When the House adjourned I had drawn the Minister’s attention to what had occurred in America, where Congress passed a resolution that taxation should be reduced by one-fifth. There is a conflict on this point between the House of Representatives, the Senate and the President, and I consider that our policy here should also be to reduce taxation if we want to develop our industries. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that since 1939 the burden of taxation in our country has been increased by £71,000,000. while the interest that we have to pay this year runs into an additional £1,874,800. Why is America taking the steps she has? America is doing this because she finds that she cannot maintain the industries of the country nor afford the opportunity for them to develop. But if industries are taxed to the extent that they are taxed in this country, we know that it will be totally impossible for new industries to start. But there is another matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister; it is our obligations under lease-lend. This matter was discussed in this House last year. The Prime Minister was asked what the obligations of South Africa were under lease-lend. I shall now quote his answer, from Hansard, volume 45, column 3272—

An hon. member on this side of the House then asked a question, by way of interjection—

And another hon. member on this side asked—

The Prime Minister went on to say—

An hon. member on this side of the House asked, by way of interjection—

The Prime Minister’s remarks were continued as follows—

In answer to a question it was further emphasised by the Prime Minister that we were paying nothing for that, but what do we find now? We find that an intimation has appeared in the local newspapers …

When was that statement made?

Last year.

On what date?

The Prime Minister made the statement on the 12th March, 1943. Now we find that the following announcement from Washington appeared in the local newspapers on the 15th November, 1943—

Now we should like to know what the truth is. The Prime Minister stated in March last year, that we had accepted no obligations. He said that negotiations were in progress, and now as the lease-lend system has been explained to the world, it appears that the position is as follows : For the assistance that you grant us we are giving to you the use of certain goods, and we are leasing certain goods to you. We had thought that there would be no final settlement. But what is the actual condition of affairs? It is disturbing for South Africa. At this stage South Africa has to be selected as one of the countries which must not be treated on the same footing as England and other countries, on account of South Africa’s large liquid assets. What does it mean?

Then this announcement is altogether wrong. According to that statement there are negotiations, just as the Prime Minister has said.

But what does it mean? Will there eventually be an account sent to us that we shall have to pay? The country requires a full explanation from the Prime Minister or from the Minister of Finance on this question. Then there is another matter. Some weeks ago on the Supplementary Estimates, we voted £25,000 for Unrra. And then this question was put to the Prime Minister—

The Prime Minister could tell us nothing. He could merely say that an agreement had been made by this Government that £25,000 would be devoted to that purpose. We on this side of the House maintain that this is a premature policy. We should know what our obligations are under that agreement. The whole matter is in the air. We also find that the sum of £250,000 appears in the Estimates for the same purpose, and these are the words of the Minister of Finance in this connection—

If you assume obligations and if you must vote £250,000 for such a matter then you must know definitely what your obligations are. You cannot just lightly spend that £250,000. We on this side of the House protest against that course; we say that it is not proper that the people should assume this obligation without knowing how far the obligation extends. As far as obligations are concerned, we were in the past associated with the League of Nations. America also assumed obligations, and when those obligations had to be met, America was the first country to withdraw. Russia remained neutral. Here there are again indications that precisely the same thing is going to happen. I have before me a communication from Atlantic City which reads as follows—

Here we have one of the big Allies of the United Nations already defining to what extent its obligations will extend. Its obligations will not extend to the East because it is still at peace with Japan. Although it is an Ally of the United Nations, it is looking after its own interests. We come here, however, and with our eyes closed we vote £250,000 for a matter about which we know absolutely nothing and which is quite vague. Accordingly, it is not surprising that news recently came from Washington to the following effect—

