I wish to move—

I second.

Agreed to.

House in Committee:

The Bill has been recommitted for the purpose of considering certain proposed amendments to Clauses 20, 27 and 44, involving increases of expenditure.

On Clause 20,

I move—

1. (i) the substitution in paragraph (a) of Sub-Section (1) and in paragraph (a) of Sub-Section (2) for the words “eighty-four pounds a year” of the words “the rates set forth in the second column of the Third Schedule,”

May I explain that this is in order to give effect to a suggestion by the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. Reitz). I promised to consider it and I now move accordingly.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 27,

I move—

I have considered certain points raised by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) and I move these amendments accordingly.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 44,

I want to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. I have undertaken to do it, and I therefore move it as follows—

It was very friendly of the hon. Minister to have sent this Bill back to the Committee for the adoption of certain amendments. He meets certain members, but he also promised me that he would go into the question of allowances for costs of living for Oudstryders which results in them being deprived of their Oudstryders’ pension. The Minister has admitted that it is unreasonable to do this, for it means that the Oudstryder will get absolutely no benefit from the allowance. I would like to know from the Minister why he cannot now accept such an amendment so that the people need not have to suffer a year longer under this.

I did not promise to move an amendment at the Committee stage. I promised to go into the matter. I have done so, and I have found that the position is very involved. I am prepared to discuss the matter with my hon. friends. The whole question is now being considered by a Committee on old age pensions, and I hope to be able to act in consequence of the recommendations of that Committee. But it will be impossible to do so now in this Bill. The difficulty exists, of course, of making the Bill of retrospective effect.

Cannot you act without legislation?

In this Bill provision is made for action in connection with pensions that were outside the law, and this Bill is retrospective in that respect.

But cannot you do something now?

I am sorry, but I cannot allow a discussion on that point.

May I just say that. I hope that when Parliament congregates in July, to prolong the life of Parliament, that the Minister will incorporate this amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

Bill, as amended in Committee of the Whole House on 21st. April and on recommittal, considered.

Amendments in Clauses 1, 4, 5 (Afrikaans), the new Clause 6, the amendments in Clauses 9, 11, 16 (Afrikaans), 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 37, 39, 41, 42 (Afrikaans), 43, 44, the omission of Clause 46, the new Clauses 47 and 48 and the amendment in the Schedule, put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

I second.

There is only one point in regard to the Bill which may prove a source of future trouble, and that is the question of pensions being rejected on the ground that the death of a volunteer or his injury was not due to active service. I mention this again as it is now and will continue to be a matter of widespread dissatisfaction among the volunteers. There is another point on which I was unable to move an amendment, and that is in regard to the provision which makes it possible for a university employee or a servant of any university to be transferred to the Public Service with all his rights, and if he has had service in the Public Service as well as the University there is provision for continuity of service. In the ordinary cases that is unobjectionable, but my attention has been drawn to a case in which a man was dismissed from the Public Service for offences of a very reprehensible character is now a University professor, and I hope there is going to be some provision to prevent a man of that sort from having continuous service, because it seems to me that in years to come he may by some specious excuse get on the blind side of the law and obtain continuity of service whereas he deserves no consideration at all. I think that may prove a defect in the Act.

The effect of new Clause 46 is merely to make service continuous for pension purposes where it is continuous. If for any reason the service in the Public Service has come to an end this Clause would not apply and would not cover such a case as the hon. member has referred to.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

This Bill is not really one that is particularly fitting to be dealt with in a speech on a motion for the Second Reading. It includes a series of unconnected Clauses. The only thing that binds them is that they all relate to revenue funds. It is the customary Finance Bill that is introduced at the end of every Session. There are three Clauses in the Bill that give effect to my budget proposals. The first Clause in the Bill determines the use of the surplus for State revenue, the surplus on the Consolidated Revenue Account for the year that has just ended. In the Budget Speech I estimated the surplus at £1,420,000. I added that unless we should need that money before the end of the financial year for defence purposes we would transfer it to Loan Account. We managed without needing that money for the Defence Account, and that money is therefore available for transfer to the ordinary Loan Account. In this Clause provision is made to that effect, namely for the transfer of an amount of £1,500,000.

And then there is still £2,000,000 over.

The accumulated surplus is £3,500,000. Of that £1,500,000 will now be transferred to Loan Account as proposed here. The rest remains in the Revenue Account and it will be devoted to the supplementary items of expenditure on the estimates which are still before the House. Its purpose is to defray that expenditure. It was my intention to deal with that point on a later occasion. The second Clause incorporates a proposal of my colleague, the Minister of Railways and Harbours, in connection with the utilisation of the Railway surplus. A third Clause affecting the Budget proposals is Clause 16. It deals with the provision now being made to transfer the remaining one-sixth of the Native taxation to the Native Trust. Then I just want to refer to a few other Clauses in the Bill. In the first place to Clause 3. It deals with the purchase by or on behalf of the Government of certain supplies that are not easily obtainable through the ordinary channels in existing circumstances, and which are not manufactured in South Africa. In existing circumstances we must ensure that the population shall have the necessary supplies available, and the Government must in the first instance act to obtain the supplies. It has already happened for instance in connection with rubber, tin and tea and certain varieties of wood, peanuts, etc. The purchase is undertaken particularly through the Director-General of Supplies as now constituted. Formerly it was undertaken through the Department of Trade and Industries and also through the Food Controller. In certain cases, particularly when it affected foodstuffs, Parliament has voted certain sums which serve as capital for the Director of Food Supplies. Generally we feel, however, that such activities can be arranged through the medium of the banks and we therefore propose to follow the line of action that the Reserve Bank shall act, and the House is asked to approve of this clause which extends the necessary power. The next clause to which I want to refer is Clause 15. It contains a concession to local authorities in connection with the combating of tuberculosis. On the existing basis the State and the Provincial Councils contribute and the maximum subsidy on that basis is 75 per cent., to which the local authorities must then add the remaining 25 per cent. Some of the smaller local authorities are finding it difficult to defray even 25 per cent., and in consequence the necessary steps to combat tuberculosis are not being taken. After discussions with the Provinces and the local authorities, we decided to go into this matter and we now propose that it shall be possible to increase the subsidy to 90 per cent., and even to 100 per cent. in particular cases. It will be of considerable value so far as my colleague, the Minister of Public Health, is concerned regarding the combating of the disease. Then I come to Clause 17. It deals with the so-called Section 20 advances. Hon. members will remember that we made provision in 1933 that out of money specially provided by the State advances can be made to the Land Bank, in respect of which the value of the security need not be 60 per cent. of the amount that is advanced. It is of course a special concession. Hitherto the law has laid down that when as a result of repayments the advance has been brought back to the 60 per cent basis, the advance is then put back on the ordinary account of the Land Bank. Then the amount forms part of the capital of the Land Bank. What we now propose is to enable the Land Bank to place such advances on their ordinary capital account, even where the amount still outstanding remains more than 60 per cent., provided the Land Bank is satisfied with the soundness of the investment. The effect of this is virtually to increase the capital of the Land Bank for other advances with the help of the amounts that are transferred in this way. It is not something that affects the State Advances Recoveries Office in any sense, or that falls within the scope of the activities of the Farmers’ Assistance Board. I understand that hon. members consider that we may perhaps be busy in this proposal depriving the Farmers’ Assistance Board of its powers. I want to give them the assurance that there is nothing further from our minds so far as this proposal is concerned. The Farmers’ Assistance Board has done excellent work and is still doing excellent work, and I am convinced that it can continue to do very good work in the future. Nothing is further from my mind than to detract from this work. Then in Clause 20 we deal with the Mint Fund, a fund built up as a reserve fund for the South African Mint. Into that fund 50 per cent. of the Mint’s profits are put, and the fund today runs to an amount of £1,250,000. It is therefore a very strong fund, adequate for defraying losses. The law however does not provide for coverage from the fund for losses suffered as a result of the loss of mint metal in transit. We have suffered certain losses of recent years as a result of enemy action, which has resulted in a large quantity of silver mint metal being lost. Hon. members know that it is not our policy as a State to insure, and that is a sound policy. It would cost us as much more to insure as to bear the losses. The activities of the Government have expanded in such a way that we can virtually act as our own insurance company, and that it pays us to act in that way was again proved last year. We have tested it out once again. Under the lease-lend arrangement we imported certain commodities of a mixed nature, partly for the Government, partly for the Railways and partly for private persons, and we then decided, in view of the nature of the imports, to insure the shipments. But the result was that we lost £100,000. In other words the premiums which we paid were £100,000 more than the losses we suffered. There again is proof that it pays the Government to bear its own losses. Where 50 per cent. of the profits which the Mint makes is put into the Mint Fund, it is also reasonable that the Mint Fund should bear 50 per cent. of the losses suffered, and it is therefore proposed to amend the law in such a way that the Mint Fund shall be able to bear 50 per cent. of such loss and the other 50 per cent. will then be borne by the ordinary Revenue Account, just as 50 per cent. of the profits of the Mint are also put into the Revenue Account. The last clause will surely please the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). As a result of representations made to us by the hon. member, Clause 21 provides for a cost of living allowance that will be paid to the forest workers who can be virtually considered pensioners. I do not think it is necessary to enlarge at this stage on the other clauses.

I think I might just explain the two items in this Bill which affect the South African Railways, so that hon. members may be quite clear as to what they amount to. We are following the practice again this year that we adopted for the first time last year, of dealing with the Railway surplus in this Bill. Clause 2 deals with the disposal of our final surplus, and for the information of hon. members I would like to state to the House that as far as we can see, the indications at this date are that the surplus will be approximately £2,500,000. Five hundred thousand pounds of this will go to the Betterment Fund, and £2,000,000 to the Rates Equalisation Fund. That means that the Rates Equalisation Fund will then stand at approximately £9,473,000. In regard to the other item, No. 10, that is a matter of very long standing. Dr. Norval who was the Director of the Tourist Development Corporation was overpaid certain sums, because it was not realised at the beginning that he was a civil servant on full time pay, and he was paid at the rate of £3 3s. a day instead of at the civil service rate. It was decided at the time that that sum would be written off. Unfortunately the writing off was never done, and it was decided last Session that it should be written off in the Finance Bill of last year, but the decision was made at a time when the Bill had already been printed, and it was decided to keep it over until this year. Now we are getting rid of this small amount which has been before Parliament for about three years. I think that is all that affects my particular Department.

There is very little in the Omnibus Bill this year that is really contentious and if the Minister can satisfy us on a few clauses in respect of which we have some doubts, the debate need not last long. But in the first place I would like to avail myself of the opportunity of putting a question to the Minister of Finance. I gave notice of the question to the Prime Minister, and I am sorry that he is not here at the moment. It is a matter of very urgent public importance and it relates to the third report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

Does it fall within the scope of this Bill?

I think I have an opportunity here of putting the question. There was a matter before the Select Committee with a very unsavoury taste, and the Select Committee requested the Government to appoint a judicial commission immediately to thresh out the matter immediately.

The word “immediately” was not used.

That was the whole spirit of the discussions.

What does the hon. member want to ask?

I would like to ask the Minister whether, in view of the importance of the matter which involves the whole question of clean and honest administration in our country, he is prepared to make a statement that the Government intends appointing a Judicial Commission? Is the Government prepared to do this?

I am afraid it falls outside the scope of this Bill. The hon. member can bring up the matter at the second reading of the Finance Bill.

Then a few points directly in connection with the Omnibus Bill. In the first place I want to put a question in connection with Clause 17. That clause now empowers the Land Bank to take over bonds contracted under Section 20 of the Act of 1933 even where the bond is now more than 60 per cent. of the value of the farm. We know that that clause in the Act of 1933 is the cornerstone of our whole legislation in connection with farmers’ assistance work. All the other legislation we passed in 1934 and 1935 is based on Clause 20, and the question that arises on this side of the House and with some members on the other side is whether the Minister does not now virtually want to pluck this clause out of the Farmers’ Assistance Legislation.

That is not the case.

But the Farmers’ Assistance Legislation virtually rests on Clause 20. The fear that many of us entertain is therefore that if you pluck out Clause 20 from the Farmers’ Assistance Legislation then the whole principle that we have in connection with farmers’ assistance lapses. We know that the Land Bank does very good work in the country, but in South Africa exceptional circumstances perpetually arise, such as droughts, and plagues of nature, and in such cases the Land Bank is not adequate, it cannot act adequately. For that reason we have the Farmers’ Assistance Legislation for special help to farmers. There are many of us who see in this clause the thin end of the wedge to nullify the whole Farmers’ Assistance Legislation which we have and virtually to transfer farmers’ assistance work to the Land Bank. We would not like that to happen, for as I have already said we feel that times come when the country cannot do without farmers’ assistance. We shall be glad to get the assurance from the Minister that no onslaught is being permitted on the principle, that he realises the necessity of the continuation of the Farmers’ Assistance Board, that he admits that the Farmers’ Assistance Board has done good work in the past, that we may still need it in the future and that there is no intention here of tampering with the legislation. So far as I myself am concerned, I am prepared to abide by an assurance from the Minister. Now I would like to draw attention to another clause in the Bill, namely Clause 5. It seeks the approval of the House for the granting of a subsidy to the Egmont Irrigation Scheme and to empower the Government to write off interest on the loan given to the Irrigation Board there. Before I deal with the matter, let me say clearly that I am heart and soul in favour of irrigation in our country. I know that irrigation is something that the people under an irrigation scheme cannot bear alone. It is a national matter and the State must be prepared to spend large sums from the Treasury on irrigation schemes. I am not opposed in principle to that help being extended in connection with the irrigation scheme, but I want to object to the manner in which the help is given and I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of Finance what protection there is, how can the Board protect itself against the Minister who openly and flagrantly acts against the laws of the country, as happened in this case? The scheme was undertaken ten years ago. In the course of years the Government definitely acted illegally in connection with the scheme. And now years after the scheme has been completed, the Government, another Minister comes and asks us to approve the illegal, irregular action of ten years ago. I therefore put the question to you and to the Minister of Finance as to how we can protect ourselves against the illegal action of a Minister. The Minister was submitted to a Select Committee on Public Accounts in 1938 and 1939, and the Auditor-General, as well as the legal advisers, all admitted that the Minister had acted illegally and irregularly, and therefore the matter must be put right by legislation, and only now, in 1943, the Government comes and asks us, like mustard after a meal, to approve of it. How must Parliament protect itself against such things? What are we to do? Supposing we refused to approve of it, what will the position be? Can anyone in this House tell us what we can do? The irrigation laws of our country differentiate between two kinds of irrigation works. The first is Government irrigation work, and the laws state clearly what these are. They are irrigation works constructed by the State and thereafter operated and maintained by State officials. A Government scheme is a scheme on which the Government envisages settlement on a large scale. The laws of our country lay down that the approval of Parliament must be sought for such a scheme, so that Parliament knows what the money is for, and when the scheme is completed, the tariffs are fixed for the people under the scheme. It is a Government scheme. But there is a second kind of irrigation scheme, and that is what is called a private irrigation scheme. In connection therewith our laws lay down that an Irrigation Board must be appointed. Such a Board may apply for a loan and the Governor-General-in-Council can grant such a loan, provided it does not exceed a sum of £30,000. The law says emphatically that no loan bigger than that can be granted, except by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. But what do we find? In this case a subsidy of £54,000 was granted without a resolution by both Houses of Parliament. The Auditor-General, the Legal Advisers and others find this in conflict with the law, but only now, after years, the approval of Parliament is asked. I am not opposed to the fact that assistance was granted, but this scheme was constructed as a private scheme, with the approval of Parliament, but no resolution has been taken by both. Houses of Parliament to grant assistance involving more than £30,000.

In what year was it reported?

In 1939, and also in a Report of 1938. It is to be found on pages 280 to 283. Suddenly, without any reason, it was decided in 1937 to change the scheme from a private scheme to a Government scheme. In terms of the law, however, it is not a Government scheme, and by virtue of that fact the granting of a subsidy of £54,000 was completely in conflict with the law. This is also happening in connection with other schemes. What should Parliament do? The Select Committee on Public Accounts has protested strongly, and now after four or five years Parliament’s approval is requested. Unfortunately the rules do not permit me to deal with other cases, and I therefore have to do it piecemeal, but there is for instance the Vioolsdrift scheme. It is a scheme on the Orange River. It is a similar case, and the law prescribes what steps the Minister must take before he can undertake a definite irrigation scheme. In the case of the Vioolsdrift scheme the Government did not pay the least attention to the prescription of the law.

When was that?

That was in 1936. In connection with the other scheme and with Vioolsdrift the Government simply acted illegally, and now the Select Committee on Public Accounts comes and reports to Parliament that the scheme was undertaken without proper investigation, without conforming to the prescription of the law, and after £100,000 was spent there they admitted that the scheme was a hopeless failure, and that the money was thrown into the water. If the rules of the House permitted me to do so I could give other cases, and I must ask here this morning: What protection has this House if a Minister and the Government openly and flagrantly act in conflict with the law and if hundreds of thousands of pounds are thrown into the water in that way? I would like to ask the Minister of Finance what we must do. In the case of Egmont it is a good scheme. I admit that. I am glad that that scheme was undertaken. I am glad that assistance was given the scheme. But I merely ask: What does it help if the State itself determines that in the case of private schemes a definite procedure must be followed, and if that procedure is simply not followed? The prescriptions of the law are ignored. In the case of Vioolsdrift the Minister commenced with the scheme on his own, without consultation with the bodies created to ensure that State money is not wasted, and now we find that £100,000 has been thrown into the water, and what must we do now?

We must intern the Minister of Lands.

It was so interesting to hear during the past few days how the Minister of Lands vomited gall on a settlement of the Church, and the only settlement scheme that has been undertaken by the Minister of Lands and his Department has been a hopeless failure.

Did I undertake it?

I say the Department of Lands must not throw stones at settlements commenced by other bodies.

You are accusing me, and I did not undertake it.

The Minister of Lands is terribly irritable. I do not want any misunderstanding. I am not opposed to assistance being granted in connection with Egmont. It was the duty of the State to do so, but when State assistance is granted then it must be done in conformity with regulation and with prescription. A definite procedure is laid down, and in this case action was taken in conflict with the law. I object to it, and I hope that there are other members who will call the Government thoroughly to book.

