position as we do may be induced to believe that, but hon. members dare not say it here, although we know they will say it outside. We know that every little election agent will make that his cry. But there is no need for me to go into the figures again. Let me ask this question—is there any single white child who is not being put into school. That is the point and that is the whole point—that is the whole point on which the hon. member opposite has tried to balance his statement. We know that there is no foundation for that statement. I don’t want to take up any more time. I said before, that this Government, realising the position of the 1936 legislation, realising that there cannot be political equality, there cannot be social equality, but nevertheless it is our job to see that the native as regards his health, his economic condition, his sanitation and everything affecting his welfare, shall get a square deal. And this Government is out to see that he gets a square deal. And so long as I am Minister of Native Affairs I shall see that he does get a square deal and if people outside don’t want that then they must get another Minister of Native Affairs.

The Minister of Native Affairs expressed himself very strongly about the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) and said that the hon. member was trying to stir up ill feeling between European and non-European. It is a pity that the Minister did not take the same exception to the manner in which the Communists in South Africa today are stirring up ill feeling between the European and the non-European population. On another point, however, I find myself more or less in the same position as the Minister of Native Affairs, and that is where he said that certain statements appearing in Hansard should not be allowed to go unchallenged. I find myself in the same position, that statements will be appearing in Hansard in connection with another matter, and I feel that unless I avail myself of this opportunity to deal with such statements they will go unchallenged. I am taking advantage of this opportunity when we are discussing the Budget, to resume the debate which we had last week, and which will allow me to resume my attack on Communism and more particularly on the Communistic propaganda in South Africa, a matter which should particularly interest my hon. friend, the Minister of Native Affairs.

I regret to interrupt the hon. member but we cannot have the debate on Communism all over again; that matter was disposed of last Friday.

I submit that on the Budget debate we are allowed to discuss matters of Government policy, and I submit that in discussing the question of the Government’s attitude towards Communistic propaganda, I am discussing a matter of Government policy which has always been allowed on the Budget debate.

No, this matter has been disposed of by a motion which was before the House, and it cannot be discussed again. The hon. member can refer to it, but he cannot discuss it again.

May I submit once more that the Minister of Justice as the representative of the Government, has to reply on behalf of the Government … to him is entrusted the task of maintaining law and order. We are now discussing the Budget, and we shall be going into Committee very soon, when we shall have to deal with the question of the Minister’s salary and the salaries of the members of his Department. Where we have to discuss his salary we should be allowed to discuss the manner in which he carries out his duties.

The hon. member is perfectly entitled to discuss the manner in which the Minister carries out his duties, but he cannot resume a discussion on a matter which has been finally disposed of. That is a rule of the House, and the hon. member should observe that rule.

May I discuss the attitude of the Minister of Justice towards Communistic propaganda?

The hon. member can proceed, and I shall consider what he is saying. The hon. member suggested himself that he was resuming the debate on the motion which was disposed of on Friday. That cannot be allowed in any circumstances.

I wish to devote myself first to the Minister of Justice, who unfortunately is not present, and I wish to say to the Minister as one member of the House to another, and not only as a member of the House, but as the Minister responsible, but also as one South African to another South African, that in connection with this matter of Communistic propaganda, particularly among the native population of South Africa, the Minister of Justice cannot close his eyes to what is going on. He cannot evade his responsibility by pretending not to notice what is going on, or by drawing red herrings across the trail, and suggesting that there are other types of propaganda which needs his attention. This propaganda on behalf of the Communistic Party is directed more particularly to the native population. It is directed not only to the native population, but recently it has been directed also to the labouring classes, and I was informed last week on very good authority that Communist agitators are also now beginning their propaganda among the lower paid men among the Railway Servants. And then there is the undoubted fact that there is a considerable amount of Communistic propaganda being carried on among the soldiers of the South African Army. I think the Minister of Justice will agree, if he has been keeping his eyes and his ears open, that there has been a great increase in Communistic propaganda amongst the natives, especially since the entry of Russia into the war. I want to refer the Minister of Justice to a statement which appeared recently in the “South African Mining Journal” of the 19th December, 1942. I quote from this to show that also his own friends, those people who ordinarily support him and his party, also are beginning to feel as we do about this danger of Communistic propaganda. In its issue of the 19th December, 1942, the “South African Mining and Engineering Journal” wrote as follows—

I Submit that the Minister of Justice cannot entirely disregard a very serious warning coming from a journal representing industry which is very closely connected with native labour, which has reason to complain and reason to warn, and I say that here he has a warning given by this very important paper. He will notice that this warning says that there is a dangerous agitation by “persuasive tongues” as they call it, and he will notice what they say, “that we shall reap the whirlwind if he does not put a stop to it”. May I also refer the Minister to a pamphlet which was issued recently. It was issued in connection with these riots in the Transvaal, and this pamphlet after dealing with housing conditions, proceeds as follows—

In so far as any particular organisation may want to assist the natives in securing better housing conditions, no one would have any complaints, but here we have a pamphlet issued by the Communist Party, a pamphlet of a dangerous type, which is nothing but an incitement to the natives; and, as I said, the Minister of Justice cannot turn a blind eye to this sort of thing. He cannot say that there is no danger of Communistic propaganda among the natives. We give him the evidence, and it is for him to act on that evidence. If the Minister of Justice will not believe that there is a real danger of Communistic propaganda among the native population, then may we remind him of what his own leader has said? I do not think it can be impressed too often on the minds of the Minister of Justice what his own Leader has said—

I don’t think the hon. member should use arguments which have already been used in the previous debate.

Unfortunately one often finds in dealing with certain people that one has to repeat an argument, in order to make an impression on such people. They don’t take the impression in the first instance.

The hon. member knows the rules. There can be no replies to arguments used in previous debates.

I am not replying to any previous debate. I am trying to impress on the Minister of Justice his duty as the Minister whose salary we are going to vote in the course of this Session. I am trying to impress on him what his duty is, and if my words have no effect on him, then at least the words of his own Leader should have that effect. But we shall leave it at that. I take it he himself has read what his Leader has said in regard to that matter. It is quite clear that there is a wave of unrest in this country. I also want to refer not only to the agitation and propaganda going on among the native population and among the coloured population, but I also want to direct the Minister’s attention to the large number of Communistic meetings that have been held in the country recently. I don’t know whether the Minister reads his newspapers. I suppose he does, but unfortunately he probably reads only the papers of his own party. But if he will take the trouble to read the reports in papers, such as “Die Burger” and “Die Transvaler”, he will find that these meetings are being held all over the country. And at these meetings these Communistic agitators, most of them Jews, are telling the natives to demand this, that and the other. They tell the natives that the pass system should be done away with, that the segregation policy should be abolished, and every native should be armed, and they should have full equality. These are the things which natives are told, and the Minister, whose salary we are voting this Session, cannot be blind to that sort of thing. He must take notice of what is going on, and if he does not he is neglecting his duty. I also take it that the Minister cannot be blind to the propaganda that is going on among the soldiers. The Minister knows about the establishment of the Springbok Legion. There is intensive Communistic propaganda being conducted among the soldiers in the army all over the country, and if the Minister will take the trouble to read these reports, which he will find fully reported in the “Guardian”, he will see that at most of these meetings the chief Speakers are Communists. The Communists in South Africa are following the accepted Communistic policy of trying to get a foothold in the army.

I must ask the hon. member not to start the debate, which was disposed of on Friday, all over again.

I must confess that members on this side of the House are placed in a very difficult position, that where we have to deal with the salary of the Minister who is responsible for the maintenance of law and order, we cannot discuss these matters simply because they have been discussed before. What is the position about “cost-plus” for instance? That question has been discussed on two or three debates.

There has been no specific motion on cost-plus.

But on this occasion I am not dealing with the principles of Communism, I am dealing with actual Communistic propaganda carried on in South Africa.

We have had two days of it.

I do not care if we have had ten days of it, it is an important matter and the Minister is responsible for the maintenance of law and order, and if, as the result of this Communistic agitation among the soldiers, there should be a riot, then the Minister will have to call out his police. And I do submit in all seriousness that in view of the fact that this Communistic agitation may lead, as it has done in other countries, to an actual uprising to rioting among the soldiers, who have arms, and the Minister may have to call out his police … …

The hon. member is entitled to discuss the matter so far as it was not covered by the previous debate. I refer the hon. member to a ruling which I gave on the 26th February, 1941—that was on a Part Appropriation Bill debate:—

That is the point. It must not tend to revive discussion on a matter which was definitely discussed and disposed, of in a previous debate. If the hon. member will observe that point he need not fear that I shall interrupt him.

That necessarily narrows the discussion very considerably. I have dealt with the Minister of Justice. There is also, of course, the responsibility of the Prime Minister in a matter of this kind. I intended dealing also with his responsibility because he, after all, is responsible for the general policy of the Government.

May I just say this further, that the intention is not to have a multiplicity of debates. If the hon. member has arguments which are not necessarily covered by the previous debate I submit that the Minister of Justice cannot have a repetition of arguments used in that debate, and we cannot have arguments refuted which were used during that debate.

It appears quite obvious that I cannot go on, and the question of the Minister’s duties, as the person responsible for the maintenance of law and order, cannot be discussed during this debate so far as Communistic activities are concerned.

I am sorry that the Prime Minister, owing to the pressure of his work and unavoidable circumstances, cannot at the moment be in his place, because I would like to address a few of the remarks that I have to make here this afternoon to the Prime Minister of the country, but this in any case is not going to prevent me from thanking the Prime Minister heartily, and also at the same time to congratulate him for the competent, tactful and wonderful—I almost want to say supernatural—way in which he has guided this country during the past four years, which was certainly the four most difficult and four most anxious years in the history of South Africa.

You say “supernatural”; you mean unnatural.

I do not want to be rude, but if these sort of remarks continue while I am speaking in the short time that I have at my disposal, then I just want to tell the hon. member this, that if his brain was gun powder, and you set a light to it, I doubt whether it will explode.

Yours would not explode because there is nothing there.

His far-seeing politics has certainly saved South Africa from a greater disaster than we in these abnormal times today can understand or realise, but it will become more clear to us as we get further away from these abnormal conditions, which almost make it impossible for us to think normally. I cannot help shuddering when I think what the results could have been if it had not been for his experience and wise policy which we have had during these difficult and dark, and anxious years which we have gone through. And I can also not help seeing the guiding hand of Providence in many of the things that are happening in this country today, as well as in the rest of the world. I see, for example, the guiding hand of the Almighty in the almost supernatural and wonderful evacuation of the expeditionary force of Britain from Dunkirk, the evacuation that was described in this House on a previous occasion by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) as a disaster where the British Expeditionary Force fled over the English Channel from Dunkirk like wet rats. I say I see only the guiding hand of Providence in that wonderful evacuation that was described by members on the other side of the House as a disaster for Britain. I also see the guiding hand of Providence in the battle above London, where a small number of Spitfires defeated the tremendous German Luftwaffe, and thereby saved the world from Nazi domination and Nazi tyranny. I also see the guiding hand of God at El Alamein, where the advance of Rommel was checked by our own First Division troops. I see the guiding hand of Providence at the defence of Stalingrad. I see the guiding hand of God in the repulse of the German advance before the gates of Moscow.