order to find how this increase is made up. Maintenance, care and welfare of the physically and mentally handicapped shows an increase of £45,405. Sustenance allowances for unfit persons represents an increase of £35,750. Child welfare shows an increase of £30,100; that is all. That is the amount of the increase, though this is one of the matters that the Government should have tackled in order to provide for the youth of our country. We recall the address given by the Minister of Finance last year in which he said that we must maintain a healthy nation, and yet we find an increase of only £30,100 for child welfare. Then we come to the beautiful scheme that the Minister of Finance announced last year with reference to the £1,000,000 that was placed on the estimates for meals for children. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) believed the Minister, and congratulated him on the allotment of the amount of £1,000,000 for meals. I have enquired into this matter, and if hon. members will turn to page 148 of the Estimates of Expenditure, they will see under Vote 29, item 11, school feeding scheme, an amount of £200,000. There we have the State-aided milk and cheese scheme £50,000, and the State-aided butter scheme £100,000. Then there is an increase of £100 on another item, so that the increase is £100,100 in all. Even the hon. members on the other side of the House have been misled, because they considered that this year £1,000,000 would have been placed on the estimates in connection with this matter, while there is only a paltry £200,000 allowed for in the estimates. Then we come to another instance; that is public health. Here we have an increase of £122,500. Let us examine this increase. Here we have a Government which claims that it will look after the poor of the country, and what is the increase in connection with poor relief—£5,000. Then there is an increase in connection with infectious diseases; after provision is made for the usual increase of £5,000 that is the only increase that I can find. Then there are the refunds to local authorities of £22,700 which is the usual provision under the law. But in connection with public health there is only this increase of £5,000 in connection with poor relief. Then we come to another vote, education. There we have an increase of £84,626. I had expected that something impressive would take place in connection with the extension of our technical education, more especially seeing that there are numbers of our lads of eighteen who have gone to the front, and who will return and require training. Provision must be made for them so that they can become skilled artisans. But we have only an increase of £84,626, and the largest item in this connection is for the Witwatersrand Technical College, which will receive an additional £22,000 as a result of the usual expansion of that institution. Then we turn to physical culture. We thought that the Government would produce a scheme for physical culture that would be extended to the country and that there would be centres where people could go to receive physical training—something in the nature of State gymnasiums. We find on the estimates, hoewever, nothing more than a paltry amount that appears in the estimates every year in connection with one instructor. Where now are the plans of a Government who were to look after the improvement of the health of the nation? After the Minister had enquired into these things, and was absolutely satisfied with his schemes, he said that should we attempt to embark on new social services or to effect a far-reaching alteration in the character of such services, and do it on a large scale, then our present administrative machinery would break down. We do not expect that this will be done on a great scale at present, but we do expect that a start should be made to indicate to the public in what direction the Government will proceed to ameliorate conditions. I consider that the present estimates are one of the biggest disappointments if we analyse them in relation to the social services that the people are entitled to receive. If we turn to the actual estimates and see how the Minister says that this and that source has been exhausted, then we discover that there remains only one portion of the people, namely, the lower income group, and that the Minister very likely intends to tax them next year. This lower income group will apparently be taxed next year, if I am reading between the lines of the Minister of Finance’s budget speech correctly. It is exactly that part of the population who are in receipt of the lower incomes, whose condition the Government should try to improve, so that they could increase their physical powers, and thus be in a better position to do service. The health of the nation must be looked to, but we see precious little in that direction in the estimates. On the contrary, we know that it is very likely the Minister of Finance will come next year, if circumstances continue as at present, and tell us that he has no alternative but to impose a tax on the lower income group. That is the warning for the year 1945-’46, as I see it.

Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the Budget it is not my intention to clothe myself in the robes of a High Priest of Finance or to claim an expert knowledge I do not possess. I may think it a pity to tax cigarettes—the poor man’s one luxury; I may feel that the mines, notwithstanding that they were able only to pay £19 million dividends last year, could well have borne the value of that tax. I may welcome the tax on fortified wine and regret it as overdue, but the important fact which emerges from the consideration of this budget is how lucky we are in comparison with other belligerent nations that in a time of war we could meet our commitments with so little real inconvenience and personal sacrifice. There are, however, two features of this budget which are viewed by us on these benches with real gratification. The first is the inclusion of the native people within the benefits of old age and invalidity pensions and secondly the provision of funds beyond the ordinary fixed sum and out of General Revenue for native education. The amounts involved are not large but they have a greater value than mere money, in that they are a recognition of the citizenship of the African, bringing with it the right to share in the General Revenue of the Union for his uplift and in his old age. When, Mr. Speaker, you offer a gift, however small, to a native he accepts it with both hands not as an indication of greed but as a tribute to your generosity as if to say one hand could never hold a gift of yours. So too when you have helped him he will tribute your untiring kindness by saying : “Don’t be tired tomorrow”. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the African people I accept your gift with both hands and I say to you: “Don’t be tired even tomorrow”. It was a matter of considerable regret and disappointment to me when the hon. member for Waterberg, Mr. J. G. Strydom, should have criticiesd the inclusion of the African people in the provisions for old age benefits. Even he, Mr. Speaker, had to admit that a provision of 10s. per month for 60,000 natives would not be by any means sufficient. He pointed out that there were more than 600,000 natives over 60 years of age who would have to be provided for—an enlightening comment upon the economic state of the native people. But the hon. member stated that this token of payment would have a serious effect upon the country and would constitute a heavy burden upon the European tax payer. My reply to that statement is that the native, because of his low economic standard, is the most highly taxed individual in the country and that it is impossible to estimate his immense contribution in indirect taxation; our own European prosperity is due to his energy; every mine that has been developed, every railway and road built and every industry started on the basis of the sacrifice of blood and sweat by African labour and finally that in making these payments we are offering a tardy and just recognition of this fact. In the short time at my disposal I would like to deal briefly with the possible re-organisation of the Native Affairs Department. I would emphasise in the beginning that for many years the Native Affairs Department was the Cinderella of all Government Departments—it had no separate portfolio and was an appendage to the Prime Minister’s Department. I believe it was General Hertzog who first appointed a separate Ministry of Native Affairs and as far as my memory serves me, the first Minister of Native Affairs was Dr. Jansen. In passing may I say this about the present holder of that portfolio—that many of us who claim an intimate acquaintance with Native Affairs are pleased to see the interest he is taking in that Department and to comment, without I trust either impertinence or patronage, that he appears to be determined to obtain a first-hand knowledge of the facts concerning the life and problems of the people committeed to his charge. In more recent years, the Native Affairs Department has undergone a rehabilitation and that rehabilitation is due to a very large degree to the dynamic personality of Mr. D. L. Smit, the Secretary for Native Affairs— a tower of strength to his Ministry and an unfailing friend to his staff. I have on many occasions differed from Mr. Smit but I have personally never had occasion to doubt his bona fides nor had to underestimate the great value of his influence in relation to the strides made in native development in recent years, which are largely due to his efforts. In my criticism of that officer I try to remember always that he is in the first place a servant of the Government and bound by its policy. But, Mr. Speaker, even his efforts could not make good the ravages of years of neglect. The time has come to take stock of the position. The situation in the past has been that promising young men saw no future in the Department of Native Affairs and in order to find an outlet for their ability and their proper ambition they sought employment in other departments more particularly the sister department of Justice. If we compare the estimates in the Native Affairs and Justice offices, the situation becomes clear. For the purpose of this comparison the magistrates, Department of Justice, should be regarded as the counterpart of the Native Commissioners in the Department of Native Affairs. Under magistrates in the Justice Vote, we find that there is one magistrate drawing £1,450 a year, three drawing £1,250 per year, four drawing £1,150, 13 drawing £1,050, 39 drawing £950 and 223 drawing from £500 to £850. In the sister service of Native Affairs we find the Chief Native Commissioners drawing £1,250 per annum, one drawing £1,050, seven drawing £950 and 46 drawing £750. There are, therefore, only six persons in the Native Affairs Department drawing more than £1,000 per annum against 21 in the Department of Justice and seven drawing £950 per annum as against 39 in the Department of Justice. In these figures will be found the reason why the Justice Department has attracted many men who would, under better conditions, have entered the service of the Native Department and would have been of inestimable value to the native administration. I have in mind two men with whom I am personally acquainted, Mr. F. H. Klette, chief magistrate of Cape Town, and Col. A. A. Stamford, recently retired as chief of railway Police, who under better conditions would probably have served the Native Affairs Administration. It had been my intention to compare the work and responsibility of a native commissioner with that of a chief magistrate in a large city. I find it difficult to make such a comparison for the reason that in my estimation the duties of the chief magistrate are almost routine whilst the chief native commissioner is virtually a deputy governor. For instance, the Chief Native Commissioner for Transkei, the largest reserve in the Union and in fact the largest in Southern Africa, with a population of 1,250,000 Africans, and the Chief Native Commissioner of Natal with a Zulu population of 800,000 are cases in point, both posts carrying a tremendous and varying responsibility. The defection of promising men was not immediately felt because we still had the services of a number of outstanding men, such as the Stamford’s, the Brownley’s, the Young’s and the Welsh’s but in the course of time the services of these men had been lost and although we have a number of promising young men we still lack a large number of men of the required caliber for so important a work. In passing let me say that I must not be understood to disparage the character, intentions or the loyalty of the present personnel. Far from it, but I emphasise that Native Administration is not merely a job—it is in my view a highly specialised vocation and becoming more so from day to day. We cannot with safety regard it as a job in which merely by the passage of time and no matter how square a peg he may be, the individual will find himself filling a post of great responsibility. To overcome this position and the bottleneck in promotions, we must make the administration attractive to the best men and visualise its activities as highly specialised. My suggestion is, Mr. Speaker, that appointments to the Department of Native Affairs should follow special training and be the result of careful selection; and the right to remain in the service must be determined by the proved fitness of the individual. He must have a good brain, a real knowledge of the people, of their psychology, their language and their customs and above all he must be a man of the highest integrity and possess a real sense of justice. As against these qualities he should be regarded as a specialist and remunerated on a specialist basis. Before passing to the consideration of the urban position, I would emphasise how important it is that native commissioners in rural areas should be in close contact with the people. In former days when carts and horses were the means of transport they spent much time in their districts and they made many and frequent contacts with chiefs, headmen and people. They were thus able at first hand to make correct valuations of happenings and of individuals. I regret very much the passing of this phase. I do not blame the native commissioners who as a result of many added duties find themselves bound to their offices. Nevertheless I regret the change and feel that it has entailed a real loss. Touching on the urban area position one cannot overlook the tremendous changes brought about by economic conditions and expanding industry. It is estimated that today not less than two million natives are permanently in and of the urban area. They present a different and a difficult problem, not because there is anything inherently different between a European and the native earning his living, but because restrictive and repressive legislation such as the Urban Areas Act has made something complicated out of an ordinary everyday happening. I understand that an officer of the Department has been seconded to watch and advise upon the position of the urbanised native. I feel that this appointment should be of a permanent nature and that the post should be filled by an officer who knows the economic conditions and the facts of industrial employment; one who will concern himself with the causes rather than the effects and direct his energies and tender his advice accordingly. For example when it is found that an expanding industrialism and improved wages have attracted large numbers of workers to the Peninsula on the one hand, but that on the other, the Urban Areas Act has made it impossible to house these workers, it is not sufficient merely to stop the flow of labour unless you know that saturation point has been reached, nor to establish depôts and a system of registration which the people resent. It is the duty rather of the Department to expose the failure of the Urban Areas Act and to expose also the hardships and injustices that have resulted from its application. In any other country the claim of the industrial worker to work where he likes or when he likes and to live under decent conditions whilst working would hardly be denied. Why then perpetuate a state of affairs in this country and in this centre which, whilst attracting the worker, denies to him a place to rest his weary head after his day’s work is done? Finally, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Government to open up more avenues of employment to the native people especially in their own Departments and among their own people, and I ask what has been done in this direction? Mr. Speaker, the African native is truly and admittedly an asset to this country; he is the foundation of our prosperity and the basis of our industrial development. We cannot leave him forever a hewer of wood and a drawer of water. If we are wise we will recognise that fact sooner rather than too late.