I am glad to hear from the Minister of Finance that he does not intend violating the principle of relief to farmers by means of Section 17 of this Bill. I must tell him that members on this side noticed with a considerable amount of objection that he proposes to have certain provisions of the Farmer’s Relief Act administered under the Land Bank Act.

No, that is not so.

At any rate, certain loans which are regarded as relief loans.

No, they have always been Land Bank loans.

We are satisfied that the State will go out of its way to develop the Land Bank to become the main credit institution for the farmers in South Africa. I should like to see the Minister of Finance going very much further than he has done in the past, and that he will afford the Land Bank an opportunity of expanding its capital, that he will allow the Bank to issue letters of credit, so that it will not be dependent on the Government for its funds. Up to the present the Land Bank has been dependent exclusively on funds made available by this Parliament, and we should like to see the Land Bank enabled to expand its own funds. If the Minister wants to take steps in that direction, then I would like to support him, and other hon. members on this side will also support him. We are in favour of extending the functions of the Land Bank so that, generally speaking, it will be able to provide for the credit requirements of the farmer, so that the Bank will become the chief credit institution for the farmer, so that the farmer will be able to go to the Land Bank at all times and obtain assistance, and so that we shall not have the position which we have sometimes had in the past, namely that the Land Bank was unable to assist him owing to lack of funds or because Land Bank loans may be granted only for a fixed sum. But as strongly as we feel that the Land Bank should be developed to become the chief credit institution for the farmer, so we feel that there may be times when a section of the farming community cannot be assisted with credit facilities by the Land Bank, and for that very reason we are so jealous of the principle of relief which the State has taken upon itself in terms of the Farmers’ Relief Act.

That remains.

We should not like to see that tampered with. We hope, since steps are being taken in this section in a direction which makes us suspicious, that the Minister will accept our warning that we should not like to see this principle of relief loans weakened, and that he will retain it in our legislation. There are times when the farmer, as a result of unforeseen circumstances such as drought, hail and pests, cannot obtain credit facilities from the Land Bank or any other credit institution, and it is then that we feel it is the duty of the Relief Organisation to meet such a farmer and to enable him, by means of a loan, to carry on with his farming. I am glad therefore that the Minister is giving us this assurance that he does not propose to touch that principle. Now I should like to bring another matter to the notice of the Minister. There are certain loans which are administered under the Relief Act.

No, they are Land Bank loans and you can discuss them on a later occasion.

Yes, I am afraid I shall have to raise that point on a later occasion, and if I am not here to do so, I hope that the Minister will give his attention to it. I now come to another matter in connection with this Bill, and that is a matter which is dealt with in Clause 3, namely in connection with the acquisition of requirements from overseas by the Department of Commerce and Industries. A few days ago certain questions were put to the Minister of Commerce and Industries in connection with the import of wool. The Minister replied that he could not give this information because no statistics were furnished during war time. I thereafter asked the Minister whether wool was being imported. I did not ask for statistics. The Minister has not yet replied to that question. It still remains to be dealt with. But the Minister saw me personally and told me that he intended replying to the question. I cannot, however, allow this opportunity to pass without warning the Government that if it continues to act along the present lines, as we presume the Government did act, it can cause irreparable damage to the farmers and to the country. We have reason to believe—no, we know it—that a fairly large quantity of wool was imported into the Union within the last year. And since that has happened, we want to ask the Government why that was done; is it necessary that a wool producing country should allow wool to be imported? We hear that large quantities of wool have accumulated in our harbours, and nevertheless we find that at this time when shipping space is so scarce, that the Government is allowing wool to be imported. Not only are the interests of the wool farmers being prejudiced in consequence, but the interests of the whole country, and of the farmers, generally speaking, are hit directly. Does the Minister know that as a result of lack of shipping space essential farming machinery cannot be imported today? I shall not take up the time of the House by mentioning all the different types of machinery and requirements which we cannot get. Those things cannot be imported, and the Government is nevertheless allowing a fairly large quantity of wool to be imported.

Was this wool bought by the Government?

That I cannot say. But the Government allows this wool to be imported.

We are dealing here with purchases by the Government.

This is a question of facilities given to the Department of Commerce and Industries. In other words, facilities are given to people to import wool, and we say that that course of action causes damage to the farmers, because as a result of it they cannot obtain their essential requirements.

I should like to bring something to the notice of the Minister which seems to me to be a very dangerous provision in this Bill. Under Section 20, when a farmer gets into difficulties, he can go to the Relief Board and obtain suspension. He can ask the Relief Board to place his debt on an Assistance Account for a year or two. But if the Land Bank takes over his loan, that will not happen. We know what the Relief Board did. When a farmer suffers a setback, they meet the farmer in that way, and thousands of farmers have been saved from bankruptcy in this way. The Land Bank advanced only 60 per cent. of the value of the land, and all advances exceeding 60 per cent.—up to 100 per cent.—were taken over by the Farmers’ Relief Board. The Minister’s intention is that the Land Bank should now take over the whole amount. The point is that if a farmer now gets into difficulties he can go to the Relief Board, explain his position to the Board, and they then act sympathetically and give the farmer a chance.

We are not taking over the Farmers’ Relief loans.

But surely that is the object of this Bill.

No, it is not the object.

If the Land Bank takes over the whole amount, it means that the farmer cannot go to the Land Bank and ask for his debt to be placed on the Assistance Account on suspension. He must then pay. That is the danger. The object of the Farmers’ Relief Act then falls away, and this is going to cause trouble.

We are not dealing here with Farmers’ Relief loans.

But we are dealing with Section 20, and the loans granted to farmers under that section. If the Relief Board has to fall away and the Land Bank takes over the whole amount, the position may be as I have described it here, and we object to that. When there are setbacks and the farmer cannot pay his interest, he goes to the local committee in the first place. They know his circumstances. He explains his whole position to them and he tells them that in the circumstances he cannot pay—his dam has broken or there has been hail or something of that nature. These people know what the position is and they know that this man is not in a position to pay in respect of that year. He is then granted suspension for a year or two. But if the Land Bank takes over the whole amount, this falls away, and then the object of the Farmers’ Relief Act will have been negatived. This is a very serious position and I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to it.

The Minister must not hold it against us if we, as farmers, are suspicious. I have just returned from the Wool Growers’ Congress, where 22,000 farmers were represented. Where are the farmers on the other side today? A moment ago there was not one; now I see there is one. I want to show the Minister how the wool farmers look at the matter. I just want to say that the farmers decided at the Congress not to approve of the Minister’s Act in connection with the interest subsidy. They feel that this is a step in the wrong direction.

The hon. member cannot discuss that question now.

I just want to indicate why we are suspicious. The Minister introduced that Act because he wanted to kill the Interest Subsidy Act. Now the Minister is again introducing this provision, and we suspect that it is a step on his part to kill the Act of 1935. The Land Bank is now giving advances up to 66 per cent. of the value of the land, and people who require more than 66 per cent. will get no assistance if the Act of 1935 falls away. We feel therefore that the Act of 1935 should remain. An individual may feel that his farm is overcapitalised; he may have got into difficulties as a result of nature conditions, and then, under the Act of 1935, he approaches the Farmers’ Relief Board, and we are suspicious that the Minister is coming forward with a plan to kill the Act of 1935. I hope the Minister will make a statement that that will not happen. Then I want to touch on another matter. I want to make the definite statement here that wool has been imported from the Argentine.

Not by the Government.

It does not matter whether or not the wool was imported by the Government. The fact remains that the Government allowed wool to be imported.

It does not fall under this Bill.

But the Government is giving preference to the import of wool over the import of other goods which are necessary.

The hon. member should rather avail himself of another opportunity to discuss this matter.

The Minister has now stated that the import of this wool is not of importance. I just want to point out to the Minister of Finance that the import of this wool has a very adverse effect on the farmer in so far as the commercial side of his business is concerned. I hope that the Minister of Finance will see that the Minister of Commerce and Industries makes a statement in regard to this matter.

That can be done under the Commerce and Industries Vote.

I hope it will be done.

I should like to say a few words in regard to Section 17. If this clause is given effect to, the scope of the Department of State Advances will in practice be so limited that the Minister will eventually be entitled to close that department. Now I want to say this. I view this article with the greatest suspicion, and I shall tell you why. In the first place we found that a few years ago the able head of the Department of State Advances was transferred to another department, where he was very welcome.

He was transferred on promotion.

Yes, but that does not matter. He is welcome to the promotion. But even if it was promotion, it has still not had the effect of improving the Department of State Advances. In the second place, it would seem to us that you are now accepting a provision which will have the effect of a large sum, which is today administered by the Department of State Advances, being administered in the future by the Land Bank. The Minister said that we need not feel uneasy about that, because it was merely a question of administration. The position was that as soon as a bond exceeded 60 per cent. of the valuation, the Land Bank bond was administered by the Department of State Advances. As soon as the bond falls below 60 per cent. it is administered by the Land Bank. What is the difference in the administration of the two departments? The hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) has already said that if a farmer has a bond with the Department of State Advances, and he gets into difficulties, he can always ask for a portion of that bond to be placed on suspension. Assuming the bond is one for £6,000, he can go to the Department of State Advances, explain the position to them, and ask that £2,000 be placed on suspension for a certain period, so that he will not have to pay interest on it during that period. As soon as the bond falls under the Land Bank, the farmer cannot avail himself of that procedure, because the Land Bank is not empowered to place a portion of the bond on suspension. Now the Minister is introducing this section, which is almost tantamount to giving the Land Bank, the right to take over and to administer all the bonds of the Department of State Advances. When these people fall under the Land Bank, not a single farmer has the right to ask that a portion of his bond be placed on the Suspense Account. The Minister has this at the back of his mind—I must tell him this—he thinks that the necessity to render assistance to the farmers has ceased to exist. That is the attitude he is adopting. He introduced an Act which means that the Interest Subsidy Act will lapse after eight years. Every form of assistance to the farmers is being taken away systematically, deliberately and finally—the channels for assistance are being closed. Take the members who sit behind the Minister; take the newspapers which support that side, and you will notice that they adopt the attitude that the farmers are being spoon-fed. The Minister is complying with the appeal which is being made on his side. I say, therefore, that this section is of a far-reaching nature. That is the light in which we must regard it, as the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) has already said. It may be economically sound to administer bonds through the Land Bank, but that does not mean that we do not require this type of assistance from the Farmers’ Relief Act as well. I want to say this. If this section had been intended to give more power to the Land Bank, in order to enable it to expand, we would have had no objection to it. But the objection of this side of the House is that the Minister is closing up the channels for granting assistance to the farmers in times of emergency. It is nothing else, and I hope, therefore, that the Minister will tell us what he really has in mind with regard to this proposal that the Land Bank should administer the bonds of the Department of State Advances.

I should like to ascertain from the Minister of Finance why we should allow criminals from other parts of Africa to come here and why we should take them under our protection in our reformatories. We have enough people to look after; why must we now look after the criminals of other countries? It would seem that it is intended to come to an agreement with a portion of Rhodesia to keep people, whom they cannot control, in our goals and reformatories. What is at the back of this? I want to remind the Minister, in all seriousness, of the fact that at one time there was an anti-convict agitation in South Africa, and that certain people were then sent to Australia. We have enough people of our own to look after, and it is not necessary for us to bring the criminals of other countries to South Africa. When these people leave the gaols and reformatories they will stay here. Must we become the dumping ground for Rhodesia’s criminals. If this policy is adopted, and if the criminals of Rhodesia are to be sent here, where is it going to end? We are more and more taking part in the administration of Rhodesia’s affairs, and we should like to know what the Government’s plan is. Do they eventually want to make Rhodesia a part of the Union? Is this one of the steps to be taken in the direction of incorporating those parts in the Union? It does not seem to me to be fair. Then, I do not want to pretend that I am not in favour of irrigation loans being paid off. Personally I think the State should write them all off. The State derives so much advantage from irrigation schemes that it will not be wrong for the State to write off everything, but one would like to have information in regard to these things. In Clause 5 an amount of £54,490 is being written off. I am not opposed to that, but as far as I know, this matter was not investigated by the Select Committee on Irrigation, in any event not this year, nor last year. It may have been before my time, but it was not done during the past two years. It is a standing rule to refer such matters to that Committee, so that the Committee can find out whether or not the matter is in order. If the Select Committee is of opinion that the writing off is sound, it is recommended to this House. If that is not done, things may happen which ought not to happen. I should like to know from the Minister whether this matter was before the Minister, because I am of opinion that it was never brought before the Select Committee. Then at least one feels that there is a body which has investigated the matter, apart from anything the Government may have done in connection with it. Then there is Clause 12 which deals with the Hartebeestpoort Irrigation Scheme, under Act 32 of 1914. I should like the Minister to explain to me what he means when he says—

When you have an Irrigation Board every morgen of that irrigation scheme pays its share of the maintenance charges as well as the interest which is repayable. In other words, every morgen of that land which is supplied with water, is compelled to pay the tax. In this case I should like to hear from the Minister what the position is in this connection—whether the Government owns the land or whether a private person owns the land, everyone must pay his tax. If there are 1,000 morgen, the maintenance charges as well as the interest on loans must be paid proportionately on each morgen. The tax must be paid whether or not the land belongs to the Government. I should like to know what the position is; I should like to know whether the Government is not required to pay the tax, and, if so, why the Government does not have to pay the tax. The Minister cannot expect land which belongs to the Government to be exempted.

A few points have been raised here with which I wish to deal very briefly. In the first place I want to say that I am very sorry that the introduction of Section 17 has caused a certain amount of suspicion. I again want to give the assurance that the last thing in the world I want to do is to tamper with the Farmers’ Relief Board. There is not the slightest desire on our part to water down the farmers’ relief principle. This proposal emanates from the Land Bank Board. The Farmers’ Relief Board has no objection to it, and it does not deal with farmers’ relief advances. It has nothing to do with the Act of 1935. It deals only with certain advances under the Act of 1933. The advances which were made under that Act are Land Bank advances, but made from Government funds and not from the ordinary Land Bank funds. The proposal is that if the Land Bank is satisfied with the security, they may take over those advances on their capital account. But it does not effect the case of the individual who got into difficulties, and whose case is dealt with by the Farmers’ Relief Board; it is still possible, even in the case of ordinary Land Bank bonds for these to be transferred to the account of the Farmers’ Relief Board, and then the suspension measures may be applied. The Land Bank takes it over, because the Land Bank is of opinion that there is no further danger in so far as the individual is concerned, but if circumstances change, it will still be possible for the Farmers’ Relief Board to act.

You say that the Land Bank can take it over where it exceeds 60 per cent. How far will they go?

They will naturally not go any further than they deem to be safe.

They think that 66⅔ per cent. is safe; will they go further than that? Will they go up to 70 per cent. or 80 per cent.

I do not know why in a case such as this my hon. friend cannot trust the Land Bank Board. The Land Bank is not going to place a bad investment on their capital account. They will only do so when they are of opinion that the security is adequate, but if circumstances change the Farmers’ Relief Board still remains, and they can still receive precisely the same assistance. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has raised the question in connection with the Egmont and the Schoonspruit scheme. He alleged that the Minister of Irrigation had acted unlawfully, and that the Government had acted wrongly. But those statements do not apply to the present Minister or the present Government. They relate to events which took place a number of years ago, events of which I have no personal knowledge. I understand that legislation was introduced in 1939, after the report of the Select Committee, to which the hon. member has referred, and which dealt with this matter in general, but which was not applicable to these two cases, because they had occurred previously. The hon. member says what can we do? With regard to the Minister and the Government, well, they are no longer there. If the previous Government and the previous Minister had been here, my hon. friend could have moved a reduction in the salary of the Minister, for example, but that Minister is no longer here. In other words, I am afraid my hon. friend has forfeited his chance to act against the Minister who was responsible, and against the Government which was responsible. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) raised the question in connection with Section 12. The position is simply this, that the general policy was laid down. I think it was supported by the Select Committee on Public Accounts that it was undesirable that one Department of the Government should pay money to another Department of the Government. It could mean that one would simply take money out of one pocket and put it into another. It would also involve an unsound reflection of the position. Only in the case of Hartebeestpoort dam, there is a statutory provision that the Government must pay taxes on Government land. I understand that that applies only at Hartebeestpoort. To give effect to this sound policy, we now want to amend the law in so far as Hartebeestpoort is concerned. It will then place the position at Hartebeestpoort on the same footing as at other irrigation schemes. The only other point is in connection with Section 8. There we make provision enabling us to take people from Southern Rhodesia into our settlements. There is no new principle involved here. We are already doing it with regard to our reformatories and industrial schools.

That is wrong.

The position is simply this, that where one has a neighbour State which is small and which cannot establish institutions for a few people, it is surely not unreasonable to be prepared to assist that neighbour State naturally at its expense. There are only a few cases of this nature. Why should we refuse, since we have the accommodation, to take people from Rhodesia at the expense of the Rhodesian Government? We are not keeping out our own people as a result of it. The number of cases is extremely small. It is impossible for Rhodesia to make provision for the small number of people with whom they have to deal. I see no reason for refusing to grant this concession to Rhodesia.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 24th April.

I have an amendment to move here. I move—

That is the amendment of which I gave notice. What I move here simply means that we afford people who take part in the war an opportunity of applying for the ballot papers. At the moment every voter in South Africa has to apply for his ballot paper. In other words, he gets the form—it is easy to obtain the form—and he completes it. Previously he had to sign it before a commissioner; today he can sign it before any European person over the age of 21 years. That is easy enough. What we now ask is that the ballot paper should not be distributed to everyone. The Minister is asking that ballot papers should be sent to everyone. Assuming there are twenty persons in a unit. Twenty ballot papers then have to be sent to the officer who is in charge of the unit. It does not matter if all twenty of them want to vote. They all receive ballot papers. Our difficulty is this. If the person concerned does not want a ballot paper, why then do you give him a ballot paper? I should like to make an appeal to the Minister: Let us allow them to comply with the usual legal provisions, namely, that if a person wants to vote, he need only fill in a form. Surely that is very easy. Then we would make the law uniform. Do not let us create the impression that we are going to distribute ballot papers to people who have no desire to vote. Assuming there are three or four persons who do not care to take part in the election, what is going to become of those three ballot papers? Assuming there are ten persons in the unit and one of them dies. There is then the risk that someone else may use that ballot paper. I do not say that it will happen, but no one can deny that there is that possibility. In the Electoral Act one has to close up all possible loopholes. The hon. member for Frankfort (Maj.-Gen. Botha) said the other day that in talking about these things we are casting a reflection on the officers in charge. That is not our intention at all. All we want to do is to close up all possible loopholes. I should like to hear what objection the Minister has to this.