What do you know about Providence?

My time is unfortunately too limited to reply to trivial remarks of that kind. I see also the guidance of a higher hand in the majority which was given in this House on the 4th September, 1939, for the motion of the present Prime Minister. The invisible force which decides the fate of countries has definitely saved us from a terrible mistake in our history at that period. I do not want to continue much longer with these remarks because the Prime Minister cannot be here. I think, however, that it behoves us on this side to let him feel that we appreciate his services, and that history will describe him as the greatest statesman of a series of great statesmen in the history of South Africa, and in the history of the whole world. I want to come to the Budget, and I want to describe the Budget of the Minister of Finance today as a first-class Budget that has been thought out in a first-class manner. I want to describe it as a clever and well-considered Budget. For the Opposition it is naturally a disappointing Budget. I can readily understand this; it is obvious. I do not take them amiss because this Budget leaves them no opening for criticism. The Budget is as round as a ball and as smooth as soap, and evidence of this is the vague criticism which we have had from the Opposition throughout this debate. The Opposition dealt more with academic matters than with the financial side of the Budget. I have sat in this House and listened to ten consecutive Budgets during my period of office, and of those ten consecutive Budgets everyone met with the same fate as the Budget of the present Minister of Finance is meeting. The abuse of the Budgets of Mr. Havenga, the former Minister of Finance, still ring very clearly in my ears today; his taxation proposals were always during all that time the worst that could possibly be found to lay before this country. We have all become accustomed to that sort of continual abuse. Constructive criticism is at least edifying, and I think that any Minister of Finance or any other responsible person welcomes criticism of a constructive nature. We at least do not only want destructive criticism such as we are accustomed to hearing in this debate. I have heard year after year how Minister Havenga was described as the favourite of the gold mines. According to the Opposition he was always the favourite of the gold mines. He was also described as Hoggenheimer’s right hand, and continually when the budget was being dealt with, he was described as the armour-bearer of the imperialists, and he was also described as the henchman of Britain. To that sort of criticism we have listened year after year. No, we do not want to listen only to destructive criticism without there being anything in it that is constructive. Always the criticism has ended on the same three notes which we have always had, namely the favouring of the gold mines, the taxing of the poorest of the poor, and the neglecting of the farmer. Those are the three notes to which I have had to listen here for ten years long at every Session of this House. And it is now still precisely the same. Now I ask: What value can I now really attach to criticism of that kind? I am so accustomed to that sort of criticism that I would like to see the Opposition draw up their own budget one year. Let them do what the present Prime Minister did in 1933 and lay before the House a contra-budget and prove that it is a better budget than the one submitted by the Government, like the present Prime Minister did at that time.

Were you never in the Opposition?

I applauded it at that time. Bring forward concrete criticism and give evidence of it by presenting such a contra-budget. If the Opposition does this, then we will be prepared to go into the matter and to regard it on its merits, and to see whether there is really something earnest about the Opposition. But loose and irresponsible criticism in this House in these serious times in which we live, is to me simply insignificant and cheap, and I take very little notice of it. The tax on railway tickets has been seriously criticised by members in this House. That 15 per cent. has been strongly condemned, and allow me to say immediately that in normal times, I would certainly be one of those who would be against a similar tax. But we are living in abnormal times. We are living in times in which Railways simply cannot cope with transport. The result is that people who must travel for essential services cannot get a place on the Railways, because so many other people travel, some perhaps without reason. The seats are fully booked up and consequently travellers must reserve their seats 14 days and even three weeks before the time. In one case in which I was personally concerned, the seat had to be reserved a month before the time to get to the destination in time. That is the position in which we are today. I go still further. Even essential products cannot be transported because we have not the power of locomotion. It must be used to transport passengers over the railways, and it could otherwise have been used for the transport of our products. Products are lying on the station and going bad, because there is no locomotion power. It is obvious that in times like these in which money is plentiful, and where most of the people have money, it is natural that there should be unnecessary traffic to and fro on the railways. The man who wants to travel for pleasure can pay the additional 15 per cent. and if he does not want to pay it, let him stay at home, so that the others who must travel in the interest of the country, or who for other reasons are compelled to travel, will be able to make use of the Railways. People have told me that they are prepared to pay any price if they can only get a seat on a train. But they cannot get it. They must sit and wait until circumstances permit them to travel, sometimes to the great inconvenience and financial disadvantage of their interest. I am naturally also against the cigarette tax.

You are probably against all the taxes.

I am against the liquor tax and against the increased postage. And I am in fact against any tax that is imposed. When I speak like this, then I speak on behalf of the Opposition! Now I ask: Why should we have any taxation, if I listen to the Opposition. I have sat for ten years and listened to the utterances of the Opposition about our taxation that is proposed, and I have never heard of a tax that was popular. In the mouth of the Opposition there has never come a tax, no matter how reasonable, that has earned their approval. We want to have all the conveniences, privileges, facilities, pleasure and services; but no one wants to pay a single penny in taxation for it. The money must fall from the blue heavens; it must come of its own accord. Where must the money otherwise come from? No, my hon. friends say, it is all being shot away and consumed by an unnecessary war. Now, I want to ask them this. The previous Budgets to which I have listened in this House, and which have been destructively criticised, was that money also all shot away or consumed by an unnecessary war? If that was not so, why, then, all that abusive criticism to which I have had to listen for all these years? The friends of the Opposition remind me of someone who is accustomed to go through a tunnel. A great earthquake takes place and the tunnel collapses, and they still want to go through that tunnel because they cannot understand why there has been an earthquake, why the tunnel has collapsed, and why they can no longer go through it. They close their eyes to the fact that we are in a war, and that the rest of the world is in a war. If then, the war is unnecessary for us, is the whole of the rest of the world then also in it unnecessarily? They do not want to understand that we are in the war, and that the interests of South Africa, it is our holy conviction, demands that we should be in this war, and that our interests are concerned in it. A great fuss has been made about the war expenditure which so far has amounted to £329,000,000. I will admit that this is a high price that we are paying for our freedom. But now I want to tell the Opposition this, that our salvation, that our freedom and our continued existence as a free nation is at stake in this war, and if this is the price we are called upon to pay for the freedom and our continued existence as a free nation, then it is insignificant, and the people of South Africa are prepared to make greater sacrifices than the amount that is being asked for the prosecution of the war for that freedom which is dear to us. There is a tremendous trial of strength in progress. The weal and woe and the salvation of nations is being fought out, and, notwithstanding the fact that the world is in a crucible, and notwithstanding the fact that the salvation and continued existence of South Africa is at stake, the Opposition close their eyes to that fact and hide their heads under the sand like an ostrich.

We are not lackeys of the Imperialists.

No, but you are lackeys of the Nazis. We are prepared to leave it to time and history to prove who was right, the friends of the Opposition or the policy that is being followed by the United Party, together with the rest of the democratic countries of the world who are concerned in this struggle. The last three and a half years have already given the proof. But my friends in the Opposition still close their eyes to the development in the past months and years. Unfortunately we differ on the war, and we must agree to differ on this matter. Let everyone follow his own road, and let us leave it to the future and to history to judge whether the policy of the United Party was right in the struggle that we have waged. I want to say a few words on this occasion in connection with the development of our fishing industry in our country. I understand that a previous speaker has already spoken about it in this debate, but as one who represents a large coastal area, I cannot omit adding my quota to the remarks that have already been made in connection with that industry, and which I heartily welcome. The previous Government, and by name Mr. Fourie, made excellent progress in that respect. They tackled the matter earnestly and the late Minister Fourie was very sympathetic towards the development of the fishing industry in our country, with the result that when he retired from the Cabinet at that time, there was not yet all the necessary progress which he probably would have liked to see. He made a great contribution towards it. I say it to his credit that he always treated me with the greatest sympathy in that sphere, and he assisted in developing and making our fishing industry greater. Today we are in the war, and consequently that sort of development will be retarded. I want to say, however, that in the fishing industry we have a beautiful industry which we can develop. Unfortunately the Minister of Commerce and Industry is not here today, but I want to point out to him that he must make it his task in the future to develop this industry. I say this because this development costs very little, and it offers enormous possibilities. We are fortunate that we have beautiful breeding places like the Agulhas Bank and in addition the natural fishing harbour which with a little additional cost can make the necessary provision for the safety of our fishing boats, or any other boat that is used in connection with the industry, to receive it and to harhour it safely. If we can do something in that direction, then we have in the fishing industry a second gold mine which is lying absolutely undeveloped today, a gold mine that can be developed very cheaply and which offers enormous possibilities for the future; for thousands of poor people and which can make us independent of any importing of fish. Another matter about which I would like to say a few words is the matter of the impoverishment of our soil in general, which in my humble opinion is assuming alarming proportions. The deterioration of our agricultural land is serious. Go through the Western Province and also other parts of the Union, and you will find that our soil is deteriorating in an alarming way. It is continually being fouled by weeds that are of no use on the land. The building up of land and the restoring of its value is in my opinion an essential matter. It is a matter that should be tackled by the Department of Agriculture with all the seriousness that it deserves. Go through the Western Province and you will see that valuable agricultural lands, vineyards or orchards, or gardens, or lands are continually and to an increasing extent being grown over by weeds. It is black radish, wild mustard, wild peas, thistle, and so I can mention a dozen others. Although there are farmers who do everything in their power to combat those weeds as much as they can, we have other careless people who do not care, and the seed is carried by birds, animals, the wind and by other means, to foul other places. We regard the agricultural lands of the Union, as well as other land in the Union as an asset in connection with which a duty rests on us to see that we cultivate and restore it with as much value as we can, and if we do not see to it that the deterioration of the land is checked and that it is restored, then we fall short in our duty towards posterity and towards the country in general. We grope about superficially and refuse or shrink back from the exertion that is demanded to penetrate to the root of the deterioration of our land. It is a matter that deserves our serious attention. Our agricultural schools are doing valuable work. I cannot pay sufficient tribute to the agricultural college and the University of Stellenbosch for the excellent work they have done in connection with research. They give us advice about what to do, how to build up the value of our land. But in the first place they have not the necessary staff, and in the second place they have not the necessary means. The work is of such an enormous extent that it is beyond the control of the staff and the means they have at their disposal to do what is necessary in an effective manner. I want on this occasion to make an earnest appeal to the Minister and to the Department of Agriculture to take action. Valuable work has been done by the Department of Agriculture. When we see what has been done in connection with erosion, the building of dams, the planting of grass and bushes to check the drifting of sand in the dunes, then we can see that the Department has made a proper start in an effort to do more for the preservation of our valuable land. But those things do not go far enough. They do not go to the root of the general deterioration of the land. I want to ask the Minister to give this matter the attention it deserves. If the Department of Agriculture does not give its attention to this matter in the future, then I give the assurance that sooner or later it will become absolutely necessary to give the necessary attention to it, and then it will cost so much more work and money than it would cost if we tackle the matter early. Various things are suggested today to protect and improve the value of our land. We have acted on the advice of experts, and we have had excellent and effective results. Go to my own district, and also to other districts, and you will find that in great areas where before year after year nothing but wheat and oats were sown, today there stands lucerne and underground clover. It is not only beautiful grazing for cattle but after three or four years, when it is again ploughed over for wheat, then the harvest will be twice and even thrice doubled. At the same time it builds up the value and stability of the land enormously. It is done in various ways, but it is beyond the ability of the small and less privileged farmer to tackle this matter unless assistance is given to him from one side or another. Let me point out to the Minister how America has already tackled this matter in the past few years. The American system is—and I hope the Minister will take note of it and will have it investigated—that farmers are subsidised to put suitable land under lucerne. Lucrneseed is an expensive item. It costs a lot. The people who have small farms cannot afford to put the land under lucerne, because they must sow wheat on the land so that they can pay their debts, their mortgage interest, etc. Apart from this they have not the means and they are not in the position to buy lucerne-seed and to spare the land to sow it. If the Government can do something along these lines, on a fair scale to give the farmers a start in the right direction, then I tell you that the Minister will be rendering the country an invalubale service for which he will receive thanks before he one day reaches the end of his lifetime. This is an undertaking which soon becomes productive. I have put hundreds of morgen under lucerne which previously were nothing but sowing land, and I invite the Minister to come and look at the grazing it has provided, and on the other hand to come and look at the lucerne lands which I have again plowed over. Previously I was satisfied to get 16 bags per bag from these lands. I have ploughed it over this year, and without fallowing I had 40 bags from one. You can continue to sow after the effect of the lucerne is in the ground. I give these few thoughts in all humbleness and simplicity to the Department of Agriculture for their consideration. I would like the Minister to give the necessary attenion to it because in my opinion we have to do here with a very important matter which means the saving of the Western Province and the grain belt. It will perhaps be said that it is very easy for me to speak on behalf of the Western Province—it is not yet the whole of South Africa; and it will perhaps be asked why one section of the farmers should be priveleged against other sections. If any farmer can improve his land, I applaud it if the State can give him any assistance in connection with it. Let us regard this matter as a national affair in the interest of the Union of South Africa and not from a narrow point of view.