We have heard in this House two statements of policy, one from the official Opposition, and one from the Labour Party which is represented by the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie). The official Opposition’s amendment is indicated on the Order Paper, but they went further than that in the criticism which they offered this House. Before I deal with their criticism I want to refer to the criticism offered by the Labour Party. Now, it has becoming increasingly evident this last year or two that in spite of their being partners with the Government, they are fast becoming the official Opposition. The attacks made this Session by members of that Party, first by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) on one of our Ministers, and the other by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg), and finally the demand which has been put forward now by the hon. member for South Rand on the Government, demanding that certain action be taken, all seem to overlook the fact that they are members of this Government, that, their Leader is a member of the Government, and that they, with that Leader, must share the collective responsibility in the proposals put forward in the Budget, and it is quite useless for them to condemn the Government for the responsibility which finally lies on their shoulders.

Hear, hear.

Now I want to refer to one or two of the statements made by the hon. member for South Rand and I must say that one of the statements he made was the most extraordinary which has ever been heard. The hon. member suggested to the Minister of Finance that he should not raise all his loans in this country, but that he should raise them overseas, and that he should not have taken steps to repay these overseas loans, and the explanation he gave was “see what happened after the last war.”

I did not say that.

I don’t want any interruptions from the hon. member.

On a point of personal explanation I never made such a statement I said that I was not sure but that it was a mistake to have all our loans raised internally, and I gave an example of what happened after the last war. I did not advocate it.

I do not know whether the explanation has added to the hon. member’s reputation, but let me say what the hon. member said to the House. He carefully explained why he considered it was not wise to raise such loans in this country, because, he said, after the last war all countries with the exception of Finland had defaulted. By the way, he forgot to mention South Africa.

On a point of explanation I did mention South Africa.

Then he is the only one who knows that he mentioned it.

It is not in Hansard.

He made the statement that that was one of the reasons why we should consider raising loans overseas. I am sure the hon. member never realised the implications of that. Then he went on to deal with the position of our public debt and he advocated the establishment of a State bank so that loans could be raised free of interest—and those loans would not have to be repaid, and he said that under the present system we could not raise loans in the way we should; under their system we would never have to pay back any loans, and we would never have to pay interest.

Quite so.

Yes, quite so. I want to ask the hon. member whether he and his friends have ever gone into the position of our public debt. Our public debt is held to the extent of £212,000,000 out of a total of £475,000,000 by the Public Debt Commissioners, and of that amount £128,000,000 is in Trust Funds and Deposit Funds. Now, those funds are represented by pension funds, post office savings bank funds, Union loans and so on. All those funds are made up of the savings of the poorer people of this country, and the Government pays interest on those, and they are finding the interest for these loans. Now the Labour Party suggests that they should be wiped out and that no interest should be paid. Now I want to make it perfectly clear to the Labour Party that they should clearly indicate to the country that their policy is that on loans raised in South Africa no inttrest will be paid, all these funds will be wiped out and the poorer people will be deprived of their interest and of their savings. And another matter I want to refer to in passing is this, when the finance policy of the Government is criticised, it should be realised that our public debt position stands at approximately £475,000,000, but I venture to say that there is no other country in the world which has such assets to cover that debt. Of the total amount of £475,000,000 actually two-thirds is held in reproductive interest paying funds. We have our Railways—they are an interest paying concern. There are many other assets also paying interest. Then in addition there are £42,000,000 representing the value of our public buildings, and I venture to say that if we had a stocktaking today it would be found that the assets of this country would completely cover the total of our debt. I say that there is no other country in the world in such a sound position. Now I want to deal with the Opposition’s amendment, and I am sorry the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) and the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) are not here because they made reference to inflation and to cost of living questions which I want to deal with. Let me first of all refer to the official amendment which is on the Order Paper. The Opposition ask the Government to appoint a Commission to have the power to enquire into all war expenditure. I want to ask what is the object of that Commission? If the hon. member had suggested such a Commission in the first year of the war, 1940, and if he had said : “We disagree with your entering the war, but we are now in it so we are going to see that you conduct this war to the best of our ability in a sound and prudent way financially and therefore we want a committee to watch the expenditure”, one could have understood it. That was not done. Instead of that on every occasion they have hampered the war effort, and never once have they helped with any sound financial criticisms. And what happened? It was left to the Government to appoint that committee. The Government realised the necessity for a very close scrutiny of all war expenditure, and in the first year, in 1940, they constituted this committee of which the hon. the Minister of Railways is the chairman, and which was comprised of members of the Treasury and of the Department of Defence. No item of defence expenditure is passed which is not scrutinised by the committee.