If this amendment were to be accepted, it would completely nullify the system incorporated in this Bill, a system which has been adopted in order to make it practicable for soldiers in the Union to vote. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) suggests that every soldier should submit an application form for a ballot paper. But the soldiers may not know whether they are registered or where they are registered. If they automatically knew that they were registered and where they were registered, they could submit application forms under the ordinary voting by post procedure, and this new procedure incorporated in the Bill would not be necessary. But we know that the vast bulk of the forces will not know either whether they are registered or where they are registered, and that is why this particular system is being adopted. Under the system nominal rolls will be submitted to the chief electoral officer. It may be that there are names on that roll that are not on the central register, but that will then be discovered. If there are any names on the nominal rolls which, when compared with the index, are found not to be registered voters, those names will be erased. No ballot papers will be sent back to the units concerned in respect of those names.

Let them fill in those forms.

If the hon. member suggests that they should merely submit an application form direct to the chief electoral officer without stating where they are registered—if that is the purpose of his amendment, I think it is unnecessary, because there is not going to be any compulsion on the persons concerned to vote.

What happens to the ballot paper?

Provision is being made to ensure that where a member of the forces who has tendered a ballot paper declines to vote, that ballot paper will have to be returned and accounted for.

Will that be in the regulations?

Yes. There will have to be a ballot paper account just as in the counting of the poll under the ordinary system. The hon. member need not have any fear on that score. Any ballot paper that is not used will have to be accounted for.

It looks like throwing about ballot papers.

I can assure my hon. friend that he need not have any fear of that at all. If his amendment were adopted it would give a large amount of additional work to the military authorities as well as the voters, additional work which is entirely unnecessary, and in these circumstances I do not think the House should accept this amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

Amendment in Clause 5 put,

I should like to say a word or two in regard to the Minister’s amendment—in regard to the word “secretly”, which he is inserting. We on this side made a similar proposal, and that has been accepted. I want to explain why we insisted that words of this nature should be inserted in the Act, and not in the regulations. We have been reproached with wanting to put every possible obstacle in the way, so that the soldiers cannot vote. That is not what we want at all. What we want is protection for the soldier, by allowing him to vote secretly. We know what happened in the past. We have good reason for adopting this attitude. We know what interference took place in the past with people on war service in connection with voting. I have before me copies of a few letters which I want to put to the House. The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) has already referred to one of them in this House. On the occasion of the by-election in Newcastle there was interference by the United Party in connection with the people who were entitled to vote at that centre, interference which makes the people engaged on war service feel uneasy, and which almost borders on a scandal.

It does not border on a scandal; it is a scandal.

One letter was written by the chairman of the Newcastle United Party in October 1941, at the time of the by-election in that centre. This letter was addressed by Mr. H. S. K. Simpson, chairman of the Newcastle United Party to none other than Lt. R. McKenzie, Defence Headquarters, Pretoria, and in that letter a number of names of soldiers who were entitled to vote, together with their addresses, was sent to Lt. McKenzie by the chairman of the United Party, apparently so that Lt. McKenzie of the Defence Department could send ballot papers to these persons. It also appeared that that was done. The chairman of the United Party at Newcastle sends direct to Lt. McKenzie of the Defence Department in Pretoria, a list of soldiers so that he can send ballot papers to them.

So that he can send ballot papers?

So that these persons can be traced. The letter does not say whether he should personally send ballot papers to them, or whether he should be instrumental in doing so.

He cannot do it.

Now we go further. Opposite every name, or nearly every name, there is a remark by the chairman of the United Party, and here is one remark which I want to read. The number of the soldier is given, and then his full name: “Izak Johannes Meyer”, and the remark for the benefit of this lieutenant of the Defence Force in Pretoria by the chairman of the United Party, Newcastle, is to the following effect—

In other words, here we have an instruction from the chairman of the United Party to the Defence Department to this effect: “You must not exert yourselves to get this man’s vote; in so far as the other men are concerned, you should exert yourselves.” You realise now that the soldier is entitled to be suspicious when negotiations of this nature take place between the organisation of the United Party and the Defence Department. The chairman of the United Party says to the Defence Department: “You must not seek this man’s vote.” There must have been a very good reason for it. If this type of thing takes place, the soldier is entitled to be suspicious. I can recall the days when the Nationalist Party was in power, and at no time were there negotiations of this nature with the headquarters of the Government. To make remarks of this nature is far-reaching. I think it is unheard of in our history that a political party should approach a Government Department and say: “Here are the names of the persons whose votes must be sought after, but there is one amongst them whose vote must not be sought after by your department.” To go further: One might say that this is only the chairman of a constituency and that he apparently acted improperly, that he acted in bad taste, and did something which he should not have done. But I have before me a letter which was written by the General Secretary of the United Party, Mr. Oosthuizen.

That is the man who frequents the lobbies here.

He addressed a letter to the Adjutant-General of the Department of Defence, Pretoria, in regard to the addresses of persons who were registered as voters in the Hopetown constituency. I wish our headquarters also had the opportunity of corresponding with the Adjutant-General in regard to persons who are scattered throughout the Union.

Why not? Why cannot they do so if they want information?

If I want any information, I shall not write to them not to seek this, that or the other vote. I would not have the audacity. The General Secretary writes to the Adjutant-General in connection with a certain Mr. de Villiers. Apparently this Mr. de Villiers had made certain demands upon the Adjutant-General, and the Adjutant-General did not want to comply with them. Mr. Oosthuizen then wrote to the Adjutant-General in regard to Mr. de Villiers, and said—

The Adjutant-General is asked not to take action in connection with this political matter until such time as he again hears from the General Secretary. It means that the General Secretary of the United Party writes to the Adjutant-General in connection with political matters, and then he suggests this: “You must not take any action in connection with this case until you again hear from me.” If I had been the Adjutant-General I would have sent the letter, together with the writer, to the warm place. This is nothing but political interference, and this is what we have been arguing about for days here. We want the Government to place the soldier in a position where he will know that he will be able to record his vote in strict secrecy. We are pleading here for protection for these people. Perhaps I should add this, that Mr. de Villiers is described as the local organiser of the United Party. In view of the fact that things of this nature take place, in view of the fact that correspondence is conducted between Defence Headquarters and the organisers of the United Party in regard to the political convictions of soldiers, we must act in this House on behalf of the soldiers, and ensure that their votes are recorded secretly. Since this amendment has been moved, I want to support it heartily. We asked that something of this nature should be moved, and I hope that an amendment of this kind will be accepted.

Yesterday we spoke about secret voting for soldiers, and we asked the Minister to explain to the soldiers in every possible way that their votes will be strictly secret. But there is a great deal of suspicion amongst the soldiers that their political views will be discovered. We notice in public works that people are allowed to wear certain party emblems; others again may not wear the emblems of their party. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) has read out a certain letter here. I have not the letter with me. But the Minister can verify that it is correct. During the election at Hottentots-Holland the United Party office received a letter from a commanding officer in a certain camp—he did not send it to the magistrate—in regard to soldiers in that camp who were entitled to vote. We want the soldiers to be traced so that they can register their votes, but not in such a way that they will develop a fear complex in regard to the party for whom they vote. The commanding officer did not send the letter to the magistrate but to the United Party office. It contained a number of names of people who were entitled to vote in Hottentots-Holland, and he also said that he would submit the other names as soon as possible — not to the magistrate but to the United Party office. If these things are allowed to take place, we can appreciate why the soldiers are so afraid that it will be discovered how they vote. I think therefore that it is very necessary that the Minister should move an amendment on the lines suggested by the hon. member for Moorreesburg and that he should prevent commanding officers from sending these letters to the party offices, letters containing lists of names. This should be done through the magistrate and not through political agents, because it leads people to believe that they must vote for a particular political party.

I have no knowledge whatever of the facts related by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) in regard to a letter written to the Adjutant-General and to Lt. McKenzie.

Do you approve of it?

I know nothing whatever of the facts; I gather that the hon. member suggests that there has been impropriety on the part of the organiser of the United Party at Newcastle and on the part of the Union organiser of the party in writing such letters.

I would certainly say so.

Well, it is obviously impossible without knowing the facts to come to any decision, but on the facts as stated by the hon. member, I would ask what do they amount to? There was a by-election at Newcastle and at that by-election the ordinary voting by post procedure was in force. If a political party contesting the election sought to obtain the votes of soldiers on the lists, they had to set in motion the ordinary voting by post procedure. In this Bill we are trying to get away from that. We are obviating the necessity of getting into touch with soldiers in camps in order to get them to fill up forms. If there is any impropriety in approaching soldiers to ask them to fill in forms, then this Bill removes that.

You are trying to get away from the facts.

Is there any impropriety in a party organiser writing a letter to ask a person to get in touch with soldiers in a particular camp who are registered?

To send a number of names and say: “Some of these you must approach and others not.”

Don’t forget this man was an officer.

I have not seen the letter. This is not a letter written to an official in an official capacity. This is a letter, from what I understand, written by an organiser to someone whom he presumably knows and in this letter he asks him to get into touch with people …

These are not the facts.

It would naturally not be wise for the person writing the letter to ask the person, to whom he writes, to get into touch with people of whom he knows that they have opposite views.

Oh, that’s a red herring.

I have just been handed a note which gives me this information. It says that Lt. McKenzie used to be general manager of a coal mine in the Dundee District, and the chairman of the United Party in Newcastle was a surveyor who lived in the Dundee District. These two persons had known each other for many years and they were personal friends, and presumably the one was writing to a personal friend to ask him if he could approach certain soldiers …

Do you mean to say that an officer is entitled to play the part of an agent?

Even if he is a personal friend.

And this personal letter is written very formally; it starts: “Dear Sir.”

I have not seen the letter, because it is not usual for one to see letters which may have been written personally or even officially to persons outside one’s own department. If my friends were so concerned about propriety, I would have thought that they would have been more concerned about the propriety of someone who evidently is in that particular Department—the Department of Defence—disclosing letters to people outside. The hon. member says that the letter was referred to the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow).

Try another red herring, Harry.

I think that, is very reprehensible indeed. If there is one thing which emerges from this discussion it is that there is some person …

Two blacks don’t make one white.

Get back to the point.

I am dealing with the point.

You are simulating righteous anger.

The point of the hon. member’s intervention is that he has disclosed the fact that there are leakages from the Department of Defence of letters private and otherwise. The hon. member’s susceptibilities are wounded—they were badly wounded the other day when I happened to quote an extract from a letter of an internee. One certainly would have thought that there was some impropriety in an official—an official of the Defence Department—disclosing letters to the hon. member for Gezina.

Why are you so concerned about that—you thought it was quite the correct thing to disclose letters.

If there is one thing which has emerged it is the impropriety, no, I say the scandal, of such a procedure.

Do you really mean that?

So far as the letter itself is concerned I can see nothing improper in a personal friend writing to another and asking him to get in touch with certain persons in the camp.

No, of course you can’t, everybody else can.

I have no personal knowledge of the letter alleged to have been written by Mr. Oosthuizen but I can promise the hon. member that I shall have enquiries made.

You should have done so already.

It is unfortunate that I did not have notice of this matter beforehand because Mr. Oosthuizen is present and I had the opportunity of discussing it with him.

It has been disclosed in this House before.

It may have been disclosed in this House before but it has not been brought to my notice before. I am informed that there is a complete answer to the suggestion that any impropriety had taken place.

A complete answer, yes—probably a rotten one.

If my hon. friend had given me notice of the matter I would have taken the opportunity to consult Mr. Oosthuizen—but I shall consult him, and I have no doubt that when I have done so I shall find that there is nothing wrong.

He is in the lobby, why don’t you consult him now.

Yes, I have already asked to see him.

Well move the adjournment of the debate, then you can ask him.

Yes, I am quite willing to do so. I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 24th April.

I should like to say a few words in regard to the position with reference to the trust moneys of the tenant farmers at Vaal-Hartz. The Minister promised to do something in that connection. It is intended to invest these moneys. The Minister must remember that those tenant farmers have to be passed out, and then they have to get those moneys; and such moneys cannot be invested. It means that they have lost the interest on the money which they deposited. I again want to make an appeal to the Minister. I believe that there is a certain Act or regulations against it. But in our country an Act or a regulation is not a law of the Medes and Persians. It can be amended. Here we have taken money from the poorest section of the people, money which they have saved by the sweat of their brow; this money represents their spare pennies which they have put aside. They receive no interest on it, but they have to pay interest at the rate of 3¾ per cent. on the amount they owe to the Government. The Minister can do many things if he wants to, and I should like him to give his attention to this. Then I want to tell hon. members on the other side that we have never had a more practical Minister of Lands than the one we have at present. If there had been sufficient time I would have mentioned what he has already done for the country in connection with settlements. He ought to bring this unjust Act to the notice of the Minister of Finance and the financial controller, and arrangements should be made to give these people credit for that money. If that is done the people at Vaal-Hartz will be very grateful to him. We have listened for two days to the attempts of the Opposition to exploit the Church for political purposes.

No, we tried to protect the Church.

We heard how the Opposition tried to use the Church for political purposes. Just as they exploited the history and the sentiments of the Afrikaner nation for political purposes, so they have tried to do in the case of the Church during these past two days. Let me say this, the Afrikaner nation has been disintegrated and embittered, but it still belongs to one Church. As long as we belong to one Church there is hope that those things will again rectify themselves. But if our Church is torn asunder, then there is no hope for us. I want to ask those members not to continue with this propaganda. When we read “Die Burger” we find in its leading article that the Minister of Lands has made an attack upon the Church. When the Minister refers in this House to the settlement at Kakamas and the policy which is pursued there, it is stated that he attacked the Church.

He accused the Church of theft.

When the Minister makes an attack upon a minister who preaches politics from the pulpit, it is said that he is attacking the Church. I make an appeal to my fellow-Afrikaners, because, after all, we are all Afrikaners—whatever we may say—remember that we all belong to one Church; leave the Church alone, and do not exploit it for political purposes.

I am very glad to hear the sentiment expressed that the Church must not be exploited for political purposes. I fully agree with that, but then the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steyler) must attribute blame where blame is due. Who dragged the Church into this debate? Who first spoke of Kakamas? There sits the guilty person, and the hon. member for Kimberley, District must lay the blame at the door of the Minister of Lands. He is the guilty party. What we are trying to do here is to attempt, in our weakness, to defend the Church against attacks of a political nature. We shall continue to do so, because we think we owe it to the Church of which we are all members. Yesterday I pointed out how unfounded the argument of the Minister of Lands was; how his attack was based on misconception, and that he really does not realise what the true state of affairs is. He does not realise what the position of Kakamas in relation to the Church is. The Minister spoke of colossal profits and assets which had been built up there, and he tried to make out that these belonged to the Church. I pointed out that that attitude was based on a total misconception of the true position. Those assets do not belong to the Church, but to the trust which the Church is called upon to administer. If one could picture anything of this kind, the position would be that if the Church becomes bankrupt and its assets are sold, those assets of Kakamas could not be sold in the interests of the creditors of the Church. It is trust property. Now I come to the second part. I want to give a few examples of what the Minister said here, and I shall have to do it very briefly, because I have not two hours at my disposal. I want to give a few examples of the unreliability of the Minister’s figures and facts which he threw about with such a lavish hand. The Minister said that £70 was paid by the Department of Social Welfare to the Church for administrative charges in connection with the 25 families—the physically unfit and aged who are settled at Rhenosterkop. Then he said that apart from that, £140 was paid as rent in respect of the plots. I want to tell the Minister that he must control his facts. It is untrue that that rent is paid, and that those administration charges are paid. The £70 to which he referred and the so-called rent represents one and the same thing. The Department of Social Welfare may call it by one name; it may call it administration charges, and perhaps it has a reason for doing so. The Church describes it as something else. It is, however, the identical thing. The Minister tries to make us believe, however, that £70 has to be paid to the Church in respect of administrative charges, and then in addition to another £40, as he said here yesterday, must be paid as rent for the plots, and later he said that it was £140. An amount of £70 only is paid. These are the facts. I want to go further and ask the Minister to find out whether there is any scheme of the same type which takes care of the aged and physically unfit, and which is conducted more cheaply by the Department of Social Welfare than this scheme at Kakamas. Do you know what the position would have been if Kakamas had not undertaken this work? It would have been necessarmy to appoint a superintendent, a nurse and a clerk. It would have been necessary to build a house for the superintendent, and it would have been necessary to provide housing accommodation for the nurse. The Church took care of all this, and if enquiries are made with the Department, and the Department wants to be honest, they will admit that they have never got such good value for the money spent on such a scheme as they got at Kakamas. Proof of that is to be found in the fact that the Department of Social Welfare would like to have this scheme extended. They have never got such good services for so little money. I am giving you a few examples only, to give this House an idea of the nature of the information which the Minister presented to this House. I now come to another point. The Minister said that the colonists have no right to elect a school commission. He said that they did not have the right, under the ordinary laws of the country, to elect a member of the school board.

I quoted from the report.

Which report?

From the report of the Synod.

And do you want to tell me that you could find anything in that report to the effect that the colonists cannot elect a school commission?

It was recommended that they be permitted to do so, and the Synod rejected it.