I think that the hon. Minister of Native Affairs, at any rate, deserves encouragement and support from a large section of this House for the strong and manly attitude that he took up here when he became Minister of Native Affairs. It immediately became apparent from his first speech that he remained faithful to the attitude that he took up in 1936 when the native laws were made. He has been faithful to those principles so far, and I hope that he will faithfully carry out those principles now that he has the power to do it. I know that the hon. Minister’s struggle will not be easy, because it is generally known that there is division over this matter, division not so much on this side of the House, but division on his own side of the House. I have not been the only one to notice that division. It is openly propounded today in nothing less than the organ of the Minister of Finance, namely, the “Forum.” The “Forum,” as is known, is under the direct leadership of its chairman, Mr. J. H. Hofmeyr, and in that “Forum” a leading article appeared last Saturday in connection with the speech that the hon. Minister of Native Affairs made here. I want to read something from that article.

The hon. member may not read from a newspaper about a debate in this House during the same Session.

It is not the speech.

The hon. member may also not read comment.

It is comment on the speech, and may I not read it?

No.

Then I will not read it, and I will only inform the House that it is very clear from this Press organ, which is under the leadership of the Minister of Finance, that, with regard to this extremely important question, he differs directly from his colleague, the Minister of Native Affairs. And then there is still a third person, who is very much stronger than these two persons together. That is the Prime Minister. In connection with his attitude, I will make certain statements later in my speech. I just want to say this, that I think we can encourage the Minister of Native Affairs, inter alia, by giving the opinion of persons who are exceptionally qualified to give judgment. I have in my hand here a letter which I have received during the course of the debate from someone who has a very big name in South Africa as a financier, an economist and in the native sphere. I will not mention his name here, because this is a private letter. I want to say this, that this person has been busy for years, and with success, writing books on economics and finance, and on native questions. The quotations that I want to read from the letter will give hon. members an impression of what he thinks about the matter. He says this, inter alia—

That is the opinion of this English-speaking person. He is an English-speaking person, who has for 55 years now been studying the native question on the border of Kaffir Land among other places, in the light of his practical experience. He further says this—

That is written by a man who is qualified to judge and who sees what the end will be of the native policy which some people want to follow, that the machine-gun will be used on the native, unless the Minister of Native Affairs succeeds in putting through powerfully the policy which he has hitherto defended so powerfully. It was highly important that we should acquaint ourselves with the force, and in my opinion an extremely dangerous force, which is penetrating into South Africa, which in my opinion will mean the greatest danger for our country. In that connection I want to make certain quotations from an inportant document. It is an American document which recently cam into my hands. It consists of a report by about 40 learned Americans who made a special task of studying South Africa—that is Africa south of the Sahara Desert—in connection with the native problem. That report was made available to the people of the United States, and, of course, also to the Government of the United States of America. This report is entitled “The Atlantic Charter and Africa from an American Standpoint.—A study by the Committee on Africa, the War and Peace Aims”. This Committee, as I say, consisted of learned professors and doctors and included a few negroes, and apparently they went particularly seriously into this matter which is so important for us. If one looks at the long list of books and documents which they consulted and the trouble they took in the compilation of the report, one must have respect for the seriousness with which they took up their task. But one thing is not in the report at all. It appears from the report that with regard to the Union, they never took the trouble to become acquainted with the relationship, the traditional relationship which there exists and which has grown up between us and the natives. They never apparently seriously realised the historical development of the native question in our country, and the fact that the Europeans came to South Africa not as slave traders, not as oppressors, but as saviours of the natives. The only persons to whom they apparently paid attention in our country were people like ex-Senator Rheinhallt Jones and Professor Hoernle, whose opinion they obtained. Well, we know what their opinion is, and I am not surprised that the report came to the conclusion that—

Complete equality between white and black is, according to this report, the highest and only aim.

What report is that?

The report is still very new, and for that reason the hon. member probably has not seen it. That is the basis of the whole reasoning of this American report, and of course they also make use of a speech which was delivered by our Prime Minister about a year ago in the City Hall of Cape Town. It is quoted in full in the report, and it is said that the meeting in the City Hall exuberantly applauded General Smuts’ utterances. I regret that I have not the time to make a large number of quotations from the report. They say here that in South Africa there are practically only two people in the Government on whom one can count, and they are the Prime Minister and his highly competent assistant, Mr. Jan Hofmeyr. They say that General Smuts is a dreamer, and, wonderfully enough, the writer of this letter to which I referred says the same. But they say that he, that is to say, the Prime Minister, will only be able to see the realisation of his dreams if white and black receive equal rights. If one reads the report carefully, as I did, then it seems that they imagine the vision of General Smuts and the Minister of Finance as follows: General Smuts, the great leader of a United States of Africa, but with his black Ministers and a few Europeans among them. In other words, they see Jan Christiaan Smuts in the future as a modern Chaka, but not only for a part of Zululand, but of the whole of South Africa, and Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr they see as a modern white Dingaan—even without a single wife to his name. For that reason I say again that the struggle which the Minister of Native Affairs has joined will not be an easy struggle, but a struggle of a serious kind, a resurrection of the old struggle of Exeter Hall against the Afrikaans conception, which will now have to be fought again from the beginning. In that connection it is extremely important to go further into the report where it deals with the economic position, because we must assume that the economic position of the natives is inseparable from the whole system of social and economic relationships and from the political status of the native. What does the report say? That the American penertation in Africa in recent years has progressed by leaps and bounds. In that connection what Wendell Willkie, the second most important person in America next to the President, said is quoted. They quote what he said—

What does that mean? And now I come to a serious matter, an exceptionally serious matter on which I and all of us are still groping in the dark today and on which we want light. I have already frequently aired the grievance that we are left in the dark about extremely important matters, and I have pleaded that we should get more light on important matters. We have not received the least official information from the Government, but one thing is clear at least, namely, that we are linked fast to America and England, that our own status as an independent country has again been placed in the balance, that the independence for which many of us, I for one, made every sacrifice, is in the balance, that that same independence is today again in danger of disappearing under the domination of America and England together. The matter is very dear to our hearts. I try to quote facts, as far as I have them to substantiate my assertion. I admit that in certain respects the facts are sporadic, because we can get no information from the Government. Now, it appears that in the course of the last twelve months various treaties and agreements have been concluded in which we are not only concerned, but of which we are ourselves a part. I have gone into it and come to the following summary of decisions and agreements in which we are directly concerned, or which we have even directly signed: (1) “Lend and Lease” Act of March 11, 1941; (2) the Atlantic Charter of August 14, 11941; (3) the joint declaration of America, England, Russia, China, and 22 other nations, in which they bind themselves to devote their economic resources completely to the war (January 1, 1942); and then further (4) the Mutual Assistance Agreement between the United States and England of February 23, 1942. Here we have four agreements in which we are directly concerned, and which have the greatest influence not only on our economic existence, but also on our sovereign rights. We are largely groping around in the dark because we can obtain no official information from the Government, and I can only go on what I obtain from the Press and books. We know from the Press that the declaration of January 1, 1942, also affects us. It was signed by our representative in America, Mr. Close, and it says nothing less than that every Government binds itself to use all its resources for war purposes, and also that we will conclude no separate armistice or peace. In that connection, the amendment of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) is of importance. Our representative also signed that agreement, and we are thus also bound without the least information having been given to this House, without such a document having been laid on the Table. Everything is kept in the dark. Our independence, economic and otherwise, is possibly being surrendered without consultation of the people, without the people ever having heard of it. Only by chance circumstances do we discover these things. Why must we sit still and accept it? We cannot do it if we still feel something of the responsibility that rests upon us. Then we must demand of the Government that it lays on the Table all the contracts by which we are bound. I think that the hon. Prime Minister is very strongly to blame. By his attitude he has humiliated this House. The result of the attitude of the present Government is that there are many among us who are beginning to feel that Parliament is of no value, that an election is worth nothing, because our Parliament is told nothing, we learn nothing official about the important agreements which are concluded. But there is still more.