Is that really so?

All the main items, all the new items of expenditure are scrutinised. I am not referring specifically to salaries, though I think they are also investigated by that committee. On top of that we have our Public Accounts Committee which, the hon. member will admit, does go very carefully into war expenditure. Then sir, they want to investigate the taxation policy. That seems to me rather stealing somebody else’s thunder. That has already been proposed; the Minister has made that suggestion. He suggested such a committee. Commerce and industry have had a committee investigating those things, and I very much doubt whether committees of this House would get any further by accepting the proposal that has been indicated. What would be implied by adopting that proposal? It would mean that the whole of the work of the Government must be held up until the committee reports and advises a new system of taxation. One cannot but suggest that the proposal put up here is meant as a window dressing measure. With regard to the establishment of industries, the hon. members has made certain proposals as to how industry should be distributed and shared amongst the people of the country; that they should be invited to participate in these industries. I think that a very sound proposition. But let me remind the hon. member that when Iscor was started the whole of its shares were put at the disposal of the public of this country. Commerce and industry did not like it and did not take up the shares. Only about £100,000 was subscribed and not much of that was subscribed from the people of the country; and I doubt very much whether any industrial proposition, such as has been put forward, would find much support in South Africa. One remark that is constantly being made in this House is in regard to the Excess Profits Tax. England has been quoted as an example of how provision is made for that tax to assist industry. Is that correct? In Great Britain they have a tax up to 20s. in the £ for excess profits, and they provide for a refund after the war of 4s. in the £, provided that amount is shown to be needed for capital development. It is not an automatic refund at all. I think I am right in saying that firms, in order to get that refund, will have to prove to the satisfaction of the authorities, that the money is needed and that it is going to be devoted solely towards capital equipment, in the purchase of plant and machinery. In South Africa the position is that the taxpayers are left with 5s. in the £ after paying the Excess Profits Tax, and to that extent they are better off than the taxpayers in England.

Not the whole of the 5s.

There may be still a small amount in respect of trade profits duty levy, but the Excess Profits Tax is not imposed to the same extent as in Great Britain. The main criticism of the hon. member on the Budget, apart from the amendment, was that the Government disclosed no policy of demobilisation and post-war security. That is to me rather an extraordinary criticism. I have never yet heard in a budget—and the hon. member knows himself that a budget is a statement of finance—I have never yet heard a Minister of Finance in his Budget speech outline a policy which rightly falls within the province of another Minister. I have, for instance, never heard a Minister of Finance make any statement on the agricultural policy of the country. That is left for the Minister of Agriculture, and on this occasion the policy of demobilisation is of course a matter for the Minister of Demobilisation. The necessary plans are at present being made, and I have not the slightest doubt the Minister responsible will make a statement.

He should make a statement on the financial position.

Well, if the Minister had come forward before any plans had been laid down, and if he had put a globular sum · on the estimates and said that it was in anticipation of our requirements, the hon. member would have been one of the first to criticise that item. No, on that matter I do not think there is much justification for criticism. What I do want to deal with particularly is the more serious criticisms that have been made with regard to inflation and the cost of living. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges), who was followed by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) expressed criticisms which I think do call for serious consideration. They have referred to facts which exist in other countries, and to the dangers of inflation in this country. I am very glad to see that hon. members on that side of the House are now taking this matter into serious review. The hon. member for Fauresmith gave a statement in which he compared the figures relating to Great Britain and New Zealand with those for this country. I should like to say that as far as I have been able to check them—I have used similar figures myself in previous years—these figures are substantially correct. The hon. member for Waterberg quoted the increased costs of goods and asked why the Government had not taken steps to see that imported goods were brought into the country more cheaply. Before dealing with the cost of living of this country, I want to deal with that of Great Britain. I want to refer to the measures that were taken in Great Britain to keep down the cost of living, particularly the cost of living in respect of food. I would ask the House, in view of the criticisms that have been made, to request the Government that definite steps should be taken, and I should like to know whether hon. members opposite will support the Government in taking similar steps in South Africa as were taken in Great Britain to keep down the cost of living. I think that would be a fair test. The hon. member for Fauresmith gave the combined total index figure of the increased cost of living over 1939 in Great Britain as 28 per cent. I have ascertained that in food the increase is only 22 per cent., clothing 64 per cent., fuel and light 34 per cent., and other items 63 per cent. But spread over the whole, the index is 28 per cent. over 1939. I want to tell the House how that result was achieved. There was a debate on this matter in the House of Commons recently. Details of the food subsidy were given—