If we want an example of how the Minister handles facts, then we have it here. I have the report of the Commission here, and I challenge the Minister to prove to me that it is stated therein that the colonists have no right to elect a school commission. He makes out that it is stated therein, and he knows that all that is contained therein is the recommendation in connection with the election of a school board, with which I shall deal later. The Minister made a statement of facts. He said here—and that was not a quotation—that they had no right to elect a school commission. If the Minister examines the position he will find that the parents of the school-going children do elect the school commission. There are two school commissions which are elected by the parents, and then the Minister makes a statement of this nature. Let us now deal with the school board. He says they have no right under the ordinary laws of the country to elect a school board. Does the Minister know what the law of the country is? No, he does not know. If he looks at the law of the country he will see that in terms of the Constitution the school board is elected on the following basis. Section 23 of the Constitution lays down—

That is laid down by Parliament in the Constitution, and then we get the provision in the Ordinance in connection with the election of school boards, which reads as follows—

That is the legal position. Now the Minister says that they have no right, under the law of the country, to elect a member of the school board. That is the law, and that is what happens. In terms of the ordinary law, where the school board consists of twelve members, eight are elected by the parents. What happens in connection with Kakamas? Four members are appointed by the administration. That is still being done. The founders had the right, however, to appoint the remaining eight. The labour colony so arranged the position that five out of those eight are elected by the parents. To that extent they abandoned their right as founders, in order to meet the parents. To that exent they met the demands for self-government, that they told the colonists that they could elect five out of eight members. [Time limit.]

I just want to reply to a few charges. I am accused of having given wrong and unreliable information in connection with the £70 which was paid in respect of the administration of the labour colony by the Department of Social Welfare, and that I am supposed to have said that in addition to that the sum of £140 was paid by way of rent. I said that that was the information which had been supplied to me.

You spoke of £140 and £70 separately.

I quoted from the report of the Synod itself, the report of the colony to the Synod, and therein it is stated: “The Department of Social Welfare annually pays to the Labour Colony Commission £70 for administrative purposes for these 25 families.” I did say that.

Do they say anything about rental?

Do not be in such a hurry. They talk of £70 which is paid by the Department of Social Welfare in respect of administration charges. I quoted that. I then said that there was still an amount of £140 in respect of rental, and when I was asked whether this £70 was the same as the £140 I said: “No; my information is that the rental is £140.” I quoted from a telegram which I have here. This telegram says: “And rental for plots, £140.” This is a telegram from the Department of Social Welfare. Where is the unreliability?

You created a wrong impression.

I am giving the information in my possession. So much as far as the unreliability is concerned. Then I was challenged to prove that permission had been refused to elect school boards according to the Ordinance.

School commissions.

Here I have the report of the Commission to the Synod in 1940, and they make certain recommendations under (D), under matters of policy, and under D (3) they recomend, in so far as the composition of the school board is concerned, that the school board must be elected in accordance with the Education Ordinance, as from the “next election of school boards”. That is the report which was dealt with by the Synod on Friday, the 8th November, and after discussion all the recommendations of the report were agreed to, except recommendation D (3).

There we have just had an example. The Minister interrupted me when I spoke of school committees, and now he is talking about school boards.

I spoke of school boards.

No, I have the Minister’s words here. He said: “They have no right to elect members of school committees. They have no right to elect a member of a school board.” That is typical of the Minister’s whole argument. He says that they cannot elect school committees, and when we prove that he is wrong, he says that he meant “school boards”. But what he forgot to say was that although the Synod had not agreed that they could elect all eight members, they did allow the people to elect five out of the eight. The Minister suppresses this important fact, and one would surely expect a responsible Minister first to make sure of his facts before he makes such accusations. I come then to the other point which he is trying to defend, and in connection with which the Minister is trying to justify himself. He quoted from a Report of the Synod in which reference is made to £70 for administrative charges, and in which nothing is said of rental. But on the other hand, he has a telegram from the Department which does not refer to administration but speaks only of rentals. And to what conclusion does the Minister then come? He puts the figures from two different sources together and creates the impression that these are two separate items. If he had done his duty, he would first have checked up on the facts. He could easily have done that. He could then have discovered that the £140 represented the administration charges of £70 for two years. These are a few good examples of the unreliability of the Minister in so far as figures and facts are concerned. I could quote other figures given by the Minister, which were unreliable. The Minister referred here to an accumulated profit of £129,000. Let us see how he got hold of those figures. He took the accumulated profit of £81,000 in 1940—that is quite correct. It is not the Church’s, but it is controlled by the Labour Colony Commission in trust. That amount of £81,000 accumulated profit is in connection with a turnover of more than £2,000,000. These are the “colossal profits” of which the Minister spoke. But let us test for a moment the Minister’s business talent. In 1941 we have a total accumulated profit amounting to a total of £81,000. Then the Minister says that there must be added to that the net profit for 1941, 1942 and 1943, of £12,000 per annum on an average, which gives a total of £36,000. Then the Minister adds to that the reserve fund which has has been built up to provide for unforeseen catastrophes, and which amounts to £7,500, and he further adds the £4,500 in the 7½ per cent. reserve fund for price stabilisation after the war. Lo and behold, the Minister gets a sum total of £129,000.

Correct.

No, it is not correct. I ask you as a businessman, how does he think those reserves came into existence, the £7,500 and the £4,500? Out of what were they built up, other than nett profits? He therefore adds these sums twice. And then he arrives at that figure; and the Church is expected to defend itself against statements of that nature.

When an amount is deposited into the reserve fund, it is deducted from the nett profit.

But why does the Minister take the nett profit from which, according to him, the reserve fund is deducted, and then add the amount which has to be deducted? The Minister may hedge a little; he ought rather to admit that his figures are wrong. Now I want to come to another point. The Minister quoted here from a Synod Report. It was very interesting, but the Minister’s comments on it were even more interesting. He read out, in connection with the recommendations of the Commission in regard to the future financial policy, that the Labour Colony Commission is instructed to aim in the direction of balancing the income and expenditure of the administration, without the assistance of the shop profits. And what is the Minister’s comment on that? “Just look what the Church does. They want to keep the shop profits for themselves, and the other items have to balance. They do not want to use the shop profits for administration.” But what is the position? What is the position under the constitution? The position is that the rental must be sufficient to cover the interest on the capital and the administration charges. That is laid down by the law, Section 7 of the Proclamation of 1913. It says that every colony will have to pay sufficient rental to cover the interest on capital and the administration charges. That must be the position according to the law. All these years the rental has been so low that it could not cover the interest on capital and the administration charges. In 1940 for the first time the rentals were adequate, that is to say, the rental for the plots, together with out rent to cover these costs. Before that time there was always a shortage, and the shop profits were added to make good the shortage. But in 1940 it was reported that the income was sufficient, and it was recommended that efforts should be made to maintain that position in the future. Now I should like to put a question to the Minister. The rental of the plots amount to approximately £6,000 per annum. But the interest on capital and administration charges amounts to £8,000. If one wants to give effect to this section of the Constitution, what is one to do? One can only increase the rental. That was not done. I do not know whether hon. members on the other side know what the rental on a plot is. At Kakamas, on an average, it is £13 3s., which means approximately £6,000 on 450 plots. The average size of a plot is six morgen. In addition to that, the tenant farmers are given the right to keep 20 cattle and 25 sheep. They pay no taxes. All the taxes are paid by the Commission, and in 1940 the average yield from produce only in respect of the 450 plots was £156 per plot. In respect of that a rental of £13 13s. per annum was paid. The Commission, according to the law, was entitled to increase the rental by 33 per cent., because it yielded only £6,000, and the expenditure in respect of interest on capital and administration charges amounted to more than £8,000. They were entitled to collect £8,000. They did not, however, increase the rent, but kept it low. For whose benefit? These are the so-called exploiters. They maintain the rent on this uneconomic basis, and the shortage is met from shop profits. But that was an unsound state of affairs, and in 1940, for the first time the income covered the expenditure without the assistance of the shop profits. The Synod then said that efforts should be made to maintain it on this sound basis. What is wrong with that?

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

The complaint the Minister now made about the scheme was that it had entirely degenerated, that the only interest the Church had in the settlement is the shop there. The hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) is the only person on that side of the House who identified himself with the attack the Minister made and he said that the Minister only discussed the question of the position of the people at Kakamas. I want to remind the hon. member for Kimberley, District, of the fact that the Minister went out of his way to drag in Goedemoed. He went out of his way to state that where the Church could not make money out of it, the Church did not worry any longer about the conditions of the people there and that for that reason it had asked the State to take over the scheme.

You should not say things which I did not say. You should not add things.

What did I say here which the hon. Minister did not say. The Minister over there has a guilty conscience. A further proof of that is to be found in a leading article which appeared in the Minister’s regular newspaper and in which it was said that large buildings, ten rooms and wonderful offices had been constructed alongside the Church. The Minister now comes along and says—and these are his very words—that last year there had been 30 cancellations and cessions at Kakamas and that most of these cancellations had taken place because the tenants failed to pay their debts. Did the Minister say so or did he not? Yes, he did say that. Does he know how many cancellations took place at Kakamas because settlers failed to pay their debts?

I said that there had been cancellations because the people failed to pay their debts and because in some cases there had been breaches of the regulations.

So far there have been four expulsions.

In how many years?

Over a period of 40 years there have been four expulsions. The largest number of changes in tenants last year was twenty-five. Thirteen sons took the places of their fathers and twelve were strangers who bought out other people’s rights. That is the position. The Minister said that most of them were people who had not paid their debts or who had not complied with the regulations. That is not true.

That means that we cannot believe him.

I said that there were 25 cases and there was not a single one amongst those 25 cases where a man was not able to meet his obligations. The Minister now comes along and states here that improvements are being made and that the only compensation they get is that they have to sell their products to the shop. He then goes on to say that there is a regulation that they may not receive more than £200 for improvements. But this Minister, this man who pretends not to attack the Church, comes along and presents us here with an absolute misinterpretation of the actual position. He tries to create the impression that 25 people were rejected last year because they could not meet their obligations and he furthermore made the misrepresentation that the highest amount they could get is £200 and he also said that they were thereafter sent packing and did not receive any compensation. During the whole existence of the settlement there were only 4 cases of persons being ejected. Admittedly a regulation exists about the £200 but the information I obtained was that the Commission simply ignores that regulation. A man can sell his rights on his plot for as much as he can get for it. There have been cases of such rights being sold for £600, £800 and even £1,100.

Didn’t the Minister mention those?

Those are the amounts which the people get and the Minister comes here and tells us that the highest amount they can get is £200 and that they do not receive compensation; that the only compensation they get is that they have to sell their products to the Church. This Minister is our Minister of Lands; he himself had 30 cancellations last year. Why were 30 holdings cancelled that year? No, I am wrong, that was between 1st April, 1941, and 31st March, 1942. Why did he throw those people out? I’ll tell you why. Two people were ejected because they did not live on the holdings. Twenty-three were ejected because they were in arrear with their payments. The injustice of which he is accusing the Church is perpetrated by himself. One was ejected owing to non-compliance with the conditions he had agreed to. Three of them surrendered their holdings.

You know of course that I have to cancel according to the law when people are three years in arrear with ther payments.

I now want to ask the Minister the following. Yesterday he said first of all that the people were receiving nothing for improvements and afterwards he said that there was a compensation of a maximum of £200. I now want to ask him how much the people receive who effect improvements on his holdings. What do they receive? How much did those people, who during the year 1941-’42 were ejected owing to non-payment, how much did they receive? How much did the Minister pay them in regard to improvements they effected on their farms?

Nothing.

Not a single penny. He is the man who is concerned about the actions of the Kakamas Commission. No, the Minister ejects people from his holdings and gives them nothing for the improvements they have effected on the farms. The other day I put forward a case from my own constituency. I told the Minister that according to the report of his own Department improvements on the farm “Vaalbank” were valued at £1,750. Mr. van der Walt and his two brothers-in-law put £1,350 of their own money into that farm and they did not receive a penny compensation.

But I wrote off £1,350.

Allow me to quote from the Report of the Minister’s own Department … [Translation]—

[Time limit.]

I just want to say a few words in connection with the assertion of the Minister that conditions of slavery prevail under the control of the Church at Kakamas. To me it is most interesting to hear such an accusation on the part of the Minister of Lands. Every year we receive applications from settlers on the Minister’s own holdings who ask to be allowed to come to Kakamas.

And we receive hundreds of applications from Kakamas.

And why don’t you accept them.

I accepted 20 of them.

I shall come to that just now. The position is as follows: People from the Minister’s settlements apply to be allowed to come to Kakamas. Apparently they are very keen to come under the slavery of Kakamas. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) quoted figures for one year. I want to quote figures over a much longer period, viz. over a period of five years, from 1936 to 1940. During that period of five years 73 plots changed hands. Of these 39 were sons who took over from their fathers and 34 people came in from outside. Over a period of five years there were 34 new entrants and the total number of plots is 450. If the Minister figures it out he will see that during that period of five years less than 2 per cent. of the plots changed hands annually. And that in spite of the high prices which they can obtain for their holdings; that in spite of the fact that the Minister is prepared to take them and in spite of the slavery in which they have to live! The amount they received for their holdings has been up to £1,075. The average price was over £600 and in this connection the Minister advances a very contradictory argument. He complains on the one hand that poor people cannot enter there because the holdings are too expensive and on the other hand he complains that the people are being so oppressed there that they cannot gather anything for themselves. How can one reconcile these two statements unless one is a Minister of Lands.

Is that Minister of Lands.

Yes, I won’t apply it to his predecessors. There is an inherent contradiction in his whole argument. The Minister said that a condition of slavery existed at Kakamas and in this respect he stated that the people could not even elect a school commission. I have already shown that to be untrue. He furthermore said that they could not elect a member of the school board. I showed that they can elect five out of the eight members. His other argument was that they could not get deed of transfer and that they were under an eternal system of leasehold. I now want to refer him to the report of the Commission of which he himself was the Chairman. In that report we find a paragraph which the Minister did not sign, but the majority of the Commission whose chairman he was, opposed him and put in that paragraph in spite of his objection. I again say that the Minister did not agree, but the Commission of which he was the chairman nevertheless inserted that paragraph. It was a case of only our Johnny being in step! The Commission stated—[Translation]—

That was stated by the Commission of which the Minister was the chairman.

You should also read what I said.

I said that the Minister of Lands did not identify himself with it. That was, however, the opinion of the other three members and he could not persuade them to accept his point of view. At some later date there was another Commission appointed by the Minister himself and I want to read to the House the findings of that Commission in regard to this question too. In paragraph 39 of its report the Commission states—

The important argument of the Minister was that the people had no certainty. Here the Minister’s own Commission states [Translation]—

I can well imagine what might happen if transfer were given to the colonists unless the ownership were as curtailed by servitudes as the Minister does, on his settlements.

Read out what I proposed.

If transfer were given and all those servitudes were to apply to that ownership, what would the difference be?

Read out to him what he is now proposing in his own Bill.

The position is that unless the ownership is burdened as the Minister is proposing to do, he will find that within a relatively short period most of that property will be in the hands of moneylenders. They will give bonds on the people’s land, and within a short time Kakamas will no longer belong to the colonists but to people of all classes and races, and the result will be that the whole purpose of the undertaking will be frustrated.

That is what he wants.

That is most probably what the Minister wants. There are many Jews hovering on the border of Kakamas and if they can only get a chance to infilrate, they will make use of the chance to obtain plots there with the greatest avidity. If we were to give those people their transfers now with all the limitations which the Minister proposed in 1919, then I ask him what the difference would be between the right of property burdened in that way and the present system of Kakamas? Here we have it in front of us that every Commission which reported on this question, most explicity stated that that system should remain in force. That is the “slavery” the Minister has been talking about. On that system he bases his accusation of “slavery”. I maintain that the reply thereto is simply that scores of people from the Minister’s settlements want to become Kakamas settlers. The Minister then spoke of the compensation of £200. That has never yet been applied. He stated here that there are cases of cancellation of holdings where the people received no compensation whatsoever—hard cases, where the people were sent packing. That is what the Minister stated. I see the Minister nods “yes”, and that is therefore what he intended to convey to the House.

I said that their debt was reduced.

But then they did get compensation. The Minister’s argument is that when a person’s debt is reduced by that amount, then there is no compensation. That is the logic of the Minister. I should like to go further into the aspect of the matter. [Time limit.]

I am also interested in the subject of settlements in South Africa and I should like to put a few questions to the Minister in connection with Kakamas. I understand from the speech of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) that the holdings are approximately six morgen in extent and that the usual rent is £13 or £14 per annum per holding. Then they also have certain grazing rights. I have seen those parts and I do not know where the cattle can graze except on the lands themselves.

What?

If they do not graze on the lands, then I do not know where else they can graze.

You are quite mistaken.

According to my calculation I understand that these people pay from £130 to £140 each in rent in the course of ten years. Some of them have already been living there for 40 years. That means that some of them have already paid £520 in rent. I now understand that even if they pay all their life, they do not get right of possession.

No, they have the right of possession but not right of ownership.

All right, if the hon. members want to indulge in hairsplitting, let us then say that they have no right of ownership. If there is no such thing as right of ownership there, then I should like to know where the rehabilitation in the whole scheme comes in; how does the man become rehabilitated.

Go there and see for yourself.

How is a person to be rehabilitated if he remains on a holding for 40 years and pays year after year but it never becomes his property; where does the rehabilitation come in there? If we take these figuges, it means that a large number of people have already paid approximately £500 to the Kakamas Commission. All they had for that was that they could live there and effect improvements. I now should like to know the following: According to the Minister and the reports which have been quoted here, I understand that by means of collections in other congregations of the Dutch Reformed Church an amount of £17,000 was brought together. That is the capital which the Church contributed in order to assist the people to make a living there. I shall be glad if the Minister can reply to the following point. I tried to make a summary of what has been said here and I understand the objection of the Church to the granting of ownership rights to those people is the one given here. I can understand that, but on the other hand I gather that the land was given to the Church by the State.

More than half.

No, less than half.

The State gave 53,000 morgen.

And the Church bought 75,000 morgen.