Lack of confidence in Parliament

I do not even ask that, but I want the chance to do my duty through the Government’s doing its duty. But there is much more in this matter. A little while ago a document appeared which is also in my possession, and I regret that my time is too short to deal thoroughly with this important matter. A short time ago there appeared in the official journal of the Department of Commerce and Industries, namely, of January, 1943, an important official article on certain of the treaties and agreements which have been concluded. What appears from that? Nothing more or less than that we are dependent on America today not only for our war purposes, but also for provision of food, etc., and that we are obtaining goods from America to the value of millions and millions. Who pays for that? There is a mutual help agreement between England and America, not between us and America, and via England millions and millions are delivered to us. According to that journal, the Union received from America in six months last year—quite apart from war material—goods to the value of £9,500,000. If you add the war material that we received, it amounts without doubt to tens of millions, and that journal states—

It is not we who order the goods. It is ordered from America by England. The account will one day be presented, and then we will quite possibly find that we are sold and bartered, that we are stuck for millions, without our Parliament ever having known a word about it. It has been made clear to this House that our deficit for two years, namely 1942—’43 and 1943—’44, amounts to £92,000,000 namely, £44,000,000 and £48,000,000 respectively. It is a terrible deficit for such a small country as South Africa in two years’ time. It is nearly enough to make you fall on your back. But it is not all, it is probably not even half, because that official journal tells us that in this year we shall receive goods to the value of at least £50,000,000 from America, through Britain, and that in six months last year we obtained goods to the value of £9,500,000, besides great supplies for war purposes. All this money is to our debt. I know well that we also deliver goods to America, for example manganese, but it amounts only to an inconsiderable sum. What is the result? That after a few years, we shall find that our dificits for 1942—’43 and 1943—’44 did not amount to £92,000,000, but perhaps to £192,000,000. These figures of mine may be wrong, because I am groping about in the dark and the Government does not want to help me, does not want to throw light on these matters. I raised this matter last year already, and last month I also touched on another matter, to which I want to return briefly. I saw a SAPA-Reuter cable in the lobby of Parliament in which it was said that a second commission was on its way to us from America in connection with economic matters. When I wanted to deal with the matter here last month, you, Mr. Speaker, ruled that in the circumstances the discussion was not suitable to the debate, and I had to leave it. It occurred to me that the news of that cable never appeared in the English Press, but I saw it in the “Suiderstem.” Why? What is wrong? There is another matter that I want to bring to the notice of the Minister, with the request that he give me information, and not only me but the whole people. Before the end of the previous Session, I asked for information about it, and the Prime Minister remained silent. Now I ask again: What was the result? Mr. Martin is: Director of the Bank of England, head of the Chamber of Mines, head of the Argus newspaper group, Lieutenant of the City of London. His influence extends over nearly all the important undertakings on the Rand, and amid all the pressing activities which those weighty and complex functions impose on this loveable financier, with his sphinx-like smile, he still broke out to England and flew back and forth between that part of the world and America to champion South African interests at the request of our Government. What did he do? According to reports in newspapers which appeared in England, his mission was not successful. What did it cost the country? In the South African newspapers nothing was published, although (it is alleged) that news was cabled over. Mr. Martin did not succeed apparently even in obtaining sufficient paper for his own newspapers, for they have been notably reduced. But all are silent. The Prime Minister especially is silent. Piet Plaatjes, whom we still know from the literature of the previous generation, would have said of him: Only one is as silent as he! The Prime Minister ought to realise that through his silence he is disturbing and insulting Parliament and making it powerless. That in that way he has become the best propagandist of our friends of the New Order—and that is probably beyond his intention. I say candidly that if we want to maintain the democratic system, if we want to make the country happy under that system, then this way of hiding matters is fatal. Unfortunately, my time is so limited and my material so amazingly extensive, that I have not even come to half of what I intended to present, but I believe that in all that I said I interpreted the feeling of this side of the House, and I think that I spoke on behalf of all on the other side of the House if they would but dare to express their opinion. We cannot allow our economic and political independence to be surrendered more and more year after year, without our knowing what is happening. Millions are being wasted at this time, millions belonging to the present and also millions beloning to the future, and it is done in a manner of which the people know nothing. We cannot be left any longer in the dark in which the people are shrouded. We protest and demand that the darkness be lifted and that the people shall know what is going on.

I had hoped that when you should see me, I should be able to spend a little time on the unexpected and somewhat surprising adventure of the Minister of Native Affairs into this debate, to deal with some of his replies on matters raised by my colleagues with the Minister of Finance. I am afraid that is not going to be possible if I am to say to the Minister of Finance what I want to say to him. In any case, it would simply be an indulgence of my vanity to take the opportunity to put the Minister of Native Affairs right on the background of some of the matters on which he was so emphatic today; and it would not, perhaps, be fair to the Minister himself. His experience and knowledge of native affairs are perhaps not as long as mine, and he may perhaps be excused for making statements which will not bear too close a scrutiny. But on one point I must put him right—that is in regard to his statement on the purchase of land. The point which my colleagues have made this year, as they have made it before, is that it has been a tragic mistake on the part of the Government not to continue the purchase of land even in war time, and we still maintain that position, knowing full well that, although the Loan Estimates have not yet been placed on the Table, there will be no £1,000,000 for native land purchase this year; but for the Minister to suggest that those of us who on these benches have given full support to the Government in its war policy and have loyally stood by the Government in every war debate in this House, often with great difficulty to ourselves, are wanting in our duty in suggesting that officers of the Native Affairs Department might have been kept here for the vital work of fulfilling the Government’s promise to the native people in the matter of the purchase of land, is at least wanting in taste. I want to remind the Minister that in every office in this Government, and in every business house in the country, there are key men held here to deal with matters which are of far less importance than this sacred promise of buying land for natives. I am afraid I cannot spend any more of my limited time on this matter, since I want to bring to the notice of the Minister of Finance certain matters which I think require his attention. These matters are chiefly connected with the brief statement by the Minister in his Budget speech on the matter of social welfare. The statement by the Minister this year on this head is particularly brief, the reason being, I assume, the appointment of a committee to report on the subject of social insurance. Now, it is that I am anxious about the appointment of that committee, and about the background of that committee, that I have to say a word or two on that matter today. I have all along been extremely anxious about the way in which South Africa has entered upon this matter of social security. I have always felt that there was a good deal of emotion and not enough hard thinking as to what the creation of a social security code in this country would imply. And I am still of that opinion. I still feel that South Africa should apply itself more carefully and more thoroughly to the implications of a social security code as understood by other countries, before it makes any vague promises about building up a social security code here, which is the implication of the Minister’s remarks. I would be much happier about the whole prospect of social security in South Africa if we had had in this House some indication of the conscious acceptance of the basic principle upon which the problems which a social security code means must be met. I feel, for instance, that we should have taken a decision of the first importance if we had accepted as a basic principle that the State shall not allow the manufacture of poverty and distress—the conditions for which a social security code has to provide. It seems to me foolish to attempt to build up a social security code, to provide assistance for the emergencies of life, so long as your social system is so ordered that it continues to create those emergencies. The countries whose example we are endeavouring to follow have already met that position. They have accepted this basic principle either explicitly, as in Australia and New Zealand through a minimum wage policy, or implicity, as Great Brtain has done over a number of years in her unemployment insurance policy. Now the Minister may reply that it is the business of the Committee that the Government has appointed to make recommendations on basic principles as on other aspects of the subjects of social security for this country. Well, I feel that any Committee in South Africa which has to face this responsibility needs a very strong lead from the country or from the Government. To make a recommendation of the kind I suggest as essential to create the foundations for social security would be to propose a far-reaching change in the traditional practice of this country which has never, so far, balanced the pay of the majority of the workers with the living costs of those workers. That would be a big job for any Committee without a strong and clear lead from the country; but I feel that it will be a specially big job for the sort of Committee that the Government has appointed, a Committee consisting predominantly of civil servants. I have already challenged the advisability, the wisdom, of putting into the hands of the civil servants the responsibility for framing policy. I think it is an extremely dangerous principle involving important changes in our established constitutional practice. Incidentally it is a principle that must lead straight to the spoils system of America. That is the inevitable corollary. When civil servants become policy makers, there is every justification for changing them with changes of Government. We ought to be quite clear about this before we go too far along the road that the Social and Economic Planning Council has opened for us in this regard. And here I think we should take note of Great Britain’s recent experience. There too, a Committee was formed of civil servants under an independent chairman to consider and recommend on social security. The arrangement did not work well at all and in the end, the Chairman had to step aside from the Civil Service members of his Committee and produce a report for which he could accept and be made to carry responsibility. Now, as I have said, the Committee that has been appointed here has had no clear lead on what the country is prepared to face in a social security code and that brings me by a new road to an old topic, the Government’s rates of pay to its own employees. I may say I get no satisfaction out of continuously repeating the same plea in this House but unfortunately it is a necessity. I have gone through these Estimates now before us as I have gone through the Estimates in past years and I still see nothing to justify the hope that the Government intends to establish a living wage for its lower paid employees, that the Government as an employer, intends to set an example to the rest of the country in this matter. I see nothing in these Estimates to encourage the hope that the Government has taken any essential step towards a living wage for the poorer section of the Community, which will serve as an example to the whole country. I would therefore ask again whether the Government does intend to give a lead in the establishment of the only reasonable foundation of social security, namely a living wage. Now the other point I want to deal with is the announcement by the hon. Minister of Finance of the intention of the Government to establish a free meal per day for school children. The Minister would be surprised if he knew the enormous satisfaction this has given to the African people all over the country, and the hopefulness with which they have accepted what is in itself a very small gesture. I wish to express the gratitude of hon. members on these benches also. But I do want to say that at this moment this is all too small a gesture. The findings of the Agricultural and Industrial Requirements Commission emphasised that the problem of undernourishment must be tackled at once, and the proposals of the Government do not touch the fringe of the recommendations of that Commission. I want to remind the Minister and the House of what the report says. It says—

The proposed scheme can scarcely be regarded as a response to this finding. Incidentally, I would like to know whether the provision of the free meal for children means that we are to cut out the subsidised butter scheme? This is suggested by the Minister’s statement as to the financing of the new scheme. If that is so, then the last position is going to be worse than the first. The problem of under-nourishment is so pressing that it must be tackled at once if we are to begin to check the rapid physical deterioration of the lower income groups of the population which is now in progress. I would like some statement about this from the Minister. In this connection, certain proposals have been made that should be considered, and considered at once. The first is that the price of the basic food of the poorest people, that is, maize, should be fixed at a reasonable level, and where that level does not provide the return to the farmer which the country considers the farmer should get, this should be made up by the Treasury. We have already accepted the principle of such an arrangement in respect of bread, on the subsidisation of which we have spent quite a considerable amount of money, and I see no reason why the principle should not be extended, and extended now, to the basic food of people who cannot even buy bread. From there, I feel we should progress to further and fuller subsidisation of the feeding of this group which probably will involve rationing, so that all, including the poor, may have a share of the country’s food resources. The position among these people was bad before the war began; it is much worse now, and with every day that passes, its urgency becomes more marked. We have the money to tackle it now; and if we do not tackle it now we shall probably never be able to deal with it. Tackling it would mean a capital investment in our human resources which would well repay us in the future. I would like to spend more time on this matter because it is of such importance but there are so many other members who wish to speak. However, I want to express the hope that the Government will set up the committee the Social and Economic Planning Council has suggested in connection with the subsidisation of consumption. This is the one committee suggested by the Council, the personnel of which I would fully support, since the mere setting up of the committee would imply the acceptance of the policy of subsidisation of consumption, and the function of the committee would therefore merely be to elaborate machinery for the purpose, a function I feel the Civil Service is eminently capable of performing. I hope, therefore, that the Government will set up this committee, and I hope also that it is not too late for provision to be made on the Estimates for some of the money necessary to launch this policy of subsidisation of the food consumption of the large undernourished groups in our community.