In answer to a question put to him in the House of Commons, the British Minister of Labour stated that as far as they could judge at the time the effect of these subsidies was to reduce the cost of living on food in Great Britain by approximately 10 per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said—

So you will see that in Great Britain the only way in which cost of living has been kept down has been by that very extensive system of rationing price control and subsidy. How successful it was may be judged from the fact that the food index is 22 per cent. above the 1939 cost of living index, and a general cost of living index of 28 per cent. The South African food index is 33 per cent. as against the general cost of living index of 26.2 per cent. There are similar figures in regard to America and Canada. Now with reference to the remarks by the hon. member for Waterberg as to why the Minister did not take steps to reduce the cost of imported goods, I would like to give some information to the House. About four months ago I received figures in regard to the increased price of materials; cotton materials were up from, 100 per cent. to 150 per cent.; woollen materials 100 per cent. to 300 per cent; art silk 150 per cent. to 200 per cent., and insurance rates went up from 5s. to £12 10s. and £15. On this particular matter what the Government did was this, and this is where I do not agree with the hon. member for Waterberg. As the goods increased in price, the ratio of profit allowed to merchants was decreased, and it is a significant fact that it is on the imported goods where the closest control was exercised, and in respect of which prices were kept down. When difficulty was experienced in obtaining goods from Great Britain, when this country was practically starved for goods, we went to South America, and goods were imported from that country at high cost. If you wanted to keep cost of living down the only satisfactory way to have dealt with that situation was to have made a total prohibition of goods from the Argentine, and to have instituted a strict system of rationing in respect of all the goods we had in South Africa. The question of the cost of food has been a very popular cry in the last twelve months. But I want to remind the House as far as I am concerned, I have been dealing with this matter for the last three or four years. It was on representations that I made to the Prime Minister that a committee was appointed which resulted eventually in the appointment of the Food Controller. I want to say I am by no means happy about the way that organisation is functioning. A council was appointed two years ago, that council, like many other councils, only met infrequently. Last year when difficulties were being experienced we only met twice, the last time in July, 1943. I see now from a notice in the Government Gazette in January that we have been wiped out of existence, and as a member of the old council that is the first intimation I have had of the matter. Let me say this, I want in passing, if I may, to pay my own tribute to the late Minister of Agriculture, with whom I was associated in this council. It was no fault of his that it was not a greater success. He was placed in a most impossible position, and I know that he did everything that was possible to make that matter a success. If it broke down, it broke down in features that were beyond his control. I know he had it fully at heart. With regard to our own cost of living figures, I want to put this to the hon. members opposite. Are they prepared to subscribe to a policy which will definitely bring down the cost of living? Are they definitely prepared to agree to a strict rationing of goods in short supply, to a rigid price control from producer to consumer, and of subsidies to lower the price to the consumer? Last year when I advocated that policy and urged the House to consider the serious position we were getting into in connection with our meat and other foodstuffs, when I said then that the only way to deal with this problem, in my opinion, was rationing and food subsidies, I ask the House to remember what reception that proposal received in this House. I think I am right in saying that it was the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. H. F. Bekker) who laughed at the proposal and said that it was, of course, the middleman again who was trying to do the farmer down. Let me remind the House that the price of practically every commodity except meat— mealiemeal, groceries, dairy products and bread—the price of all these commodities was fixed to the consumer. It is not a question of the retailer being able to make greater profits. As a matter of fact, in regard to the question of mealie meal, which is used by roughly 70 per cent. of the population, after the increase in the price of maize it was inevitable that mealie meal should go up in price, yet today there is less profit in the sale of mealie meal than there was in the old days, when the price was very much lower. There is only one way in which you can bring down the cost of living, and that is by an extensive system of subsidies, which will reduce the cost to the consumer, but I regret I have no time to go into further aspects of this matter.

Tell the House where the Minister gets his millions excess profit from, if everything is so well controlled.