When the hon. members are finished, I may perhaps have a chance to continue. It is difficult to make a speech when hon. members continue talking. It seems to me that in view of all the friction which exists and in order to do justice, the time has come that the State should bring the settlement under the same regulations as those that apply to other State schemes. I think that he members who have visited the Vaal-Hartz will agree with me that the Vaal-Hartz will agree far been a very great success. Let us compare the two and I then ask the Minister, whether it is not a more preferable system for both the State and the colonists, when we consider rehabilitation, to bring all the settlers in South Africa under that scheme? What is the reason for all this bickering? I think that it is essential to have a proper investigation in order to find out whether we cannot apply the Vaal-Hartz system to all schemes right through the Union. May I draw the Minister’s attention to the reason for this scheme being such a wonderful success? The reason was that the settlers there had expert advice right from the start. There are quite a number of other reasons which contributed to it, but that is one of the most important reasons. When a man lands there with his family, although he is a stranger in those parts, he need not start experiments at his own expense. The State has a large experimental farm there where every settler can go to see what type of farming, pays best on that settlement. Right from the word go that man can have all the benefits of the experimental farm; he can find out there whether he should take up dairying or should grow lucerne or whatever it might be. Experiments have already been made there with the purpose of finding out which crops would thrive best on that land and in that climate and for which products there would be a market. Capable experts supervise the settlement. May I just refer to another case. Take for instance Pongola which was a hopeless failure. I think the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) will agree with me that it was a failure. We now have heard the evidence that this hopless failure has been converted into a wonderful success. A new expert was sent there and he had a sound policy. At last the people had somebody there to tell them what they could farm with and how they should set about it. I just want to refer to the Report of the Select Committee. 70,000 bags of potatoes, 5,000 bags of wheat were harvested there apart from the other things which were produced.

By whom was it produced?

By the settlers.

You do not know what you are talking about. It was done by the Government.

The success is due to the fact that advice was available from an official who knew what he was doing. As compared to what was done years ago when the settlement became a total failure, it has now been converted into a success within one year. That is the difference. The important thing is who is the man in control. Here we had a capable official who knew what he was doing. In regard to Kakamas and also all the other schemes such as Goedemoed, I maintain that if those settlements can obtain the advice of somebody who knows what has to be done, who knows the soil and the market conditions and who knows what should be grown there, all these schemes can become a success. But if we allow the settlers to continue in their own way, without any advice, it cannot result in anything good and must become a fatal failure. History has shown that that was the case. If we have reached a new era when such schemes can be successful, it is not for anybody in this House to moan for an obsolete system which only makes the people poorer still and rehabilitates none.

The hon. member who has just sat down spoke about advice to colonists. I want to tell him what was the advice of the Kakamas Commission. The Kakamas Commission was the first body which suggested the growing of sultanas along the Orange River. They enjoyed the benefit of the advice of the late Oom Piet Kalifornië who for many years used to be the chairman of the Labour Settlement Commission and who had an intimate knowledge of these matters. He was the one who started it. During the 1939-’40 season the settlers made £31,158 from sultanas alone. They were the 450 erfholders who made this out of sultanas alone. The yield of the products for that year was £70,178. That is apart from the other revenue. That means that every erfholder there made £156 on a plot for which he paid £12, £13 or £14. The average was £13.

Is that the latest report?

Yes, in regard to this point. But I may tell the hon. member that the year following was still better. When my time was up just now I was dealing with this question of the £200 about which the Minister had so much to say. That does not appear in the provisions governing Kakamas but it affects the regulations which have been passed by this House of Assembly and which appear in Proclamation 163 of 1910. That is where this provision appears. It is a matter which was brought to the notice of the Minister as long ago as 1919. In the report one reads that it had come to the notice of the Commission that the people were dissatisfied about this amount of £200. The Minister did not recommend that a change should be made, in respect of the £200, although it was brought to his special attention.

I recommended that the people should get their title deeds and consequently the difficulty of the £200 would fall away.

But should no compensation be fixed? The Minister made no recommendation in that connection. I now want to come to the reserve fund. The Synod according to its minutes of proceedings adopted a recommendation that a reserve fund of £20,000 should be built up for times of distress and unforeseen calamaties. A place like Kakamas is particularly liable to it. In 1941 they had a great flood there and as a result of that flood the Commission paid out an amount of £2,781 13s. 4d. to the people who suffered losses as a result of the flood. That was the reason why the Church said that a reserve fund should be built up to make provision for disasters which might befall the settlement, so that payments could be made out of that fund and so that it would not be necessary to run to the Government for assistance. What does the Minister’s own Commission say in regard thereto? In its recommendation the Commission says—

That is what the Commission recommended and what the Church recommended and the Kakamas Commission are busy with it.

They have already built up a reserve fund of £7,500. I asked the Minister to ask the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) whether it is a sound principle to build up a reserve in order to prevent price fluctuations after the war. He said that the hon. member for Hospital had replied that it is not a sound principle to incerase prices in order to build up a reserve fund. That was not my question.

The question was whether it was a sound principle to increase prices by 7½ per cent. immediately after the war broke out. I consider that to be criminal.

You asked him whether it was a sound principle to build up a reserve fund for conditions after the war and you did not say anything about the stabilisation of prices in that manner. The essential part of the question you left out, and you then said that he denied it. You did not put the matter to him correctly and you will find out that what I have said here, is quite correct.

The question was whether he would do it in his own business.

He is not dealing with a homogenous community. He cannot build up a reserve now to stabilise prices after the war for the benefit of the people dealing with him. The shop at Kakamas is in a different position. But the Minister’s flair for business told him it was not a sound principle.

Do not compare my business ability with yours.

I shall most definitely not do so.

You might again get into a tight corner.

I want to go further to show what the Government Commissions had to say about Kakamas. First of all I want to quote from the report of the Minister himself. In paragraph 5 of the report the Commission states—[Translation]

That was signed by the Minister.

But I signed under protest.

He was the chairman and signed under protest!

It was signed by the Minister after he had had before him all the facts which he mentioned here in regard to the year 1919.

But I also brought out a minority report.

Yes, but you made no qualifications in regard to paragraph 5. I should also like to read out what the Irrigation Commission stated in regard to Kakamas. In 1927 the Irrigation Commission brought out a report in respect of Kakamas and in that report it stated inter alia—

That is the verdict of the Irrigation Commission, the financial Irrigation Commission of 1927. I have already read the other one, viz. the findings of the Commission of 1940. I now only want to say after what the Minister has said, that if the Government takes his remarks really seriously—if they are wise they will not do so—it is its duty to appoint a Judicial Commission of Enquiry. The accusations of the Minister should be properly investigated by a judge; let him in that way put a stop to those charges once and for all. I maintain that the result will be a credit to the Church, an example to the Government and a humiliation for the Minister.

Last year the general opinion was that the Minister of Lands had made the most foolish platform speech ever made and his own newspaper offered him the cake. But I think that the most foolish speech ever made in this House has also been the work of the Minister of Lands. If we could offer him a cake we would certainly do so. He told us that under the Government settlement schemes the settlers can get their title deeds and that for that reason Government settlement schemes are better than Church settlement schemes. Well, I have seen quite a lot of settlements. The most important argument of the Minister here was that the settlers under the Church scheme were worse off because they could not get their title deeds. I know of cases where people under Government schemes got their title deeds and immediately afterwards took up bonds and it did not last very long before those people were in the clutches of the money lenders, it did not last long before the land was the property of the Jews. And today the Jews and other people are the owners of that land. The question therefore arises whether it is wise to give those people their title deeds or not, and the future will have to show whether it is actually right or not to give those people their title deeds. But the Minister of Lands is as far as I am concerned nothing else but a political agent who goes through the country to attack the Church and to make political speeches. In his long speech here he first of all attacked the Church and the rest of it was nothing but political talk. What did the Minister do with the National Parks Board. In the past the members of the Board were more or less 50—50, but the Board now consists entirely of followers of the Minister with the exception of Mr. Ludorf who was appointed by the Transvaal Provincial Council. All the other people are only political henchmen of the Minister. Much political machinations are taking place. We have heard once more that one person of which the Minister was not quite sure, was kicked out. I am preferring to Mr. Rood on the Irrigation Board. Because he does not hold the same views as the Minister, they are now throwing him out. I challenge the Minister to say that Mr. Rood ever took part in politics. No, but they kicked him out so that a political pal of the Minister might be appointed. The Minister has never yet told us what the reason is why these things happen. The Minister has never yet informed us whether it is his intention to dispossess the large land owners—to dispossess companies and to make the land available to the state, for it might be that the land which he would dispossess in that manner might belong to his political friend or to the Jews. We know what is happening today; weeds are spread all over the country by those big farms which are not being worked and vermin is moving from one farm to another. We know what happened at several settlements. Khaki-bush and “vermeerbos” are growing and spreading over the entire country.

Yes, and also the blowfly.

Yes, I think one of the Imperial blowflies. I say again that the vermin which comes from those settlements and from those extensive farms is contaminating the whole country. The farmers fence in their farms to keep the jackal out and then that vermin climbs over the fences and contaminates the country and that is the result of the Minister’s politics. On top of that the Minister comes here to attack the church—on the one hand he attacks the churches and on the other hand he allows his settlements to spread vermin and weeds. What is the policy of the Minister? Politics and nothing but politics, and very rotten politics too. We should like to hear what the policy of the Minister is. We know there are many young farmers who want to obtain farms under the Settlement Act but the Minister now wants to wait until after the war so as that he will be able to put soldiers on the land. Not that we have anything against the soldiers, for the soldiers are men who fought for an ideal. They are not like the homefronters whom we see here. The Minister should tell us that after the war land will be made available to everybody who is fit to become a settler and not only to soldiers. We feel that the Minister is not entitled to put people on the land who will possibly make a failure of the settlements and we think and the country feels that there are so many young farmers who are waiting for land, that it is the duty of the Government to make provision for the people and not to let them wait until the war is over. The war may still last a long time and it is not right to let the people wait until the Minister thinks that he will be able to put soldiers only on the land.

I am sorry that I have not yet received a reply to my question and I would like to know what has become of the £17,000 which was collected. I want to know whether it was added to the capital.

It is a gift to the Labour Colony Commission.

Yes, but for what purpose was it used?

They spent it on Kakamas.

Was it added to the capital?

No, there is an overdrawn account.

£17,000 has been collected. What has become of it? Was it added to the basic capital of the colony or is it expended in the form of assistance to the people who require it? The hon. member is a member of the committee and he can tell us.

It was a gift to the Labour Colony Commission, very often they give assistance to the people and we must take it that it has been used for that purpose.

Yes, I accept that it is a gift, but how did they spend it? Did they use it for relief? Was it spent in the interests of the colonists?

Yes, it was spent in the interests of the colonists.

I thank the hon. member for the information. Now I want to say this. I trust it is not the spirit of this House to behave in the manner in which the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) behaved. I trust that the hon. members will not attack the department in the way which he has done, and I hope they will not give the kind of advice he has given. The accusations he made are out of place.

The hon. member can associate himself with the wild animals of which I spoke.

I must request the hon. member not to pass such remarks.

Very well, I withdraw. He must not do so.

I think the hon. member will serve the country better if he were to come forward with something constructive in stead of passing remarks as he has been doing here. Now I would like to know whether it is the intention of the Government to ask the churches to inaugurate voluntary schemes, similar schemes to the Vaal-Hartz scheme. I think we shall best be able to ascertain which schemes are more popular at the settlements if we compare the applications for settlements at the church schemes and the State schemes. Let us see what has happened during the past five or six years and let us see how many persons applied for admission to Vaal-Hartz on Government schemes and let us see how many applications were made by settlements to be admitted to the church schemes such as Kakamas. This will give us a fair test of what the nation thinks as to which is the better of the two schemes. I appreciate the reply which the hon. member has given to the question which I put to him in connection with sultanas. If such a scheme is more attractive than the Vaal-Hartz scheme, hon. members will agree that as a result thereof there ought to be more applications for Kakamas—there ought to be more people who would like to live at Kakamas than on the Government schemes.

There is no vacancy at Kakamas.

From time to time there are vacancies. For each vacancy at Vaal-Hartz, there are at least twenty applications.

At Vaal-Hartz anybody of any race may apply, but at Kakamas only members of the Dutch Reformed Church of the Cape may apply.

The hon. member is not correct when he says that people belonging to any race may apply. There are only Europeans at Vaal-Hartz.

I am referring to people like you and Jews and others.

If the hon. member talks like that, I am not prepared to discuss the matter any further with him. I am quite prepared to compare myself with him, as far as my status with the public is concerned. I need not stand back for the hon. member. I am of the opinion that, as I have already said, we may in the manner which I have already suggested, test what the public thinks of Vaal-Hartz, and I say Vaal-Hartz is a success, and if members say that now, after 40 years, for the first time some success has been achieved at Kakamas, then surely there must be something wrong—and it seems to me that the sultanas must be a great blessing. But members dare not speak of rehabilitation and say that the man must reside there all his life and never be able to become the owner of the ground. If this is the point the hon. member wishes to make, and if this is the policy of the Church, then I must say there is something wrong. How can the hon. member expect that people will be satisfied to live on the ground all their lives and never be in a position to say that the ground is their property. If they are afraid that something might go wrong, that undesirable people will be admitted, then they can stipulate as a condition that only members of the Church can buy there.

What greater assurance can the settlers have than that which they have now.

If the settler dies, then the ground is not his property.

It is his property.

Why cannot the man then obtain his title deeds?

Well, it is for his own protection.

I say here, and I say it openly, that I visited more houses there than the hon. member or anybody else here in the House. Members must not think that I am speaking here as a stranger in Jerusalem. I personally investigated, and I know what the grievances of the people are. There are people, old respected men who have been there for years, and they said to me: “Yes, the land is not yet mine.” What spirit of enterprise, what initiative do you give this man to build up a place if he knows that it will never be his own. If that has been the case in the past, if that was the position in the past, then I say that the time has arrived that the people should get the right of ownership in spite of the report which the hon. member read, and the statement that the colonists associate themselves therewith; I still say that if you put it to the vote today, the majority of the colonists would say: “We desire the right of ownership.”

The hon. member who has just sat down does not know how the settlement originated. After the Boer War there were many poor people in South Africa. It was during the Boer War that the Church decided to assist the poor people to acquire land on which to settle, and then they discovered this scheme. That was in 1900. The first erven were allotted in 1900 and since then they were the pioneers of the settlers. And now we have the Minister of Lands here and he gets up to besmirch the settlement. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) knows nothing about the creation of that settlement. The settlers can at any time cede their rights to others. There is nothing to stop them. Today they are in affluent circumstances and are flourishing. And let me say that they are an example to the Minister. But I want to say this, any person, it does not matter whether he is English- or Afrikaans-speaking, any person who besmirches the Dutch Reformed Church is doomed.

What about the people at Indwe?

If the people at Indwe could obtain the favourable conditions which they have at Kakamas, they can be well pleased, but I say again that any person who goes against the Church, like the Minister, will go under. But the Minister wants to make cheap propaganda at the expence of the Church, he is doomed. The Minister has gone out of his way to besmirch the good scheme which ranks high in the eyes of the nation, and he told the House that the Church has made a lot of money out of this scheme. Well, the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) has given explicit figures. He gave every item and has shown the financial position of the people, and here the Minister comes and besmirches the scheme and the Church.

That is not true.

The House know that it is true. The Minister had no argument, he just black-guarded. I do not want to prophesy but I say that any man, woman or politician who adopts the attitude which the Minister has adopted, his time is short. Let me say this, that the settler, who has initiative, prospers. Kakamas had people who had sons and daughters, hundreds of sons and daughters, who were well-educated, and who are holding high positions today. Those people received their education at Kakamas. They went further to high schools and universities, and today they occupy high positions. Had it not been for the church they would have been in the same place today where many of the other settlers are, and now the Minister comes and tells us that Kakamas is wrong. The Minister does not want to allot plots, he wants to wait until after the war. The war will perhaps last another five years. For whom does the Minister want to keep the land? There are people who need land, people who are in need, and they must be kept back. They cannot come onto the land. No, the Minister must have a policy. I do not want to make a personal attack on the Minister, but I attack his policy, and the policy of the Minister, just like that of his predecessors, is short-sighted. Every Minister in the Department of Lands has viewed this question wrongly. I say that everybody must be in a position to make a living. How many people are there who cannot do anything? I say again the Minister must change his attitude. I say that the Minister has hurt us deeply by attacking the Church, he dragged the Church through the mud, and if you attack the Church then you are doomed. Our people trekked to the furthest corners of South Africa on account of their religious principles. We are people who stand by our Church, and now the Minister comes and he besmirches the Church.

That is a lie.

On a point of order, is a Minister allowed to say that it is a lie?

I did not hear it, but if the Minister said it, then he must withdraw.

I did say it was a lie, but I withdraw it, and I say that it is the grossest untruth in the world.

What is the grossest untruth?

That I besmirched the Church.

The Minister knows that he does it with a purpose. The Minister knows how the Boer nation is attached to the Church and the settlement. We all contributed our pennies to assist the settlement in the olden days when our people were in great trouble. And in those days the settlements did great work for our people.

Yes, we know what the hon. member did later.

Yes, but I did not hands-up. We shall find out later that it will count against us if we do not assist the settlement today. We cannot forget our history, the history of that settlemen is very near to our hearts. The settlement occupies a soft spot in our hearts, and we cannot allow anybody to besmirch the Church or the settlement. We know what the Church has done and we know how many people that settlement has pulled out of the mud and misery.

The discussions in connection with the Lands vote during the last few days make me think of a wrestling or boxing bout. The Minister has issued a challenge to the Dutch Churches in connection with the Kakamas settlement. It was a fight consisting of ten rounds. The fight has now gone nine rounds and in each round the Minister received a knockout blow, and he remained lying down for nine counts, and then he got up and every time the gong saved him. Well, the Minister has been knocked out nine times and you as Chairman are not allowed to intervene and stop the fight. Well, I think we can now leave it alone, we can leave the Kakamas discussion where it is, the Minister has received nine knock-out blows and I think we should stop the fight.

Don’t hands-up.

It seems to me that the Minister is beginning to revive.

I say, don’t hands-up.

I have often seen the Minister at wrestling matches, and I think he will admit that I am adopting the correct attitude. The Minister has undergone a terrible ordeal and I cannot stand it any longer.

I say again, don’t hands-up.

Now if the Minister had people behind him who could assist him, then it would be all right, but the only supporter he has is the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg). Now I want to ask the Minister something. Are the State settlements producing products which are placed on the market?

Where is that?

At Pongola.

I ask again. Does the Minister produce at Vaal-Hartz on behalf of the State or not? Can I receive a reply to that? Am I entitled to a reply or not? Does the Department produce on the Vaal-Hartz or not?