I hope the hon. the Minister of Agriculture will make his appearance, because this side of the House now wants to criticise him before we go on to deal with the Minister of Finance. I am sorry I am unable to agree with the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet). I wonder what his people at Villiersdorp will have to say about this excise duty. Let me say at once that I most emphatically protest against this tax, and I want to refer to a statement which appeared in “Die Burger” on the 10th June, 1942, a statement in which a certain person said this—

If that is a fact, and as Russia today is in a winning position, there is no doubt that their aim and object is to prevent us from having any say at the Peace Conference. This tax is one of the most inequitable one could ever expect. Even the poorest of the poor are taxed, and they are taxed in the most unmerciful manner. The Minister of Finance came here and told us that he was going to tax the poor man’s cigarettes. He is taxing the tobacco of the poorest of the poor by imposing another 6d. per lb. I know that the United Party, as long ago as August last, issued an election manifesto, and I want hon. members to listen to what they said in that manifesto—

Those are the promises which were made. That manifesto was drafted by the Party’s chief secretary, and he states in that manifesto that only the people who live in luxury will have to pay. Then why does not the Minister tax the rich man’s cigar? And let us look at the telephone, and here I should like to have the attention of the Minister of Finance, because I want to direct his attention to something which is unfair and unjust. The Minister has imposed at 12½ per cent. surcharge on the telephones. There are farmers today who have to pay £15 or £20 while their neighbours only pay £7 10s. Does the Minister think it fair to come along with this additional tax? The farmer’s neighbour pays £7 10s. while the farmer himself often perhaps pays as much as £20. I hope the Minister will lay it down that everyone paying more than £7 10s. will be exempt. These people are now paying an additional 50 per cent. in telephone fees. That, to my mind, is another tax which is very unfair. Then there is the 15 per cent. increase on passenger tickets on the Railways. That has already been referred to. This tax is being introduced in conflict with the spirit of the Act of Union and it is a tax which particularly falls on the platteland, and the unfair part of it is that the coloured people and the natives are exempt. At every station the train is rushed by a number of coloured people, yet the Minister exempts them. I want to ask the Minister to take that question into review. I fail to understand why those people should be exempt, especially as we are told today that the trains today are too crowded. The Minister taxes people on the platteland who are poor, but the millionaires from Muizenberg, the millionaires from Stellenbosch and the millionaires from Paarl are not taxed. Oh, no, they get off scot free. Does the Minister perhaps agree with the former Minister of Commerce and Industries—his supporters are mostly townspeople—when the previous Minister said this—

Is that why he exempts the townsman, so that they can have the opportunity of going to play golf? How can the Minister possibly acquiesce in exempting the millionaire from Stellenbosch, Paarl and Muizenberg so that they do not pay those taxes? These people are exempt but the poor man who has to travel hundreds of miles to get to Groote Schuur Hospital for medical treatment has to pay this extra 15 per cent. tax. The Minister of Commerce and Industries told me that the people who look for grazing for their stock can travel by train. Why should the farmer who has to go and look for grazing pay 15 per cent., while the millionaire from Muizenberg, Paarl and Stellenbosch is not taxed? The man who comes from the platteland to the town to look for work has to pay this 15 per cent., but the millionaire is exempt. Does the Minister realise that people living on isolated farms are often 50, 60, 70, 80 or even 100 miles away from the nearest dorp. People have to spend their lives there, and if they want to go to the Coast for health reasons they have to pay 15 per cent. extra. But the Government’s rich supporters can travel to Cape Town from Stellenbosch, Paarl or Muizenberg and they do not have to pay anything extra, and then the Minister comes here with his sugared pill which is simply held out to deceive the public. He told us that he was going to give every child a free meal once every day. Has his Department not given him any advice in regard to this matter? The Minister is going to make a start with £50,000, and next year he is going to spend a maximum of £1,000,000 on this feeding scheme. That is the maximum which is held out in prospect. Does the Minister know how many white children there are in the Union? If one takes one meal at 6d. per white child, it will cost the State about £10,000 per day to supply the white children with one meal. If the Minister only wants to feed the children during school days—that is during the 210 school days, it means that he will have to spend £2,205,000. Imagine! The Minister comes here with a maximum of £1,000,000 and that is only for the white children! There are 453,000 native school children in the Union, and in Cape Town alone there are 120,000 coloured children. The Minister’s scheme cannot possibly be put into effect. First of all the amount which he is providing is quite inadequate. Secondly, on account of there being so many practical difficulties in connection with the supplying of meals there are not many local bodies, municipalities and so on, which will be able to go in for this scheme if they are to be held responsible for 33⅓ per cent. of the cost. Does the Minister know that there are many places where it is impossible to supply milk and cheese to the children? The Minister must be aware of the fact that it is impossible to carry out this scheme. I want to make a serious appeal to him to take into review this 15 per cent. tax to which I have referred, and to impose a more reasonable and more just tax, if it is at all possible. Now let me come to the Minister of Agriculture, and I want to say at once that I am sorry the Minister is not here, but I do hope he will be shortly, as there are a few important points which I want to bring to his notice. The first point is that our farming population most strongly disapproves of the policy which the Minister has laid down, namely to put a stop to allowing children to attend the agricultural school. If there is one thing which the farmers look down upon with contempt it is this decision of the Minister’s. It is absolutely inexplicable how the Minister can go as far as that. I want to ask him what has induced him to close down the agricultural schools for the sons of farmers? Is it the intention indirectly to force children to join up, or is the object perhaps to get a little more money in order to carry out the Government’s war policy? No, the results of this decision will be that young fellows will indirectly be compelled to join up. Incalculable harm will be done to the agricultural industry in days to come. If farmers don’t have a good lamb season this year they will for the next six or seven years be without that class of sheep which they should have had, and their loss will be an incalculable one. Similarly, these young fellows who are trained every year will be badly wanted and will be missed for years after this war, and I say that the damage to this country, the damage to the farming community of the country, will be incalculable. We don’t know how much longer the war is going to last. It may be many years before it will be possible again to take these young fellows back into our agricultural schools. I hope the Minister will make a clear statement in regard to this matter, and I hope he will promise us that the whole question will be taken into review. The second point I want to raise is one which I touched upon the other day in the course of a speech, but the matter is so serious that I do not think it necessary for me to apologise for the fact that I am again bringing the matter to the Minister’s notice. I am referring to the position in regard to the fertiliser problem. I do not know whether the Minister was asleep, but he should have known that there were difficulties in connection with shipping, and that there was going to be a tremendous demand for fertilisers. Fertilisers on many farms were essential which the farmers could not do without. One poor farmer sold his manure heap for £30, and it was calculated that this manure was going to produce £35,000. Does the Minister imagine that that farmer will ever forgive him for not having announced through the Press that there was going to be a shortage of fertiliser? Does the Minister think the farmers will ever forgive him for not having warned them against the danger of their being exploited?

Why did not you do it, you knew it just as well as we did.