I am quite prepared to discuss the Excess Profits Tax with anyone in this House when the relative Bill comes up; that will come up later, but I do not want to be put off by that at present. I should like to say in conclusion on the question of the rationing of food products. During this war we have never suffered in regard to food. We have had ample supplies. I want to draw attention to the fact that every other country in the Allied Nations is rationing itself, cutting down its own consumption of food, to help not only Great Britain but the devastated countries of Europe. We alone of all those countries are not doing so, and I say that it is up to us to consider how far we should play our part by rationing ourselves in regard to food and other goods that we have at our disposal, so that we shall be able to help and send necessary supplies to those devastated countries of Europe when the time comes.

Taken by and large, I think we have every reason to be grateful to the hon. the Minister of Finance for his reasonable and fair budget. We know that it is very difficult to budget in war time, and I am particularly mindful of the vocal display and manual gesticulations of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). But even he, with his abundant sense of fair play, will admit that the war time ramifications and activities of the country are so great that they do not lead to easy budgeting, I would therefore, like to add my small quota of appreciation to the Minister of Finance for the masterly way in which he handled the budget in this critical time and under such difficult circumstances. There are one or two observations I too would like to make, and these will be confined to education and health. It is my considered opinion—and I do not stand alone in this opinion—that the advance of the country runs parallel with the research work produced in its scientific and other activities. We have a Research Grant Board, and this Research Grant Board doles out assistance to members of university staffs and others who are interested in scientific investigation. I say “doles out” advisedly. Those who are anxious to receive financial assistance to investigate certain propositions in the country, make application to this board, but what can the board do? It is almost too ludicrous to relate, Mr. Speaker, that the allocation for this board for the whole of South Africa is the princely sum of £5,000 a year.

It is absurd.

Yes, it is grossly absurd. We in South Africa, although we have no right to claim a place on the scientific map of the world as yet, have numerous sources for scientific research. I cite medicine, I cite agriculture. I cite geology, and I also add oceanography. We have had an insight on a previous occasion in respect of what can be done in oceanographical research. But £5,000 will not go very far, and I am quite certain that the Minister of Finance will not forget in future that there are many folks who look for financial assistance to the Research Grant Board, and that he will double, treble or quadruple this meagre grant. Far more important than the Research Grant Board is the question of the Universities. When I speak of education and health being among the most important factors in the progress of any nation, I assume that there is not one single member in the House who will differ from me, and when I speak of education I include primary, secondary and higher education. As primary and secondary education is dealt with by another body, I shall confine my remarks to the higher education at the Universities. We have in South Africa four Universities, Pretoria, Witwatersrand, Stellenbosch and the University of Cape Town. I find that the Universities are collectively granted the sum of about £400,000 a year. Now, Mr. Speaker, £400,000 seems a big sum of money. I hope to show presently that that sum is hopelessly inadequate in a country with a national income of from £450,000,000 to £500,000,000 a year. We are spending £400,000 in globular figures, on the higher education of the country; that is to say, we are spending less than one-thousandth of the national income on higher education. I cannot speak with authority on the Universities of Witwatersrand, Pretoria and Stellenbosch, but I can do so on the University of Cape Town, with which I am well acquainted. I presume the remarks I make are of general application to the other Universities. Mr. Speaker, when I survey the budget I find that the University of Cape Town receives a £100,000 grant from the Minister of Finance (no doubt after due consultation with the Minister of Education.) When I make a plea for an increase, the Minister of Finance will, no doubt, say: “I have reviewed the returns of the University of Cape Town, and I find that it has in the last few years declared a slight surplus”. That is true, there may be a surplus of a few hundreds, or even of £1,000 but I want to point out, however; that it is a fictitious surplus which is attributable to cheeseparing methods. In the first place, there are five professorial chairs vacant, and so a minimum of £5,000 a year has been saved in that way. Secondly, I submit to him as a former principal of a University and as Minister of Education, that the salaries paid to a senior lecturer are inadequate — hopelessly inadequate. A senior lecturer, by dint of hard work and contribution to the stock of human knowledge, by doing research, may in the fulness of time draw the princely salary of £650 a year. That senior lecturer is assuming professorial rank in so far as he is the understudy of a professor, in the absence of whom he takes complete control of the department. This, of course, holds good with all the Universities. The junior lecturer furnishes the third method by which we save. He draws a salary of £400 to £500 a year. I need say no more than that they draw a salary not equal to a high school teacher’s salary—which is also far too low. The fourth method by which Universities save is by the gross underpayment of the non-European staff. If I repeat the payment of the non-European staff, it will be shocking. A non-European worker whose hours are from 8 o’clock in the morning until 6 o’clock in the. evening is paid £1 10s. a week, and after ten years’ of successful service his case comes up for further consideration for an increase of is. a week. I may mention that some of these non-European workers in the Universities take part in the research work. In my department when I was there, one or two non-European workers assisted in this way. So the hon. the Minister of Finance will see how by methods such as these, savings have been effected here and there. I repeat that the saving is purely fictitious. Now I come to another item which we have to consider. These universities, especially Stellenbosch, which has topped the 2,000 mark in students this year, are continually looking for more “lebensraum”; that also is a serious strain on the finances of the university. The Minister will tell you that he is prepared to advance the money on loan, but a loan remains a loan and the interest has to be paid, while no doubt the capital also will have to be repaid in time. While these senior lecturers and junior lecturers are in receipt of such salaries—our professors get £1,000 a year, whereas the minimum salary for a professor overseas is £2,000 or more. Thus these folks are continually making application to the universities for permission to do extra-mural work. When professors or lecturers, people in that walk of life, are looking for avenues by which they can supplement their salaries, it is not conducive to the production of research work in the university. After all, we look on the university staffs as people who should add to the stock of human knowledge by doing research, but they are continually being harried by lack of funds, and so they must of necessity, seek pastures new. Hon. members know perfectly well that it is not a good advertisement for a university when it does not contribute its quota to research. There are certain departments on the Witwatersrand and in Cape Town which are doing research work under difficult conditions, but in my experience in Cape Town—going over a long period of years—I do not know of a single student whom we have attracted from any part of the world for any research problem. We have attracted no one because we have not got the facilities for research work and we are not putting South Africa on the map. Our professors and lecturers are concerned with too much teaching, teaching, teaching, and with very little time for research. The simple fact is that they have not got the time, and they have not got the time because they have to supplement their incomes, and that has to be done mostly extra-murally. I now come to another very serious matter. It involves the whole country and I have no doubt that even in this House there are many parents who are dissatisfied with the attitude of the universities in regard to exclusion of students wanting to study medicine. You will be told that students are excluded from the faculty of medicine because they have not got a first class matric, or because they have not done as well as others. I can tell you of men who have obtained their B.Sc. who have not been admitted to the university.