For three days we talked about potatoes.

I regard it as unreasonable. I am a backbencher, and when I get the opportunity of putting a question, I cannot get a reply.

The question is whether there is anything to reply to.

I ask again, is the State producing at Vaal-Hartz at the expense of the public? I say what I said before, that the State has no right to compete with the farmers. Now I come to another point. The settlement policy today is chiefly not to put people on Government land in favour of those at the front. I accept the fact that that is the policy. They have declared their policy and they will certainly not diverge therefrom. Now I want to make one request to the Minister. I want to ask him to allot a portion of that land, which is available, to persons who are not in the army, people who are in any case too old to join the army. Now I ask the Minister of Lands: Please, we have numbers and numbers of persons of 45 years of age and older, who are not eligible for military service. Those people, even if they want to join the army cannot do so because their age prevents them. These are mostly people with families and school-going children. Are you going to keep those people away and withhold this opportunity from them? I want to ask the Minister to give the people who are in this position a certain amount of preference. If you are not going to take anybody who is under the age of 45 years into consideration, then I still want to ask you to give the people who cannot enlist on account of their age, an opportunity. Give the man an opportunity to obtain land. These people mostly have school-going children. Are you going to sacrifice those children on account of that erroneous policy? I do not think that this request which I put to the Minister is unreasonable. The war can still last for four or five or six years. The Minister does not know how long the war is going to last. What is going to become of these people later on? They cannot at the age of sixty start on a settlement. I want to make a special request to the Minister of Lands to give that matter his serious consideration.

The Minister listened to this debate which has stretched over several days, and I want to ask the Minister if he has ever read what Jonah said to the whale? Jonah said to the whale: “If you had not opened your mouth so wide, this nonsense would never have happened.” and I think that is what the Prime Minister can say to the Minister of Lands. Everything happened because the Minister came here and did these things which he had no right to do.

He opened his mouth too wide.

He opened his mouth too wide about the Church. Then there is another matter upon which I want to touch. The Minister says that the Government has practically put a stop to settlement for the duration of the war, and there is anxiety about obtaining money under the one-tenth system. I would like to know whether it is the policy of the Government to restrict in any way the granting of assistance under Section 11.

I have already three times said that there is no restriction. If I have to reply to that again it will be the fourth time.

The Minister need not be uncivil. I did not hear it. Now I want to touch upon something else, and that is that the Minister sends about in the Free State in my constituency a certain man named H. H. Moll, in order to explain to the people the plans of the Government in connection with the Caledon scheme. I would like to ask the Minister to keep Mr. Moll away there, and to send somebody else who knows something about the scheme, somebody who knows something about these matters.

Are you against the Caledon scheme?

I am not against the Caledon scheme, but I say that the Minister must send somebody else there who is not a political agent. Mr. Moll’s speeches are all destined to show what wonderful things the Government is now going to do.

Isn’t it a wonderful scheme?

It is a very good scheme, but then the Minister must send somebody there who knows something about it. The Minister must not send political agents there.

I shall not allow myself to be told what to do and what not to do.

No, the Minister will not allow that, and that is why he will commit more blunders. I again ask the Minister to send somebody there who knows something about these things. Let him send an official there to explain the scheme to the farmers, not with the intention of making political propaganda. Mr. Moll’s whole attitude is to tell the people what wonderful things the Government is doing, not with the intention of enlightening the people, but solely for the purpose of making propaganda.

Who pays his salary?

The Government. The Minister came to my constituency and I did not object to anything he said there. His officials who were there gave the people good assistance, but I want to tell the Minister here that he is going to have trouble if he sends a man of that type and a man with the intention of H. H. Moll, to enlighten the people.

When I spoke last time I was explaining to the Minister what the difference is between the people who leave Kakamas and those who are chased away from his plots. The Minister is very much concerned about the people who are, according to him, kicked out of Kakamas and who receive no compensation—that is not so—while his own people are kicked out without receiving any compensation for improvements which they brought about. Here people are now chased away after they have brought about improvements to the value of £3,000. I want the people at Kakamas to know how this Minister treats them. I want to refer to one case. I will not mention the man’s name, but I shall mention the name of his farm. It is “Doema” in the Burgersdorp district. The father and son were joint owners of the farm. The father died and the Minister wanted the son to take over the farm. The son did not see his way clear to do so because the mortgage on the farm was too high. It was one of the uneconomical plots. The Minister then wrote a letter to the son. First he cancelled the plot. He wrote to the son that he must not remove the farming implements, that he must bring his father’s stock and his own stock, and this must all be sold at the sale. He said that when everything has been sold, the son must make proposals as to how he will repay the arrears. The son then went and hired himself out as a labourer to the farmer next door at £3 per month, with the right to keep one hundred head of stock there. He is now the foreman on the farm. Now the Minister comes and asks him what proposals he can make to repay the arrear debt. I then came to see the Land Board at Cape Town and brought the matter to their notice. They realised how unfair it was and the son is now allowed to retain his stock. If I had not intervened, the son’s cattle would have been sold. He went to work as a foreman on a farm at £3 per month, and then the Minister still wanted to squeeze money out of him. I want the people at Kakamas to know this. The Minister now alleges that the people at Kakamas cannot obtain the fight of ownership, that they cannot become the owners of those farms, but under the Land Settlement Act a man can obtain right of ownership, he can become the owner of the farm. But the Minister knows very well that he cannot under any circumstances be allowed to sell the farm unless he first obtains permission from the Minister to do so. I asked him yesterday, and I would like him to give us the figures, how many of those people asked for permission to sell the plots and to how many the Minister has granted that permission. If that is the case, that they have to approach the Minister for his permission, what is then the difference? In what respect are they better off? If a man lives in a glass house he must not throw stones. Then I just want to ask the Minister this—the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) has also spoken about it and in his speech the Minister referred to a trust fund of £60,000 which has been built up for Vaal-Hartz. But I want to ask the Minister where that money comes from.

The money comes from the labour of the settlers, just the same as the £129,000 which the Church at Kakamas accumulated came out of their labour.

The Minister says the £60,000 trust money comes out of the work of the settlers.

And it belongs to the settlers.

If that money belongs to them, one can expect that they have the right to it. But they receive loans and they must pay 3¾ per cent. interest thereon.

It is paid out to them as soon as they pass out. They are still tenant farmers.

Why must these people pay interest on these loans?

On a point of explanation, these people are still tenant farmers, and the £60,000 is money which they have over and which they have saved, and keeps it for them in a trust fund until they have passed out and then each one’s share is paid out.

What interest do they get on that money?

The loans which are paid to them at 3¾ per cent. have nothing to do with the £60,000.

The Minister said that it is not the Government’s money. He said the Government does not invest it in the Church at 5 per cent. interest. It is money which belongs to those people. He said: “I shall tell you this further, my Department has made advances to those tenant farmers to buy trek oxen to the extent of £38,000.” Then the Minister says that they pay interest at the rate of 3¾ per cent.

That happens on a sixty year period.

You related how the Church made use of the sweat of the people, and yet you are busy doing the same thing. There I agree with the hon. member for Kimberley, District. I am glad that he raised the question; give those people what is due to them. I say that you have no righ to criticise the Church while jou are doing the same thing. I have asked myself: What is behind the Minister’s attack, is it love of the settlers, is it love of the Church? If the Minister is so concerned out of love for the Church, then he would have given correct facts here. I do not now want to go into the Minister’s history, but I want to say this to him: “You went out of your way to give erroneous figures, you went out of your way to attack the Church.”

The hon. member must address the Chair.

I hope you will pardon me. I did not do it out of disrespect. If the Minister does this out of love for the settlers,—he chases some of them away for political reasons, and he takes the poor man’s money as the hon. member for Kimberley, District stated here today — I cannot think that it is for love of the settlers. Why does he do it then? Is it because the church is his enemy? It is, as I have said before, it is a nightmare which he is having. He does it with the express purpose of getting that settlement out of the hands of the church and placing it in the hands of the Jews. That is what happened once at the Vaal-Hartz. [Time limit.]

The Minister wants to pretend that he is not the first who has attacked the church.

Not the first; never.

He got up here and attacked the church. We on this side discussed business, and we wanted to know what was being done for the settlers. Instead of replying to the points which we raised, the Minister goes and attacks the church for almost two hours. Today he gets up and says that he did not attack the church. How can you understand that? You know yourself that he did it. The motive is to create the impression that the church is committing slavery. Then he wanted to suggest that we are practising usury.

That they even commit theft.

There is the member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) and the member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie). They do not say a single word, they are silent as the grave. That means, in other words, that they approve of the attack by the Minister of Lands on the church. I am a member of the Reformed Church, I am not a member of the Dutch Reformed Church, but it is an Afrikaans church which the Minister has attacked here. There are Afrikaners on the other side of the House and they do not say a single word. They have also deteriorated.

Speak for yourself.

I shall tell the people in the Transvaal that they sat still in this House while the Minister attacked the church, and that they did not open their mouths. That means in other words that they approve of what the Minister said. I believe in looking a man straight in the eye and before I attack those hon. members I want to warn them: If they do not open their mouths now, they will hear about it in the Western Transvaal. The hon. Minister touched upon a few business matters during the first day. He said he wanted to encourage the people to purchase land under section 11. I said to him by way of interjection that the valuation is too low, and that it means that no lessee can purchase land. The Minister replied: “Do you want me to continually purchase ground and later on write off again?” The Minister does not know how long the war is going to last. What must now become of those people? A few years ago the land was £4, now the price has risen to £6. Those people simply cannot be assisted under sec. 11. The price of everything has risen. Take, for example, trek oxen. A trek ox which used tot cost £7 10s. to £8, today cost more or less £12. The result is that the poor farmer cannot get trek oxen. He is now sitting with his hands in his hair. He cannot produce because he cannot buy oxen. On the one side the Government wants the people to produce, but at the same time they will not assist them under sec. 11. Many of them want to buy land, but the valuations is very much lower than the actual value of the land. Under sec. 10 land is being purchased. I know of people who sold big farms in the Western Transvaal but then it is not leased to the poor people, but the seller himself gets the ground. The seller in all probability invests his money at 5 per cent. and he pays perhaps £3 for the hire of the ground. The Government buys a farm from a rich man and then again lets it to him. That is unreasonable and unfair. It shows that this Government gives preference to the rich man. The poor man is compelled, directly or indirectly, to join the Army. It is nothing else. What are those lessees going to do? They will get as much as they possibly can out of that ground, and by the time that the ground is given to the settler it will be exhausted. In all probability the ground will be overrun by khakibush and other weeds.

What about potatoes?

I shall come to the potatoes. The Minister must not be in such a hurry. The Minister knows that we farmers have to cope with four factors lately, the first is lack of labour, the second is is that we can obtain no fertilizer, and in the third place we cannot get the necessary implements, and then the open market is still spoilt because the Minister competes with us. Take labour. What kind of labour does the Minister get? Mostly Italians, according to my information. What do the Italians cost the Government? It cost the Minister just 1s. per diem. How can the farmer then compete with the Government, who gets this cheap labour?

Why don’t you also get Italians?

I cannot get them.

Why not?

I shall tell you why not. The Government must in any case give food and clothing to the Italians. That is expenditure which the Government must in any case incur. All that it costs the Minister’s department is 1s. per day, but it cost me 4s. per day to hire that Italian. The Minister might say that is costs his department 4s., but actually it costs the Defence Department 3s. and it costs his department 1s. Take Native labour. The Minister now takes that Native labour and competes with me, and undoubtedly he pays much more for the labour than I can pay for it, and he competes with me. Take fertiliser. According to the Department of Agriculture I may only use 150 lbs. superphosphate to a morgen this year. I usually use 400 pounds to a morgen. Here the Minister of Lands comes and asks for 196 ton. He is in a position to expand, but my farming operations must be restricted. Last year I asked the Minister to erect shops where we can buy implements cheaply, but instead of competing with the dealer, the Minister now competes with us.

We have already had so many debates about potatoes that I do not intend to cover the whole potato question again. I just want to mention one point. The hon. member has repeatedly stood up and chastised me and stressed the fact that I am set upon attacking the Church. He knows that it is not true, he knows that it is false.

Withdraw.

The hon. Minister must withdraw that.

I shall withdraw it. The hon. member talks about deterioration. I want to point out how far they go in their mad stampede to attack me. A few days ago the hon. member, with a sob in his voice, looked up to heaven and said: “Look at the terrible crime of which the Minister is making himself guilty; he dares to attack the Church.” He says you might not believe in the Almighty, but you must believe in the Church and then he is applauded by hon. members on the other side. It is nothing else but a religion of idol worship.

Now you are talking nonsense.

If you do not believe in the Almighty, but you do believe in the Church, then it shows deterioration.

Whom did you attack?

On a point of order. I said nothing about God, that is untrue. I said that the Minister went out of his way to attack the Church.

This will possibly be the last opportunity which I and other members will have to say a few words in this House, and it is to me a pleasure to avail myself of the opportunity. What I want to say concerns the most essential of all industries in this country and that is the farming industry, for which this Minister is responsible. The Minister spent two hours in this House in an attack on the Church. He made an attack on the administration of the Church. Is that all on which his agriculture depends? In the short time at my disposal I shall not be able to say much, but I do want to say this: This Parliament and the future Parliament which will be elected, will be there to carry out the purpose for which they are elected to come to this House, viz. to meet here and to discuss the problems and difficulties of the country. We do not know which of us will come back, the Minister probably least of all, as he represents nobody. The Government will be called to account. Every member here is busy writing the history of the South African nation. Omar Khayyam put it thus — if they won’t believe in the Bible, then I will quote Omar Khayyam to them—

That is the warning. It is the same warning which I want to repeat in this House, and in particular to the Minister of Lands. For those who want it in Afrikaans, I want to quote Langenhoven’s translation thereof—

That is the calling to that Minister, and that is why I give it to him with what might be my last words in this House, that here we must act, not for what we can make out of it, but always with the feeling of responsibility for the nation which we must serve.

I want to withdraw my amendment in favour of that of the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. du Plessis).

After discussion, with leave of the Committee, the amendment proposed by Mr. J. H. Conradie was withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by Mr. du Plessis put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—28:

Bekker, G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Geldenhuys. C. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, D. F.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P,

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan

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

Noes—48:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Klopper, L. B.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Vote No. 35.—“Lands”, as printed and agreed to.

Vote No. 36.—“Deeds”, £77,500 put and agreed to.

Vote No. 37.—“Surveys”, £102,000 put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 36.—“Irrigation”, £313,300,

You will see that in the report of the Select Committee on Irrigation, the Committee found it necessary to mention the circumstance that in the report of the Irrigation Department no mention is made of the erosion which under the Irrigation Commission Act of 1926 is an instruction to the Irrigation Commission. I was responsible for the suggestion that such a recommendation should be made to the House, and that that was done because we felt that the Irrigation Commission in the past had neglected to execute an important function which was placed upon them by law. If you now peruse the Act under which the Irrigation Commission was established, then you will see that sec. 6 of Act No. 33 of 1926 describes the particular qualification, duties and functions of the commission. The second of these functions which was designated to the commission by this Act reads as follows—

1. (b) to advise the Minister as to the extent of and the prevention of erosion in, and any other matter connected with, the catchment areas of public streams.

Now I want to state that it is unfortunate that it has become a custom of the Minister of Irrigation to ignore this function of the Irrigation Commission and that the Commission up to now has been chiefly busy with other work and other duties, which are stipulated in this Act. But so important did the compilers of this legislation at that time regard this particular function, that although there are seven different paragraphs in which the work of the Commission is stipulated, that they placed this particular function of the Commission second, viz. that it had to advise the Minister and consider steps to combat soil erosion. This instruction is given to the Commission in this Act, and it is the duty of the Commission to carry out this instruction. The result of the neglect by the Irrigation Commission to give this matter its consideration was that this function to guard against soil erosion, has been taken away from the Irrigation Department and today falls under the Department of Agriculture, with the result that it is treated casually there and not as serious function of the Administration. I feel that it is our duty to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister and the House, and to ask that this important matter of soil erosion and the maintenance of our catchment areas and our watersheds be placed as one of the important matters under the Department of Irrigation and that the Irrigation Commission be utilised to give its attention to this important service which it is instructed to do under the Act. We have spent millions of pounds on the construction of irrigation dams and water conservation, and there is nobody in the country who does not see the advantage thereof that the Government should still spend millions on it. But there are natural storage dams, viz., our mountain ridges, which are the sources of our streams and they are neglected and destroyed because the preservation thereof does not receive the necessary attention. Here we find that already in 1926 the Irrigation Commission was instructed that one of the important functions would be to make representations in connection with the conservation of our water sources and the prevention of soil erosion, and up to now we have seen that the Irrigation Commission has not paid attention to this matter. The result is that our mountain ridges, the natural water sources, are neglected. We see annually that it is destroyed by mountain fires. The Commission should long ago have received instructions to make recommendations on how mountain fires could be prevented, how they originate in different parts of the country, and how they must be extinguished and prevented. But we find that this function of the Irrigation Commission has been totally neglected, and it is no wonder that we recently found an outside body has been set up and that they have accepted the special duty of promoting the question of ground preservation. It shows what neglect there was in this important duty of the Irrigation Commission, that prominent people regarded as their duty to form a committee of which the functions would be to cause an investigation to be made in connection with the combating of soil erosion. This is a commission which must render essential services to the country. I want to ask the Minister to take immediate steps to see that this question of soil erosion it dealt with by the Department of Irrigation and not to leave it to the Department of Lands and also to use the Irrigation Commission to make representations to help as much as possible, that the necessary protection of our water sources will be provided and to prevent mountain fires. Take the question of the construction of small erosion dams, for which the Department of Agriculture up to now has been responsible. I feel that much more should be done there and that we can deal much more effectively with it if the Department of Irrigation gives its attention to the matter. I shall be pleased if the Minister of Irrigation will take steps not to let this important matter fall under the Department of Agriculture, but under the Department of Irrigation. The Department of Agriculture has to do with the cultivation of the soil and the marketing of products, and this matter which touches on irrigation should fall under the Department of Irrigation. I have asked that the Irrigation Commission should be requested to do this essential work. I want to ask the Minister to keep the Department of Irrigation busy in these times. Now that there is a war on, the Government is not prepared to expend money on irrigation, and the Department is idle. I want to suggest that the Department of Irrigation can be usefully utilised in connection with surveying because I feel that there is not sufficient surveying of our irrigation possibilities in South Africa. The Minister can in these times of slackened activities in connection with irrigation, use his department to make broader and wider surveys of the land to establish irrigation possibilities. There are possibilities which have not yet been surveyed. I am thinking, for example, of the Orange River, which is the most important river in our country. We have had long discussions about Kakamas, and those who visit certain portions of the Orange River will see what useful irrigation works can be erected there. There is only a small portion of the Orange River which is used. Take the northern sections which are not yet irrigated. The Minister must use the department to see if there is any possibility of making use of the Orange River on a big scale. Is it not possible that the Orange River can be used as an inland navigable river? Cannot we apply a system of water sluices to the Orange River as in the case of the Murrays River in Australia? At definite distances we can make dams and then it can perhaps become a navigable river. At the same time the water can be used by leading it out and the interior can be irrigated. Whether it is practicable, I do not know, but it can be investigated. I have in mind a district like Oudtshoorn, where we have the difficulty in the Karoo areas that we have not got enough water to store in dams. But I want to suggest whether it is not possible to investigate if a canal can be made along the Outeniqua Mountains to lead the water onto the Karoo.