The Minister assured us that the British Navy was there and that the British Navy would protect us. It’s no use the Minister asking me why I did not warn the farmers. If he cannot handle these things properly, why does he not make me Minister of Agriculture. No, that’s no argument. One manure heap at Hofmeyr which the Minister knows about was sold for £700. Afterwards calculations were made, and it was reckoned that it would have produced £15,000. Does he imagine that the farmers of this country will ever forgive him for what he has done? No wonder hon. members on this side and the Minister himself are getting telegrams demanding his resignation. I also want to refer to the Minister’s policy in regard to soil erosion. Imagine a Minister saying that he is carrying on his farming operations in the way his grandfather did, and that he is satisfied with the methods followed by his grandfather. The Minister appoints people to labour in the sweat of their brow for 4s. 6d. per day on the soil erosion scheme. Instead of using modern machinery and making a dam in five or six weeks, human labour is used for two years at 4s. 6d. per day. The Minister told us that these soil erosion schemes were regarded as a source of employment for the poor. Let him make those dams by the use of machinery, and then let him settle the poor people there. He will achieve better results then in a much shorter space of time. I want to appeal to the Minister to change his soil erosion policy. A few days ago the Minister stated that if it were necessary he would appoint a Commission of Enquiry immediately in connection with agricultural matters. Now, let me mention a few matters, and ask him whether he does not think it is essential to have such a Commission appointed? Take the distribution system. Do hon. members know that there are natives on farms today who are starving because they are unable to get mealies? I don’t know whether the hon. Minister realises that. The representatives of the natives in this House don’t talk about that, and they support the Government which tolerates these things. Let me assure the Minister that our distribution system today is of such a character that it needs an immediate investigation. Let us take a few points. The Minister knows that farmers at Worcester a few days ago stated that if it was necessary they would bury their grapes. The Minister is being criticised severely in the leading articles of the Press; the Planning Council have issued a report criticising the Minister because of the fact that agricultural products are being destroyed at a time when people in this country are starving. And then the Minister tells us that he does not consider it necessary to appoint a Commission of Enquiry. Take Mr. Dorfman’s case. I think he has rendered a service to the Government, and to the consumer by proving how cheaply certain commidities can be supplied to the public. But if this position is allowed to continue, then I want to know what is going to become of the farmers? Mr. Dorfman does not live far away from Cape Town, and is able to deliver his grapes here. It pays him to do so. He is near the market, and he can continue doing this for years, but what about the farmer who is at Villiersdorp? The agent will tell me that grapes are sold in Cape Town at 3d. per lb., and that he cannot pay any more than ½d. per lb., but the Minister is perfectly satisfied; he does not think it necessary to appoint a Commission of Enquiry. In some places we have to pay 6d. per lb. for grapes. Mr. Dorfman sold his grapes here for 1½d. Does not the Minister see that a Commission of Enquiry ought to go into the whole question of the distribution system? Take oranges. There are places where oranges were sold at prices going up to 16s. 6d. per pocket. I don’t want to talk about that just now. While on some markets they were sold at 1s. 3d. per pocket, they fetched 16s. 6d. per pocket on other markets. Now, let me deal very briefly with the scandalous position in connection with meat. I do not know where the fault lies, but I fail to understand why the Press in this country has not yet stirred up the consumers to force the Government to take action in regard to the meat position. I would be stone rich if I could get 6d. per lb. right through on my farm for mutton. Today the Government charges me 1d. per lb. to carry meat by passenger train. It is too much. It should make it ½d., and then the price can be 6½d. The Agricultural Department estimates that distribution works out at 6s. 8d. per sheep of 56 lbs. weight. That means 1½d. Even if it is so, meat should not cost the consumer more than 8d. per lb., but the consumer pays up to as much as 2s. per lb. Surely the Minister should realise that it is essential for him to appoint a Commission of Enquiry. There is something wrong with the system and I hope the South African Press will take up the matter and will force the Minister, by means of public opinion, to make an investigation. I have been speaking for myself but I am convinced that 99 per cent. of the farmers will say that if they can get 6d. per lb. for their meat on the farm they will be stone rich. Before the war we used to get our weather reports every day. Right throughout the country there were people who at a given moment had to send telegrams about the weather. Those weather reports were broadcast and every farm received the weather predictions. Why cannot the Minister have a central bureau in connection with our markets to notify the producers what the demand is, and what the prices of products are throughout the whole country? If we find then that the price of oranges on the one market is 6/- per pocket we shall know to send oranges there, and if it is 1s. 3d. somewhere else, it will be a warning to us not to send any oranges there. At the moment nothing is done in that way, with the result that the producers are not able to do the best for themselves, and the middleman gets away with all the profit. But the Minister says everything is in order, and he tells us no investigation is called for. Let me draw the Minister’s attention to another point. The Minister has told the House that there are no great difficulties throughout this country in connection with agriculture. Take the blow fly pest. It is one of the worst pests we suffer from. I pointed out on a previous occasion that at a conservative estimate the damage done by this pest could be put down at £1,750,000 per year. Compare that with the locust position. We have £100,000 on the estimates every year for the combating of locusts, and there is no comparison between these two pests. Poison is supplied free of charge. Implements are supplied free of charge, and permanent officials are appointed everywhere through out the country. But the blow fly which is much worse — for that there is nothing on the Estimates. The spray costs the farmer 5s. 6d. per gallon today. We are being deprived of our labour, the men are being sent to the war, and many of the farmers have no labour at all. No, the Minister does not realise the seriousness of the position, because if he did realise it I am fully convinced that he would take further steps. He would at the very least put forward some policy, and we are convinced that if he did the trouble could be solved. I want to make a serious appeal to the Minister and to ask him not to leave things as they are. There are numerous other matters where the Minister should give a lead, matters which are crying for a solution, but the Minister is not giving us a lead. Possibly his Department raises a number of matters which are turned down by him. Why? Because he is not a farmer. Why cannot the Prime Minister step in and give us a farmer as Minister of Agriculture, a man who is conversant with all the practical difficulties of this country? When we come to an appointment such as that of the Minister of Agriculture, then with all due respect we should have a man who is familiar with our difficulties, a man who has the courage to tackle those difficulties, a man who has a strong policy, who can think out things, so as to solve practical issues, because otherwise what is the result going’ to be? The agricultural population will be ruined in this country. I should like to mention a number of other problems, but the time at my disposal does not permit of my doing so. Take a problem like erosion. There is nothing on these Estimates for that problem. Why could not the Minister have put a few hundred thousand pounds on the Estimates to help us to solve our difficulties? Hundreds of millions of pounds are being spent on the war, but no attention whatsoever is being given to these big farming questions. On the other hand, promises are made in respect of returned soldiers. The Minister has already drafted a kind of election manifesto. In that manifesto it is stated that those who are wounded, or in any way affected by their work up North, will be given military work here in the Union, and they will have nothing to worry about until the war is over. I want hon. members to note these words, “until the war is over”. Let the Minister of Agriculture take a long view of the matter, and let him realise that he will be able to provide many people with a living in days to come if he will tackle these agricultural problems which I have mentioned here with all due seriousness.

I have listened with interest to the last speech, and it reminded me of the lamentation of Jeremiah. If that hon. member’s party gets into power; then I hope he will become Minister of Agriculture, and that he will perform those miracles which he now expects from another, but which he himself cannot perform. I have only a limited time, and I do not want to go into everything he said. I want to solve something in connection with the double salaries. I am one of those who receive the so-called double salary. I challenge anyone of them to prove that we ever received a double salary. As long as Parliament is in Session no one gets a double salary. But after the Session, if we have done our duty in the Defence, then we get a salary. As far as I am concerned, I want to say honestly, that it was a loss to me. On the farm I can do much better work. I am just as good a farmer as anyone of them on the other side. Many of us who enlisted had to give up offices and business to go and do our duty. Every one who farms properly knows that if you have to stay away from your farm for three years, how the farm deteriorates. This question of double salaries is the greatest nonsense I have ever heard. I could have done much better, but I regarded it as my duty towards the decision of this Parliament. From the other side we also hear of the sons of rich people who remain at home to do clerical work. I am one of those who had to do with the mounted regiment, with the cream of the Cape Province, with boys with the name of Orpen, Cloete, Graaff, etc. Those are all rich people. They enlisted as privates and they worked themselves up. Now they are officers. They did not only go and fight, but some of them were shot dead and taken prisoner. They did not seek the so-called “soft jobs”. I also came into contact with the artillery in Natal, and there were six boys who among them were worth £1,000,000. They served as privates and did not seek “soft jobs”. They went to the North, and some of them were shot dead. It is of no use saying that the sons of rich people get “soft jobs” and that the sons of the poor people must fight in the North. It is the greatest untruth I have ever heard. I can give you the assurance that it is not so. In so far as the members of Parliament, who have not gone to the North are concerned, it has also been said that I could have gone and that I did not go. I am a soldier and I take my orders. We would all have been in the North if it depended on ourselves, but we could not, because the Prime Minister thought otherwise. We had to remain here. And we also had to remain in defence of the country. The leader of the Opposition warned us against his favourite, the Ossewa-Brandwag. He said that there was something hatching. If we had ignored his warning, and something happened in the country, then he could have said that he warned us. It began here and there, but we soon put a stop to it. Those things that are slung up in our face, that we only want to serve here, is the greatest nonsense that could ever be expounded. We do not take any notice of it. There was something hatching, I assume that, otherwise the leader of the Opposition would not have issued a warning or made any mention of it. I know that members also said later that there was something. That is the reason why the Herenigde Party had a difference with the Ossewa-Brandwag. We have seen in the budget that the Minister of Finance promises to think of the Oudstryders. We are grateful to him for what he has given. It is a pity that it could not have happened sooner. The former Minister of Finance himself was an Oudstryder and it is a pity that he could not have done it already, because in the meantime many of them have died from poverty. I want to admit honestly that it is not too much that the present Minister of Finance is making available. But still we are thankful for what he is going to do. Those Oudstryders won renown for South Africa. The whole nation is proud of them. We have today modern warfare, and if we examine it closely, then we find that many of those things were already done by these farmers who came from their farms. Take the trench for example. It originated in the Boer War. Take the commandos, take the guerillas. These are all things we hear about today, and we had them in the Boer War already. Those Oudstryders never had training courses and did not have military training, but they did those things. I can give you the assurance that they opened the eyes of the world and they continued till the end. They were also what we call the bitter-enders. Today our armies are better armed, but we have nevertheless learned things from the Oudstryders that are useful in modern warfare. I hope that the future will show that the Minister of Finance will have an open heart for this little group of Oudstryders and see to it that they will not spend their old age in poverty. Then we have the meal which will be given to school children. In my constituency I can give the assurance it has been the custom for years already to give a warm meal to every child who is needy in the winter time. Bazaars are held and sports meetings to provide funds. They not only get food but they also get clothes and I am grateful that the Minister of Finance has seen his way clear to do something in this matter. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) said that all the little natives will now run away from the farm to school. This is probably quite true where the master does not feed them properly. But where the master does so, there is no danger of it. It is a pity that the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) is not here. He moved an amendment that we should immediately break off friendly relations with Russia and that we should not recognise her as an Ally. This is one of the proposals he has put forward, and I can see no use for it. We have 2,000,000 people in our country. Now the hon. member wants us to go and break off our alliance with Russia, because Russia has a Communistic feeling. Suppose we do so, what will we benefit from it? Because America and Britain will not break off their alliance and we are a drop in a pail. They will ridicule us for our stupid proposal if we accept something of this kind. There is no reason to do it. We hear about the Communist danger, and our friends on the other side even want to withdraw our troops from the North because of that danger. If that danger comes here, then we will be man enough to oppose it and we will not ask them to help us because we are not sure what they will do. If such a thing happens, then we will see that it is suppressed. We will maintain and carry out the law of the land. Then there is something I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture. It is the protection of the water sources in our country which in my opinion is very necessary. We know that it is the idea of the Government to go in for irrigation, and the more we protect our great water sources in the mountains, the longer we will be able to retain our water. Our streams will then be more permanent and it will be an asset to the whole nation. Another agricultural ideal, or fate, as it is called, has already been discussed at length and I do not want to go over it again. I just hope that the Minister will see that where there is a shortage of maize, that the farmers who sacrifce so much and for whom the production costs have risen, will get a proper price for their product. If there is a shortage, it is the farmer who will be blamed. It will be said that he did not sow enough. The farmer has continually to fight against nature, and he has no control over it. We trust that the Minister will go out of his way to see that the maize farmer gets a reasonable price, because we know that thousands in the Transvaal and the Free State depend on mealies. During the past four or five years the consumption in our country was between 15,000,000 and 16,000,000 bags and it is now gone up to between 22,000,000 and 23,000,000 bags. The result is that in future we can depend more on the internal market than on export. The export price was very low, but we had to export so that the producer in our country could get a proper price. We have heard a great deal about the great burden that is imposed on the country by the debt that is being incurred by the war. I want to admit honestly that the war is costing a lot of money. It is something to think about, but I ask myself this question. Is it better to have a country with debt that is free or a country without debt but also without freedom.

The hon. member who has just sat down, said at the beginning of his speech that we on this side only have lamentations. I have never yet heard a sadder lamentation than his speech. He has made assertions and accusations without bringing proof. He had no foundation for his accusations. He accuses the Leader of the Opposition that he was the man who created suspicion of the Ossewa-Brandwag in the minds of the Government, and that he told them that it was a dangerous movement. One can expect that from the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha). I can well understand why the hon. the Prime Minister has placed him in such a high position and that he costs the Treasury so much money. He cannot prove on any point that the Leader of the Oppostion created suspicion against the Ossewa-Brandwag with the Government. It is a wild story which one can expect of a member of the Truth Legion and of a man who co-operates with them. They try to put the Leader of the Opposition in a false light with the people, in order to further their political ends. I can only say that we discard those accusations with the contempt they deserve. The hon. member apparently tries in this way to earn the money we have to pay him. He is earning thousands which we have to pay—he is compensated for services he does not render, and evidently because he is in receipt of this money he continues with these wild stories. There are members who have asked the hon. the Minister to appoint a Commission of Enquiry into this matter. I think we are all tired of commissions of enquiry. I do not want to follow the example of other hon. members and to say that the Minister of Agriculture knows nothing about farming. That is an injustice as far as the Minister is concerned. But that the Minister it at times blind to the truth I am bound to admit. I do not want to say that he knows nothing about farming. I know that he feels the hard hand of the Government, and he has to follow suit. As a result the Minister cannot do as he likes, but there is one important question I have discussed before, and I want to discuss that matter again. It is the mealie industry of our country. On behalf of the farmers I want to appeal to the Minister. He can do what he likes, but in the circumstances I want to ask him to fix the price of mealies not lower than 17s. 6d. per bag. People may argue as they like, but at the moment the position is as critical as it can be. Everywhere people complain that they cannot feed their natives. The traders complain that they cannot get sufficient mealies to supply their customers. As a result of drought the mealie position is much more serious than is realised. I do not know the latest estimates, but I said the other day that the month of February is the deciding month as far as the mealie crop is concerned. Then our mealies are in flower and the least setback means a loss of half of the crop and sometimes more. These are points which the Minister should take into consideration, and I trust he will make a statement which will satisfy the mealie farmers. There are farmers who have planted early and who can reap their crop, but on account of the uncertainty of the price, they do not yet reap their crop. I appeal to the Minister to make a statement so that the farmers outside know what the position is. There are people here who talk big and who say that the farmers are making huge profits, that they get good prices for their wheat, mealies and slaughter cattle. But they do not take into account that the overhead expenses of the farmers are high today. Everything costs almost twice as much as before, and I cannot see how the farmer is making such wonderful profits. Taking my constituency, I find that many farmers are still in a precarious position. There are parts which have suffered from drought for the last four years, and every time I have pleaded for those farmers. I want to be quite candid and admit that representations were made to me by the Minister, in co-operation with the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouche) and the Minister has assisted those farmers with seed wheat. That was a wise step, and it was in the interests of the country as a whole. I think the Minister and the Government should be grateful for that timely attempt which we made in order to point out to him that necessity and the threatening danger of starvation, and that the Government must assist the farmers and meet them. But that is not to say that those farmers, which were assisted, are as yet out of their trouble. In 1938 I pleaded for seed wheat for the farmers, and the Minister gave heed. This afternoon I again want to plead for those people and I want to ask the Minister—I can give the names of those people—to take into consideration the fact that those farmers have not yet had a crop. The Minister will now ask how that could be possible; others have had a good crop, and what was wrong with those people? Did they not want to work? No, that is not so. Fate overtook them. They were afflicted with hail, with the result that last year again the crops of many of those people came to nothing. They did not get a crop. This is now the fifth year, and I want to plead with the Minister that he must be merciful towards those farmers. There are tenant farmers who receive loans under the tenant farmer scheme. I am confining myself to the Minister of Finance, who told them that they must pay the interest. It is not that those people did not do their utmost in order to get rid of that debt. They are doing everything in their power, but fate is against them, with the result that it is impossible for them to comply with the demands which are being made upon them. I want to plead for those farmers. The fate of those people is very difficult. They have to live from hand to mouth. They do not make any profit, and when taxes are levied, then those taxes are hardest on those people. They are the people to whom we should look and after whom we should look, and the appointment of Commissions to investigate that sort of thing is of no use. The Government should know today what the actual position is, and it is not necessary to appoint commissions of enquiry. What is required is that something definite should be done in order to save the poorer section of our people. I said that the cost of production is so high that they cannot come out. I know there are people on small pieces of land, and as a result of the drought and scarcity of fodder, they suffered greatly, and as a result of the fact that they could not get labour, they had to buy tractors to plough the soil. What is the result? Now they cannot get spare parts for the machines in order to repair them. They have to pay almost as much for paraffin as for petrol. The Minister of Commerce and Industries sits absolutely quiet and does nothing. I often went to Pretoria to interview the former Minister of Commerce and Industries. But I trust that the new Minister will be more sympathetic towards the farmers than the former Minister. There is nothing which the farmers have to buy which has not just about doubled in price, and when the circumstances are such, then I say definitely that the farmers are justified in demanding from the Minister that a minimum price for mealies should be fixed at 17s. 6d. per bag under present circumstances, and that is the only way in which the farmers can be assisted. I ask this in all seriousness, and I trust that the Minister of Agriculture will make a statement in this connection and will satisfy the farmers, so that the uncertainty in regard to the position will disappear. We receive one telegram after another, and one conference after another is held by the co-operative organisations, and they all ask that the Minister should make a statement. We must know where we stand. We know what happened in connection with potatoes. There the Minister fixed a maximum price, with the result that the speculators and middlemen ruined the farmers down to the ground. We know what the position was in Cape Town. Thousands of bags of potatoes lay and rotted. Potatoes were sold there at 2s. 6d. per bag, but the unfortunate consumer had to pay 1s. for seven pounds. The consumer is not being protected; this Government only protects the man who has always been the blood-sucker of the farmer. I therefore ask in all seriousness that the Minister must consider this matter and come to a decision once and for all. This is the time in which to save the farmers. When we look at the millions which are being wasted, and we see how the farmers are suffering, then we can see how unfair the position is. The hon. member who has just sat down can quite easily get up here and make wild accusations. They are the people who are wasting these big sums, and we on this side of the House have the duty to wake up the people outside, so that the people will see what the real position is. It is also not only the farmer who is suffering, but all the less well-to-do people in the villages and towns are being heavily affected by the wastetfulness of the Government; but the Government can see only one thing, i.e., to see the war through. They see past all the other problems. I plead that the nation should be made economically self-supporting. Give them bread and butter, because on the kind of sentiment with which the Government wants to feed them, they cannot live. Give them enough to keep body and soul together. There is only one other point which I wish to touch upon. I am not objecting to the sums of money the Minister of Agriculture is spending for the combating of some or other pest like locusts. But I want to point out to the Minister the terrible losses as a result of the blow-fly pest. The Minister sits there, powerless, and he does not want to do anything. The farmers have not been assisted to any extent. I am not objecting to the spending of £100,000 or more for the combating of the locust pest, but there are other pests, such as the blow-fly pest, which is just as serious. Then there is soil erosion, which has become a natioanl disaster, and practically nothing is done to it. We merely have to see the war through, and then we get Commissions of Enquiry, but now we want something definite in connection with the combating of this pest. And if the Government side is not capable, give us a chance, then we shall show them what can be done.

A number of speakers referred to soil erosion. Perhaps it is as well that something should be said in regard to what is done by the Department which is criticised such a great deal. More than £2,000,000 have been spent during the past ten years on labour costs alone in connection with the combating of soil erosion. Does that mean nothing? Do hon. members not know how much has already been done? The Department of Agriculture and Irrigation have undertaken huge works in the past ten years, and I ask that when we discuss agricultural matters we should be well informed as to what is going on. There may have been curtailments here and there, but the principle remains and work is still continued in accordance with that principle. The last speaker, as well as others, wants to create the impression that the Government is not considering the consumer at all. I want to ask the hon. member whether he considers the consumer when he pleads for a fixed price of 17s. 6d. for a bag of mealies? Does he think of the consumer then?

What is the consumer paying today for a bag of mealie meal?

The hon. member went on to say that the farmers refuse to reap their mealies owing to the uncertainty of the price. The Minister of Agriculture clearly stated that until the end of April they would get 15s. per bag where the mealies have a moisture content of not more than 15 per cent. Is that no encouragement?

You were at Potchefstroom, and you have not been here for a long time.

On the one hand my hon. friends plead for a higher price for the farmers and on the other hand for a lower price for the consumer. Will they agree to the imposition of an extra tax to make up the difference?

Why a tax?

If the farmer has to get 17s. 6d. and the mealies have to be delivered to the consumer for 12s. 6d., who has to pay the difference? A subsidy will then have to be given either to the consumer or to the farmer.

To the consumer; but who says it is necessary.

If there is a difference of 5s., it means that approximately £5,000,000 will have to be made available for subsidisation, and an extra tax of £5,000,000 will have to be levied. Are hon. members on the other side prepared to impose that tax? The hon. member over there said that the Leader of the Opposition had warned the country in connection with the Ossewa-Brandwag, that there was some mischief brewing there, that the Ossewa-Brandwag presented a danger.

Also wrong.

He said that at Paarl.

I understand that the hon. member for Senekal (Maj. Pieterse) is still a member of the Ossewa-Brandwag, but it hurts him when his Leader raps him on the knuckles. Can a movement be besmirched in stronger language than to call it a “gangster” movement? Will the hon. member deny that the Leader of the Opposition called the Ossewa-Brandwag a “gangster” movement.

You are juggling with words.

You can read that in Hansard; there you will find the truth.

I deny that that is so.

I want to ask the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) whether that is not true?

That is how we understood it.

The hon. member who takes refuge under the wings of the Leader of the Opposition, has not the courage of other members of the Opposition. He is too cowardly.

The hon. member must moderate his language and return to the budget.

I was just replying to the hon. member for Senekal. The hon. member expects the Government to fix the price of mealies, and he is opposed to any form of investigation. Surely, it is reasonable first to investigate what the position is, whether there is a shortage of mealies, whether the cost of production has doubled, etc. We do not believe that the costs have doubled. If the hon. member can substantiate that, it must surely be investigated, and if the investigation proves that he is correct, then the fixation of a higher price will be justified, but unless the hon. member can prove this, there is no justification for accepting it as the truth.