I would like to say a few words in connection with the irrigation scheme at Lindleyspoort. I want to ask the Minister to reconsider his decision and to meet the owners at Hoogebomen. I want to point out that before the money was made available for the scheme, the owners worked on the scheme and endeavoured to get the funds made available, with expectation that they would also get their share of the water. I went to see the Minister about the matter, but he had decided that they would not get any water. I now want to bring to the Minister’s notice what one of those owners wrote to me. Let me say that there are only four of them. They are asking so little that I cannot see how the Minister can refuse the water to those people; I cannot understand how he can refuse their request. I think it is advisable that the Minister should hear what one of those people wrote to me. Inter alia he writes this—

Where this person mentions the Indian who is supervising, I do not know whether that is so. I am hoping that this information is erroneous, because if it is true, it would indeed be a bad policy.

Does the Indian own land there?

He says that this is one of the Indians who own land, and he is supervising the digging of the furrows. This Indian has 45 morgen there, and according to my information he will obtain irrigation for the whole 45 morgen. The people at Hoogebomen have struggled for years to get the dam there, and where the previous Minister of Irrigation met us in so far as to get the dam there, and where this now is the last opportunity of obtaining assistance for these few people, I want to appeal to the Minister. The Minister has definitely refused to allow them to place a few morgen under water. They are merely asking water for five morgen, and where there are only four owners, the Minister should give them satisfaction, as there are people who have 150 and 200 morgen under irrigation. In those circumstances I think that it would be advisable for the Minister to give a small portion of the water to those people. This is perhaps the last appeal which I am able to make to the Minister in this House, and I would like to see that the Minister gives this matter his serious consideration. Let him realise that if he meets these people, what it is going to mean to them and their families. It is a very serious matter to me and I would like to see that these people get some satisfaction. While I am up, I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the Minister for his goodwill and the promise which he made to the farmers at Burgersdorp in the Lichtenburg District. The Minister promised that where possible he would meet those people. The Minister stipulated certain conditions in connection with the Municipal Council. I want to give the Minister the assurance that the difficulty of which he is afraid, viz. that the Municipality of Lichtenburg will perhaps benefit from the write-off in favour of the farmers of Burgersdorp, will not come to pass. They are quite satisfied that the inhabitants of Burgersdorp should get the full value of any assistance which the Minister may give. I therefore thank the Minister that he has stated his willingness to go to Lichtenburg. I give him the assurance that Burgersdorp is looking forward to his visit, as I have written to them that the Minister is prepared to help them, and I would like to express my appreciation.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) said here, and to ask the Minister that the question of soil erosion, water preservation and protection of our watersheds be placed under the Department of Irrigation. We have the Irrigation Commission and all the officials of the Irrigation Department, who will be able to cope with this matter much better than the officials of the Agricultural Department. I should also like to support the hon. member for Swartruggens (Mr. Verster) in his plea for the few farmers at Hoogebomen. I know their position. It will make little difference to the irrigation scheme, but to those farmers it will be of great assistance, and I hope the Minister will be prepared to assist them. Last year I made a plea in this House for a dam in the Crocodile River below Haartebeestpoort. The Minister said that a survey had already been made, and that the place was found to be unsuitable, and that a survey would be made higher up. I should like to know how far this matter has progressed. I said last year that there was a court case pending, because Iscor was claiming the water. The case was decided in favour of Iscor, and today they can pump practically the last drop of water out of the rivier, leaving farmers lower down high and dry. This year the river has again brought down so much water so that it could have filled the Haartebeestpoortdam twice over, and all this water flowed away to the sea, and thereafter the land was again left dry. This is very fertile soil, but there is no water to moisten the earth. I want, to plead with the Minister to build a dam in those parts. This is excellent soil, and blocking of the dam is altogether out of the question. There is no danger of that in those parts. I should like to hear from the Minister what the position is.

I would like to refer the Minister to the Grasridge Valley. At the moment it is of very little value because there is not sufficient water. I want the Minister to give his attention to this matter. His Irrigation Commission was there and I trust they will take steps to have a second dam built there. I think the Minister appreciates the difficulties of that valley on account of the scarcity of water. I hope that the Minister will do everything in his power to assist the people through the winter and also thereafter. On the last occasion when I was there, there was just sufficient water in the dam to enable them to lead water once more. Then I also want to ask the Minister what progress has been made with the Vlekpoort scheme. I want to thank the Minister for his attitude he adopted in connection therewith. After a couple of engineers had rejected it, he felt that a dam must be built there. According to my opinion you can reclaim the old vleis by allowing the water to flow more steadily. You can retain the silt in order that the big dams do not silt up. Silt continually remains behind. If something is not done by way of the building of small dams in the valley, Lake Arthur will in a few years time be silted up. The Minister of Agriculture was there recently, and he is convinced that a system of dams will assist a great deal. Some engineers said that we should continue in the old way and fill up small furrows. My idea is, and I think it is now also the idea of the Minister, that extensive works only will be effectual there in order to cause fertile soil to become absolutely fertile again. You must first construct a big scheme there, and then the fertile soil can be converted into fertility. I am convinced that small dams will in future prevent the silting up of big dams. In the Grasridge area a large number of dams has been built, and an enormous amount of silt has been retained. Is it true that a certain amount of water is retained, but if you consider everything you will see that the small amount of water retained does not matter. But it is of great importance that silt should be retained. Experiments have been made. Dr. Viljoen and other officials of the department were there. There one dam has been built 5 ft. high and one 11 ft. high, and the latter is two miles beyond the 5ft. dam, and the 5 ft. dam has now silted up the 11 ft. dam just because the water flows more steadily. As you know under ordinary circumstances the water rushed down the slopes very quickly, and if you allow the water to flow more steadily, then you retain an amount of silt on the land and brack-furrows silt up of their own accord. I hope that the Minister will do everything in his power to carry out this experiment there, because not only will it be a solution to erosion, but it will also be of importance in the future when consideration is given to the building of big dams in the Karoo. There we can now make the test. I definitely think that the position can be improved a great deal in this manner. I also want to ask the Minister not to forget the people in the Fish River valley in their need. Lake Arthur has enough water but Grasridge has very little, and I hope that the Minister will assist those people as soon as possible.

I would like to thank the Minister for his assistance in my constituency. He caused a furrow to be made from the Vaal-Hartz scheme, and farms which were practically drought-stricken, have obtained water by this means. There are farms there where the people have in vain drilled for water. They drilled to a depth of 400 ft., and could not get water. Then the Minister met the farmers and we voted money here in Parliament to make this furrow from Vaal-Hartz to a section of my constituency. The farmers there are grateful to the Minister. It is one of the practical things which the Minister has done in connection with irrigation, and for which the farmers will always be grateful to him. Now hon. members on the other side are objecting to Mr. H. H. Moll being sent to the Free State to explain the policy of the Minister there in connection with the building of big dams and to tell them about the possibilities of a big dam in the Caledon River. I know the country there very well, and the whole world will be converted into a paradise if it can be done. But because hon. members on the other side have a grievance against Mr. Moll, his name must be dragged across the floor of this House, and they object to his addressing people there.

That is not so. The hon. member here objected to his acting as a political agent.

I take no notice of the hon. member.

Old turn-coat, what are you talking about.

Order!

I can only laugh about that. When a man like that hon. member calls me a turn-coat, I take no notice of it.

You will insult Afrikaners, but not the English.

The hon. member imagines that he and his Keerom Street clique, are the only Afrikaners, the others are all traitors. I want to congratulate the hon. Minister on his irrigation policy. If he continues with it, the nation and the country will still be very grateful to him. In South Africa, if you have water, you can live, but in the past we were too hesitant. We had large surpluses in the days of the old Nationalist Party, but our farmers went bankrupt and had to start from the beginning again. Then they say they are the Afrikaners and not us. I want to ask the Minister: In his opening speech the other day he said that he intended to declare certain districts as dry districts, and that he was going to send a large number of water drills to supply water to the farmers in those parts. I want to point out to the Minister that a portion of my constituency should also fall thereunder. The Minister mentioned Kuruman, Gordonia, Prieska and Vryburg, where he was going to send water drills. But I think the Minister must remember that a large section of the Kimberley District constituency falls under that area and he must not exclude that section of my constituency. I do not only want to plead for my own constituency, but throughout the country the problem of water supply is one of great importance. There are farmers who ten years ago applied for a Government water drill. The drills which they are able to obtain locally cannot go down to the required depth, and cannot drill through hard stone, with the result that farms are being drilled full of holes, but the people have not got sufficient water. Only the Government drills can drill through the hard stone, and if the Minister has drills constructed after the war, I want to ask him to have a sufficient number of drills made. It is now not a question of winning the war. Even members on the other side agree that we are going to win the war, it is now only a question of how long it is going to last. Let the Minister make enough drills to supply the whole country.

I shall also be glad to obtain a statement from the Minister in connection with drilling machines. The hon. member there mentioned the policy which the Minister has adopted, but we in the North do not actually know what the policy of the Minister is and what it is going to be after the war. In the North we have always had enormous big farms of thousands of morgen of which only certain portions were suitable for grazing. But a decided change has taken place. Farms have been divided, more and more people have trekked to these parts, ground has been bought through the Native Trust, and the farmers must again obtain ground elsewhere. Now a person cannot farm if you have not got water on your farm.

Is that on the other side of the Soutspansberg?

Beyond the Soutpansberg and also on this side, in Pietersburg and Soutpansberg both. It is therefore necessary to have a sufficient supply of drills to enable the people to drill for water. You thereby also avoid erosion which is becoming a serious problem in those parts. In districts such as Lydenburg, Soutpansberg and Pietersburg it is appalling to observe the extent of the soil erosion, and one of the main reasons is the fact that there are no drinking places for animals. The animals have to walk for six, eight or even ten miles to get to the drinking places. In this manner they cause footpaths to be made and later the water runs along the path and erodes it, and soil erosion results. The only way in which to prevent it is by dams and boreholes. As there are at the present moment no windmills available, it will not be in the interests of the country to drill boreholes now and to erect windmills later on. The people will have to have these boreholes after the war, and the work can already be done now and the windmills may be obtained later on. Payment will, of course, have to be suspended until after the war, because while they cannot obtain windmills, it will not be reasonable to expect that they should pay for boreholes. In the past, and I believe now still, people do not pay for dry boreholes.

We give a subsidy of £70.

I am glad to hear that, but I shall be glad if he will deal with this matter in detail, so that I and other hon. members can tell our people what the position is and what the prospects are of obtaining a drilling machine. The Minister says that he will have drilling machines made after the war, but what about those which are at the present moment available? Not only has ground been purchased for settlers, but the Native Trust has also purchased a lot of ground, and drilling machines are used with the result that there is very little opportunity for farmers to be assisted. They do not even know whether it is worth their while to apply. That is why I shall be pleased to hear from the Minister what the actual position is.

I notice that the Minister is introducing a new policy in connection with irrigation. The Vaal-Hartz scheme has brought approximately 60,000 morgen under irrigation and the Minister is now assisting farmers there who reside on dry farms. I understand that the Minister has surveyed approximately 40 dry farms where the farmers cannot get water. They have done a lot of drilling there and cannot get water. Many of the farmers have already spent £1,000 or more to obtain water, but they did not succeed. Now the Minister has proceeded—and this is the new policy—to have a small furrow made to the farms and the sheep farmers will now obtain water from the canal. I am very pleased to see that the Minister has adopted this policy, and that is something which we must extend considerably. There are many other farms which can be assisted in this way, and I believe that if we go into the matter we will find that in some cases it would be very much cheaper to make small furrows from irrigation works and to supply the farmers in this way with water than to supply water in other ways. I think it will be a considerable saving. It is an interesting development, and I would like the Minister to tell us about it. If it is a success in this case, is he going to extend it—because there is a lot of water in the Vaal-Hartz. If there are others farmers who already have ten or more boreholes on their farms and who have not yet got water, will there be an opportunity for them? Will the Minister develop further along these lines, so that these farmers can also obtain water, because as soon as the farmer has water the value of the farm increases by £1,000 to £1,500, and he can prosper. Today practically only poor people live on the dry farms. They are having a hard time. Their cattle die and the people become poorer and poorer. But if the Minister can assist the people in this way from the big irrigation schemes, it will make it possible for them to farm. I think it is a very important development and I would like the Minister to tell us something more about it.

Under the Lands Vote I already brought to the Minister’s notice the Zeekoe River scheme at Hanover, and asked what the Minister’s policy is now in connection with fodder banks. In the first place, I want to ask the Minister how far he has got with Zeekoe River. The Minister will remember that I told him that the Irrigation Commission was in Hanover at the beginning of the year. What actually happened is this: On that day it was announced that the Minister had also been in Hanover a short while previously, and had addressed the riparian owners, so I believe. I understand that he stated that he would use this special scheme as a test in connection with fodder banks. But we were then in the extraordinary position that the Irrigation Commission did not know what the Minister meant, and also the people whom he addressed could not explain what the Minister had tried to convey. Now I would like to know from the Minister what the position is in connection with the fodder banks scheme and how he was going to carry it out. Did he mean that this scheme would only be applicable to Hanover or to the whole of the Northern Cape? What will become of the surplus ground if the ground under the scheme becomes too much for one farmer? In the Northern Cape Province there is no irrigation scheme. The hon. Minister is also one of my constituents. He is now in the position to do something which the Northern Cape Province has never had the privilege of having, and that is to give an irrigation scheme to the Northern Cape Province. I hope that where he is now Minister and he knows these parts that he will give his attention to it and that the Zeekoe River scheme will now become an actuality. I am expecting an important statement from the Minister in connection with irrigation, because the Minister has travelled throughout the country and he sees in his mind’s eye great, great schemes. It made such an impression on me when he spoke of the Caledon River and the Orange River which he wants to dam up, that I saw in my mind’s eye how he would divert the Orange River beyond De Aar, and how the Great Karoo would be converted into beautiful lucern lands and flower gardens. I am definitely expecting a great and important declaration from the Minister, because it appears to me that the Minister is gradually becoming the great fortune-teller of the Government. You will allow me to say that he always reminds me of the late Bombay Charlie when he tells fortunes. Every time Bombay Charlies throws his dolosse, a snake pops out, and the Minister, when he throws his dolosse, produces a dam every time. Let the Minister now announce what his policy is. And I want to ask him this: Whatever he intends doing, will he do it now or after the war? I shall tell you why I am asking this. In 1938 we also had an election and one day, three months before the election, an article appeared in “Die Suiderstem” under the caption: “The Government has decided to spend £1,000,000 on storage dams in the Orange River.” The result was that three representatives called on the former Minister of Lands, who is now High Commissioner in London. They went to the expense of coming to interview the Minister. What was revealed? That the Government had never taken such a decision. That was the former Minister of Lands and Irrigation. He said that he would like to be known as the great dam constructor. Even if he did nothing, as long as he could build dams, he would he satisfied. What became of it? Then there is the Aspoort scheme. The hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Steenkamp) said years ago that a dam had been promised there. One day I wandered about these parts with which I am well acquainted, and I met a farmer and remarked: “There is only gravel here, what grows here?” He replied: “These are now the lucern lands of Dr. Steenkamp.” I come to another scheme, the Gamka scheme. Money was actually voted for this before the election. After the election nothing came of it. I do not want to anticipate the Minister’s plans or pour cold water onto them, but I want to ask him to make a statement within bounds and in such a manner that I shall not again have wild dreams of things which will never be realised. I hope that the Minister will make a statement on what we may actually expect.

I have listened to the derisive manner in which hon. members on the other side spoke about irrigation schemes. I conclude that in the measure in which they jeered at their own district, in that measure will they be assisted. I want to thank the Minister and also the former Minister on behalf of my area for what they have done in connection with irrigation. It was in any case the former Minister who adopted the policy that water storage is a State concern, and should to a large extent be assisted by the Government. He adopted the policy and the Government will still be grateful to him for adopting that policy. The present Minister can still receive further thanks from us, and also his Department and the Irrigation Commission for the interest displayed in our district. The Irrigation Commission visited the district some time back and a report has been tabled in connection with the conditions on the Mooi River. The trouble dates back to the days of Lord Milner’s government, when even the normal water in the Mooi River was alienated by the Government. I am also glad that the Minister has consented to investigate the old wound which is more than 40 years old, and to see if a solution cannot be found. We in the Transvaal have very little trouble with silt. We also have people along the river who have a life-long experience of irrigation, but there is a regular shortage of water and practically every year a portion of their crops is destroyed. The Irrigation Commission has handed in a favourable report and we are thankful that they have made such a thorough investigation. I must say here that it has surprised us to see from the report that the former Minister had told them that in cases where investigation was promised, they must not report on the schemes. The present Minister acted very frankly and gave detailed instructions, and the matter was investigated. For that we are grateful. I would like to know from the Minister and my people would like to know when it will be possible for him to visit us, and to investigate matters personally, to see to what extent he can assist us.