I shall prove it.

In connection with the costs of production of mealies, it is an easy matter to say that the plough cost so much more, that oxen are so much dearer, and that all implements are terribly dear, but it is not only a question of the costs of implements, but also of interest on the capital which was invested. Has the interest doubled?

The rent. I am talking about the poor people.

There are very few farmers who hire land. When one talks of mealie farmers, then the majority are owners. The costs of production have definitely not doubled. The owner surely does not fix a salary for himself and say that it must be double the amount it was previously. It is true that the price of ploughs has risen considerably, but surely not everything is twice as dear. We must not exaggerate our arguments, because otherwise we spoil our own case. Then I want to say a few words in regard to the agricultural colleges. The Minister of Agriculture has thought it fit to place a restriction on agricultural colleges. I am very sorry that the Minister went so far, and that he has also placed a restriction on the short courses of the agricultural colleges. I can well understand that there are difficulties in connection with the courses, but I shall be glad if the Minister will clearly tell us what his policy is in regard to the future. The agriculturists must know where they stand in connection with the matter. The training of farmers is as essential today as it has ever been in the history of our country, and the farmers of the future should also be trained. I hope that we shall get a clear statement from the Minister in this connection. The hon. member for Pretoria, West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen), came forward with the bogey of Communism. He told us of a meeting in Pretoria, where it was said that they would see to it that we do not take part in the Peace Conference. Did the hon. member say whether it was an official statement on the part of the Russian Government, or are these merely stories which he read in the newspapers? When did the Russian Government state that other countries would not take part in the Peace Conference? Or does the hon. member perhaps think that Russia will not receive the peace deputation which the Opposition wants to send? Is that what they are afraid of? I can understand that, because only those people who took part in the war will take part in the Peace Conference. Perhaps they will not be prepared to admit a deputation from the other side. The hon. member argued here that if a farmer gets sixpence for his meat at the farm, the consumer should not pay more than eightpence? Has the hon. member any knowledge of the distribution of meat?

You didn’t listen properly.

The hon. member must surely admit that there are large costs between the producer and the consumer. I admit that the difference is too much, and that the price which the consumer has to pay is too high, but we cannot eliminate the middleman altogether.

Is 1½d. on one pound of meat too little?

In our opinion it is too little. Of course, if the hon. member slaughters a sheep and he gets 6d., and it is sold in his town at 8d., then it is quite reasonable; but if the meat has to be transported to other markets, the profit is not sufficient, in my opinion. I admit that the price of meat is too high, but the middleman must also live. How did the middleman come into existence? There were shopkeepers, later market agents, brokers, and the middleman became a necessary evil. The fact that they became speculators is a different matter, but if we eliminate them from society tomorrow, we are going to have the greatest of confusion. These people are entitled to a fair price for their work. The question of marketing is a difficult one, but recently I had the pleasure of meeting market agents from Cape Town and Johannesburg, and also brokers and a number of grain dealers, and they said that they were prepared at any time to eliminate from their business the element of speculation, of which hon. members on the other side are so afraid, and that they are prepared to submit to the same measure of control as the farmers and that they have no objection to the control which the farmer has over his production. They admit the farmers’ right to existence, and they are also prepared to accept control and rationing. I urge the Minister to give his attention to this matter. Then the hon. member also spoke about produce which was thrown on the market at a specified time in too large quantities, and that there should be a system to give notice to the farmers what the market position is. If you cannot give that notice through the channel of distribution, you will never know whether or not there is a shortage. It is of no avail going to the market tomorrow, only to find out that too few potatoes were sent. One must know what the position is, what the supply is through the distribution channels, and what the position is in the trade. It is remarkable that the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) also made a plea for rationing. We talk about newer and better conditions, and then the matter of rationing and of the proper provision of products to the consumers is also included. When we see that the big business men are also beginning to admit it, it is encouraging. Then we as producers of farming products must put our house in order and create a proper organisation to bring our produce to the consumer, so that the consumer will not be met with the difficulty which faced him in the past, namely, that of getting hold of the products at a reasonable price. But I say that that can only be done by making use of the existing business organisations. I hope that we shall be reasonable in so far as the price of mealies is concerned.

What should the price be this year?

Some months ago the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) pleaded for not less than 12s. 6d. per bag. I hope that he is still satisfied with that. I hope that the Government will seriously consider this point which I raised, because the public is becoming disturbed about the control board system. The question of distribution is a difficult one, but it must be tackled. We listened today to a remarkable speech by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). He told us that he was fed-up with the whole business. Hon. members will remember that not so very long ago the hon. member for Gezina said at meeting that he was a man who believed in giving a lead, that when the day arrived he would give a lead, and he said that the people must wait until he gives that lead. Today his lead is that he has left his followers in the lurch. He said in regard to the bush-carts that he only acquired them on the advice of the Imperial Staff. There he gave the lead, but when he himself had to give a lead he failed to do so. He now disappears and leaves his people in the lurch. I shall not be surprised if his followers join the official Opposition. Perhaps that is the price that the hon. member will have to pay for the division in the ranks of Afrikanerdom. His followers will be able to join the official Opposition, provided he disappears from the scene. I wonder whether that will not happen. For the sake of unity amongst Afrikanerdom, he must disappear.

You admit therefore that we on these benches represent the Afrikaner people?

No, I will not admit that. They represent a certain type of Afrikanerdom, but the truly good Afrikaans-speaking people are represented by us on this side. I refer to those who went up North, the good element. These are the people who represent the soul of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people, and they always will.

One is amazed, when one listens to a so-called representative of the farmers …

The hon. member must not use such an expression in reference to another hon. member.

Then I will say that we can only stand amazed at the representatives of the farmers on the other side. But I realise why that hon. member spoke as he did. He is one of the friends of the Soviet Union. I want to quote what happened. There was a meeting at Potchefstroom which passed this resolution—

Then there is some reference to the war which Fascist Germany is waging against Russia, and then it goes on to state—

The speakers at this meeting were Mr. Hubert van der Merwe, Adv. Frans Boshoff, the well-known Communist, Miss McPherson and another woman who is a well-known Communist. Now the hon. member gets up here and says that he is pleading for the farmers. He now supports the Soviet Union, and he wants to confiscate all farms. He now apparently adopts the attitude that all farms belong to the State, and he wants the farms to be confiscated. I fully understand the hon. member now. He made a speech here in which he did not suggest in any way that the farmer must be protected. He talks about the price of mealies and he says that 17s. 6d. per bag is too high. The farmers are at least entitled to ask for that price.

I did not say that it was too high.

He forgot that there were small scale farmers who also produce mealies. They have to buy plough-shares; they have to buy everything they need, and they have to pay dearly for it. He overlooks that position altogether. But he talks here as a Communist. I can quite understand that he has become Communistic. He referred here to the wool agreement with Germany. He attacked the farmers about it, and he said that I was also in favour of an agreement. He forgets that that agreement was entered into by the United Party, and that he, just as the Nationalist Party of that time, supported the agreement. He also forgets that at that time Great Britain only bought 17 per cent. of our wool clip, and the worst quality at the lowest price. He also forgets that the result of the agreement with Germany was that our wool prices were on a higher basis than those of Australia. These are all things which my hon. friend of the Soviet Union now forgets. We understand his present attitude. We understand what he is striving for. We on this side advocate stable prices. We want the farmer to be able to reckon on a stable price, fixed over a period of years, so that the producer and the consumer will know what the position is. Both producer and consumer can then have certainty, and they cannot then be exploited by the middleman. But my hon. friend on the other side is now pleading for the speculators. He actually puts up a stronger plea for the middleman. The arguments of the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) really leave us cold. We really do not know what his object is. We do remember that at one time he pleaded for the farmers. He asked for a reduction in the railage charges on tomato boxes. As far as I can remember, that is the only occasion on which he pleaded for the farmers. I listened carefully to the hon. members on the other side in order to hear whether anyone of them would make a plea on behalf of the farmers. When the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) rose, I really thought that something wonderful was going to happen. I thought that he would show the Minister some way out of the difficulty. What did we have from him? He was but a faithful handyman of that side of the House. The speech which he made here, we heard in this House five years ago. Then he had the audacity to talk about wool. When we put the simplest of questions to him concerning wool, what the type basis is, or what the clean yield means, he does not know what it is all about. The position is that the Minister of Agriculture, through his negligence in drawing up the agreement, was responsible for the fact that the farmers lost a few million pounds. We asked the Minister of Agriculture to allow the farmers to carry on the tests at Onderstepoort, but he had the audacity to say that it could not be continued any longer. I shall tell you why this happened in the case of wool. One of our leading farmers proved by means of these tests that the British Wool Commission had under-valued his wool by 16 per cent. Then the Minister came along and put a stop to it. We voted this money for the laboratory at Onderstepoort. The wool farmers paid for that; why then cannot the wool farmers be allowed to have this research work done? We proved to the Minister that these wool tests were thorough. But the Minister has now taken refuge behind the Department of Agriculture, the Secretary for Agriculture, and those people have to protect him, and they say that these tests are worth nothing. They simply adopt the attitude that the research worker was foolish. That is not the case. He is a clever man. All his tests were carried out in America, and everything which he said was proved to be correct. The Minister committed a crime against the wool farmers in that he entered into the contract on such a basis that the wool farmers have no protection at all. Everything rests in the hand of the buyer. When I told the Minister that he would never get the fixed price on a type basis, he said that we would get more. He gave all the powers to the people who buy, and he did not give the wool farmers any protection. The buyers have to value the wool, and the farmer who sells has no guarantee. We should have done what Australia did. Australia protected her wool farmers and got a stable price. The Minister still wanted to adhere to his statement that we were getting 10.75d., and nevertheless the British Government comes along and gives us 20 per cent. more on the type basis. Let me again warn the Minister that we still have no guarantee in connection with the 20 per cent. on the type basis. Anyone who knows anything about wool, knows that there is a difference in opinion between the people who value the yield. We want a guarantee that the farmers will get 10.75d. plus 15 per cent. No, everything is in the hands of the buyers. I admit that there are good men on the British Wool Commission and that they would not deliberately make a mistake. But, they buy wool for their employer and if there is a mistake, that mistake will be in favour of their employer and against the producer. For that reason I say that the Minister made a great mistake. Then the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) got up here and made a plea on behalf of the millers. Well, I am one of those people who likes to plead for a co-operative society. But when a co-operative society commits blunders then I blame them, and they cannot expect the public to pay for it. The whole position in regard to the millers is this. The cooperative societies bought mills at prices which were absolutely uneconomical. They bought those mills on reputation. Now my hon. friends are trying to save those co-operative societies, and they want a high price to be paid to the millers.