When my time expired, I was explaining to the Minister that his Department of Irrigation, which is not occupied in building big dams at present, can be usefully employed to make the necessary survey in connection with irrigation work in South Africa. I pointed out that the possibilities of the Orange River had not yet been fully investigated, and asked that investigations should be made as to the possibility of leading water from the southern slopes of the Outeniqua mountains by means of a canal, right through to the Karoo, instead of allowing the water to run into the sea. On the face of it it may appear to be a phantasy of the mind, but I am convinced that it is possible. The mountain range is uneven and perhaps the water could be led through the mountain to the northern side, without building a tunnel. If this can be done, then the fertile soil of the Karoo can be utilised. It will be an immense undertaking of the greatest importance. Then I further pointed out that the Irrigation Commission stated in its report that in connection with the various schemes which they investigated they had not yet received a report from the Department on certain questions which they put to the Department. Is the Department so busy that they cannot undertake the necessary investigation and furnish the Irrigation Commission with the required information? I am thinking, for example, of the Meiringspoort scheme. The scheme was investigated, and a drilling machine was sent to test the foundation of the poort, and the Irrigation Commission have reported that they have not yet received further particulars from the Department in connection with this scheme. And so there are numerous other schemes. Let us now come to some finality on the information which we have in our possession. If you have the survey of all the irrigation schemes, then you can frame a plan for the future thereon. I hope the Minister will first obtain all the information and then produce a well-considered irrigation scheme for the future.

I would like to bring the Zeekoe River scheme to the notice of the Minister. There is not the least doubt that it is one of the most beautiful places in South Africa for a dam, but what strongly recommends this dam is this: The silt in those parts is so negligible that it can be compared with the best parts of South Africa. I think this part recommends itself as one where a dam should be constructed. The Minister told me personally that there is not the least chance of building that dam now. Now I want to bring to the notice of the Minister that he places those farmers on the banks of the river in a very awkward position. One of the riparian owners told me: “I am in a precarious position. I do not know when the dam will be constructed. I cannot make any improvements. I want to build a shed, but I cannot make any improvements because I do not know when the dam will be built. If I build it now, I might be throwing money into the water.” It will be to the benefit of those riparian owners if they could know what the intentions of the Minister are. I want to ask him whether he is going to wait until after the war? Say, for instance, that the war still lasts a long time, what are his intentions then? The Minister himself feels that there should be a fodder bank in those parts. I want to ask the Minister whether he thinks it is advisable to postpone the building of that dam until after the war? Will the Minister not be prepared to make provision for funds next year to build the dam? Those parts are terribly neglected. Then I also want to bring these points to the notice of the Minister. We have all heard about the Van der Kloof scheme, the promised scheme. That Van der Kloof scheme has practically become a name in South Africa which we all know. The Minister has now said that it is intended to build a dam higher up in the Karoo. I want to ask him if it is his intention also to wait until after the war with that scheme, or is there a possibility that funds will be made available before then to build this dam? We cannot go on like this. By postponing the building of these dams the Minister might provisionally save the interest on the money. The Minister is familiar with the North-West, he certainly knows that the North-West is one of the best parts of South Africa, but subject to terrible drought, and if a dam could be constructed there which would bring the water over a great portion of the North-West then there is no doubt that there will be space for thousands more people in South Africa because, as I have already said, there is nothing wrong with the fertility of the soil. All that we want is water, and if he takes into consideration the great losses caused annually by the drought in the North-West, thousands and thousands of sheep are killed by drought, then he will realise how necessary it is to construct dams there. I almost pleaded day and night with the Minister for mealies, the people require mealies to trek with their stock, but they cannot get them, and their stock must die under those circumstances. The Minister of Finance lately talks of millions of pounds. I want to ask the Minister to appeal to the Minister of Finance for the necessary funds to build that dam. It will be productive debt. Even if a water scheme in South Africa will never pay, you will not be throwing money into the water. Such a scheme has many indirect advantages, even if there is the danger that the scheme as such is unprofitable. I hope that the Minister will make a statement in connection with this matter. Then there is another matter which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister and that is the urgent necessity for more drills in the North-West. The Minister knows that in my constituency there is only one. At this stage I want to express my gratitude to the Minister for the concession which he has so far granted us. A place like Williston has applied for a drill. The people there need a drill, and the Department has expressed its willingness to send one there, but they will have to wait at least eighteen months before the drill arrives. A drill is something which moves slowly, as the Minister knows, and another eighteen months will probably elapse before it arrives at Williston. Could not another drill be made available seeing that the North-West is now passing through the seven lean years? I feel that the Minister should alter his policy in connection with drills. Just as I felt in connection with the soil erosion policy I also feel that the time has come when the Government should regard this as a national matter. I feel that the Government should take the machinery and go from place to place and correct matters. I request the hon. Minister that he should make drills available and that he should go from farm to farm and see that every farm has water. The Department often tells me that there are small drills, but the nature of the North-West is such that almost 90 per cent. of the private roads are a failure, and I feel that the Minister should make enough drills available so that every farm can have water. It has been brought to my notice that one farmer has had to cart water to his farm during the last 30 years. I saw with my own eyes how drinking water had to be carted to the farm over a distance of six miles. The Minister is himself a farmer and he will realise that such things cannot continue, and yet the people have to do it from year to year. Can the Minister not say to these people: I will give the North-West a couple of drills to assist those people? We will be very grateful to him if he could make this provision.

I just want to express my thanks to the Minister for the provision which he has made for more water for man and beast, in response to representations which were made to him. If there is one evil in South Africa which is perhaps greater than any other evil in this country, then it is the erosion evil, and this causes more irreparable harm than can be estimated, and I feel convinced that the Department of Lands is the proper body to do its share in connection with this question, and I have not the slightest doubt that under the administration of the present Minister of Lands, the Department will also contribute its share. What is an encouraging sign to me is the fact that the townsmen are also beginning to take an interest in this important, question. Recently a technicolour film was shown in Port Elizabeth. It was accompanied by lectures given by Dr. van Rensburg and Dr. Fick. It was financed by Mr. Neil Boss of Port Elizabeth. I have letters here from the South African Voters’ Association of Port Elizabeth, addressed to myself and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Col. Wares), and it was decided that I should raise the question here, and submit it to the Minister. I should like to read to the House the suggestions which are made by this association—

1. (1) That immediate steps be taken to prohibit all burning of the surface vegetation whether for grazing or for any other purpose, except under the supervision of a suitably trained expert from the Soil Erosion Division of the Department of Agriculture.
2. (2) That an amount of not less than £1,000,000 (one million) be budgeted for in the supplementary estimates to be earmarked for increasing the trained personnel and labour staff necessary for a concerted attempt to arrest the present disastrous progress of erosion.
3. (3) That returned and discharged soldiers be given preference in the selection of candidates for training in soil reclamation.
4. (4) That the Government requests all municipalities to undertake composting of all garbage, night-soil, etc., as a war emergency measure, and that a pamphlet describing the correct measure of procedure of composting (Indore process) be drawn up by the Agricultural Department and circulated to all municipalities. If this is carried out with despatch, large quantities of humus far superior to any chemical fertiliser can be made available to the farmers within a year, and the process of building up our soil could commence on a large scale.

I feel that the association has made constructive suggestions here, and I hope that the department will give serious consideration to these suggestions, and endeavour to give effect to them.

In my constituency, Waterberg, there are two rivers, one is called the Palala and the other with the name of Pongola or Magol. Both rivers convey an enormous quantity of water practically throughout the year, with the exception of one or two months, and they flow through a very fertile region. If dams were to be constructed there, an Eldorado could be created in so far as agriculture is concerned. The Minister visited those parts recently, but before he came he sent Mr. Henry Moll to apparently prepare the way. The Minister then arrived there and held a meeting. Now I want to ask the Minister whether the information conveyed to me is correct. My information is that he, the Minister, told the people that they should have dams there and that he would see to it that they got dams. If he does then he will definitely do very good work. With that I therefore find no fault. But I want to know whether it is correct that he told them that to a certain extent I am to blame for the fact that they have not yet got dams there, that if they had a better member, they would probably have had the dams there. That is the information which I received. According to my information, he accused me of dereliction of duty and he said that if they sent another member they would have had those dams long ago. I hope the Minister will reply to this. It will be interesting to know whether the Minister tried to undermine the present member in that way. Apart from this aspect of the matter, if it is possible to build irrigation dams in those two rivers, you would place two of the most fertile parts of the Transvaal under irrigation. As I have already stated, the soil is fertile, the climate is good and then you would create in those parts, which at the present moment are only suitable for stockfarming, the means of being able to make a living for a great number of settlers, and I hope that the Minister will give this matter his consideration. But that is not all. Waterberg is one of the districts which has so many rivers, which drain off a lot of water during the summer months. Then you also have the great Nile River which comes through the mountains, and the Olifantspoort River. From Nylstroom to Potgietersrust you have for a distance of more or less sixty miles, a level piece of country which is so level that you can hardly notice the flow of the river water. It is fairly level and shallow. There also, if the necessary dams are constructed, you can place the most fertile soil in the Transvaal under irrigation. I want to know from the Minister whether he would not make the necessary investigation to ascertain whether there is an opportunity for the building of the necessary storage dams here. In the past the matter has received a certain amount of attention. I trust that more effective investigation will be conducted. But as regards this other point which I raised, viz. what the Minister said there about me, I would like to have some information from the Minister.

I am afraid my time would be too limited if I were to try now to finish before the House adjourns. In that case I really would have to skimp my replies.

Take your time; we can go on tomorrow.

I have only a few minutes at my disposal now and if I would have to finish now, I could not possibly reply fully to all the points that have been raised. I think we better continue with it tomorrow. The first question I want to deal with is the problem of soil erosion to which the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) referred. It is quite true that according to Section 5 (c) of the Irrigation and Conservation of Water Act, the Department of Irrigation has to incur the necessary expenditure and to provide the necessary advice in regard to the prevention of erosion and the Department of Agriculture consequently gives the advice and they look after the erosion problem and its prevention. That is the policy followed by the Government. Previous governments followed the same policy and I am afraid I cannot do much about it unless the Government were to decide that the matter of soil erosion be transferred to the Irrigation Department. I fully agree with the hon. member for Oudtshoorn that I have in my Irrigation Department all the experts who are able to deal efficiently with the problem. It is especially important that we should take effective steps in regard to our water sources, our mountain ranges, and to have a proper survey made of them. Recently I visited the Soutpansberg district and I also went to Letaba and I must say that this is becoming a very serious problem. Streams which were running strongly and which had been running since the days those parts became inhabited are beginning to give in now and the reason for it at Soutpansberg, for instance, is that near Louis Trichardt the land is being ploughed right up to the krantzes of the mountain. The natives there plough every piece of land available and with every rain the soil washes away. When you go to Letaba you will find that all the land round the source of the river is native land and owing to mountain fires and the chopping down of trees the water gets less and less. One of the most serious problems we are faced with in this country is the conservation of our water sources. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn said that as we do not intend going in for erosion schemes at present, he thinks my Department has no work to do and he therefore recommends that my Department should be kept busy with a wide and comprehensive survey in regard to the various water schemes in this country. It is always flung at my head that these schemes are absolutely essential. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) said that the Government should supply drills and he spoke of several schemes which ought to be constructed. Hon. members on the other side asked why we should have to wait until after the war and they want to know why the Government cannot commence constructing these schemes now and why the Government cannot now go in for a comprehensive policy in regard to boring. It is really unnecessary to repeat it, but I must say again that it is futile to think that we can go in for extensive schemes during the war and the reason for it is obvious. It is not a question of funds. The money is there but most of the men of our Irrigation Department, most of our technical staff, are on active service. Fifty-three per cent. of our technical staff is away on active service and the people are not available. They have all gone and the result is that all those schemes will inevitably have to wait until the war is over. But—and this I want to urge upon the hon. member for Oudtshoorn—my Department with the staff at its disposal has investigated more schemes, done more trigonometrical and other survey work in connection with the post-war irrigation policy which will then be executed than has been done during many years before the war. My Department has worked out in detail 33 schemes for construction during the post-war period. I have the names of the various schemes here but I shall not give them to the House now for it may be possible that alterations may be made here and there and if I were to announce the details now and if they would not be executed in accordance with such announcement, the people would reproach us for not fulfilling our promises. But here we have a series of schemes for the post-war period which will be put into execution immediately our technical staff has returned. The Caledon River scheme tops the list. I am often told that all this is merely illusory and that I go round the country and talk humbug. I just want to say this: I have not yet made any promises in connection with our irrigation undertakings which this Government does not intend to put into effect. In the past the policy in this country was as follows. The Irrigation Department decided to build a weir, wherever it might be, and when that weir was completed the people were mostly dismissed, people who had been trained especially for the work on that particular scheme. Some time after that the Government decided to go in for another scheme and they then had to collect people again to do the work. The irrigation department has now been organised in such a way that once we start constructing these schemes, there will not again be a lapse between one scheme and the next. We shall start with two or three schemes and thereafter proceed with the following ones. Here we have a series of schemes which will keep us going for twelve years running.

What will they cost?

At the top of the list we have the Caledon scheme. It may be that when we come to the actual execution of schemes we shall have to give preference to one scheme and put another scheme lower down the list. For that reason I do not want to divulge the names at this stage.

What will they cost?

Let me first say what the policy will be in regard to these schemes. I want to explain that. In the past the irrigation policy in this country was that wherever a weir was built or an irrigation scheme which was constructed, there also had to be a settlement near to it. That was the only policy. It has been said before and it has been repeatedly said here in this House, that the production of the various settlements means competition for the ordinary farmer, and that the product of the settlement is heavily subsidised by the State with the result that that subsidised product, whatever it may be, potatoes or anything else, coming from the settlements, is seriously competing against the farmer and blocks the market both for the farmer and for the settler, and that consequently the whole economic position is becoming dislocated owing to that policy of establishing one settlement after another. We therefore came to the conclusion that the matter of future settlements has reached saturation point. We cannot go on establishing more settlements for the following reason: Although today the demand for the products of the settlements, whatever the products may be, is so tremendous and there is already a surplus today in spite of that great and abnormal demand for those products, the position will be one day when these settlements are fully developed that we shall have a surplus of these products in our country unless there is a tremendous increase in the consumption or an increase in our population. The policy of the Government is now that in spite of the fact that we no longer can go in for settlements on irrigation schemes, we shall still be damming up rivers and that on a larger scale than in the past. How are we going to do that? I am going to announce the policy of the Government of which I have already given indications in the past. I know that it has often been said that it is all nonsense that we are going to dam up the rivers. I can, however, state here that it is the determined policy of the Government to do so and that we shall supply the water to the farmers. The first one I want to mention here is the scheme of the Caledon, Vet and Sand Rivers. In connection with the Vet and Sand Rivers a certain amount of money has already been made available in the Estimates. I want to explain that these three schemes will link up and that once the scheme is completed altogether, we shall be able to irrigate approximately 50,000 morgen. That means that we shall be able to supply water to approximately 3,000 farms of 20 to 30 morgen each. We are engaged in boring activities on the Caledon River near Ficksburg to find out whether the foundations there are suitable.

Are you already making provision on the Estimates although the work is to commence only after the war?

We put a certain amount of money on the Estimates because we have to start on the preliminary work. Allow me to make some further remarks about the Caledon River. The idea is to construct the weir at Ficksburg and from there to conduct the water through a tunnel. That tunnel will be 21 miles long and it will then be possible to lead the water to the Winburg and Odendaalsrust districts. Part of the water will be allowed to go into the Vet and Sand Rivers. Canals will be constructed to supply the various farms with water. Every few years we have a drought in our country causing very great losses. I received figures from the Department of Agriculture showing that owing to the drought of 1933 the losses in stock amounted to approximately £21,000,000. In that amount the indirect losses are not included. According to the statement of the Department of Agriculture there has been a drought before that which caused losses amounting to £35 million. Those were only the direct losses. The idea is that when we construct these irrigation works, we shall be able to cut out many of these losses by enabling farmers in those districts of periodic droughts to virtually protect themselves by establishing fodder banks. That is going to be the future irrigation policy of the Government. Allow me to state in connection with these schemes that the Irrigation Department has worked out all details for about thirty schemes which I have here on my list.

Is it not possible to read it out to us?

No, I cannot do so. If I now were to read out the schemes in the sequence in which they appear here, statements would immediately be made that I promised that I would construct the schemes in that sequence, and if we should find at some future date that we cannot keep to that sequence, it will be said that I broke my promises. I have to safeguard the liberty of my Department to execute the schemes according to circumstances. I mentioned one scheme here which is going to be a very big scheme. I think that the House will agree with me that the best policy will be to invest money in irrigation undertakings. In that way we shall to a large extent protect those parts of the country which are ravaged by droughts, against the result of those droughts. The value of the land will increase and the population will be able to increase. We can for instance consider the north-western parts of the Cape Province. If we can supply water to the farms there which have a low rainfall, we can convert those parts into a paradise. The grazing there is good, but they have these droughts there and in the manner indicated we can insure the farmers against the severe losses they experience from time to time.

Are you sure you are not just dreaming now?

That is what we get from the hon. member. When we try to do something and formulate a policy, he wants to suggest that it is mere talk in view of the coming election. This is not a dream; we are dealing with hard facts. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn said that we should do survey work on a more extensive scale. My reply to that is that we are already doing so, as I have indicated. These schemes are large schemes which will take a long time. The details have all been worked out. In regard to the Caledon River scheme we shall establish model villages at certain spots where the people working on the canals can be housed. They will be able to take their families there and it will not be necessary for them to live there without their families as was the practice in the past. They will obtain small plots of land there and water so that they can do some gardening. Schools will be built and the villages will be established on a permanent basis. They will receive free medical services in accordance with the policy of the Government that the living conditions of these people shall be on a higher level after the war than they were in the past. When the schemes are completed the Department of Social Welfare will take over those villages for old and semi-fit people, the class of persons for which that Department bears the responsibility. That Department will then have a permanent place where they can settle such persons.

At 5.40 p.m. the Deputy-Chairman stated that in accordance with the Sessional Orders adopted on the 28th January and 26th March, 1943, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 24th April.