It is an absolute scandal.

These students are excluded and you will be told by the Medical Faculty at Pretoria and elsewhere that they have not got room for them. In Johannesburg they have only been able to accept 180 out of 350 applicants. Cape Town, too, has closed its doors to any more, and the result is that we have many boys from the platteland with a good scholastic career who cannot be admitted. We are told that the fault lies with the authorities; that it is impossible to teach these students because there are not sufficient teaching hospitals. Well, the suggestion has been made here in Cape Town that, in addtion to having the Groote Schuur Hospital, they could co-opt the assistance of other hospitals. The suggestion has been made to the Cape Town University that it should co-opt the assistance of the Rondebosch Cottage Hospital, of the Wynberg Hospital, and of other hospitals. But in reply they say: “We have not got the staff to teach these students”; and this is correct. Why haven’t they? Because they cannot afford to engage more staff, and the whole matter resolves itself into a question of money, and who are we of the University Council—I am a member of it—who are we to say that a student who has passed his matriculation first class will be better than the one who has passed third class?

Quite so.

We have no right to say that. But unfortunately we have to have some standard. It was suggested that we might have a Board to examine the prospective medical men. Well, that is very difficult. Who of us would have taken certain members of this House into the University at the age of 14 or 15 and rejected others? We cannot assess the value of the child adequately, and so we have to adopt academic means. The Minister of Education is very helpful in so far that he said: “If that, is your position I shall have to pass the necessary law.” This he did. When this matter was discused I was in the minority, and I am glad to remain in the minority. South Africa has 3,000 practising doctors, and we need at least 7,000 irrespective of what anyone tells you.

At least.

Four-fifths of our country is scandalously treated in regard to medical services, and here we are closing our gates to the medical student. I say it is wrong. It is wrong because we have not the facilities, and we have not the facilities because we have not the staff, and we have not the staff because we cannot engage the staff, and we cannot engage the staff because we have not the money.

It is because you have not the right Government.

The present Government has increased the grant slightly but there is still room for improvement. The University of Cape Town—and I have no doubt the Universities of Stellenbosch and Pretoria also—is starving for want of bursaries and scholarships. There are many young South Africans who would make excellent members of the profession they adopt, but they cannot go to the University because the University has not the wherewithal to offer scholarships and bursaries. Again this is due to the lack of funds. I come to my last item, namely, health. I am not joining hands with the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) when he congratulates the Minister of Finance in giving the country one-fifth of a £1,000,000 increase. I say that we are doing far too little—we are receiving far too little on the Health Vote—£1,200,000 out of a national income of £450,000,000 is far too little. It is about l-400th of the annual national income. I have found that the Education Vote and the Health Vote together only make up about l-200th of the annual national income. I know that this is war time, and. that money is needed for other things, but we find that on the two most important items you are spending too little. Well, the Health Commission is in progress, and one is hopeful that it will be productive of something good. The hon. member for Rondebosch has already cursorily and superficially dealt with the question of tuberculosis. To illustrate my point with regard to the shortage of funds, I want to take another disease about which I spoke on a previous occasion. I want to deal briefly with the question of venereal disease. I have pointed out that in Cape Town we have 1,000 per 100,000 of our population infected. I have pointed out that this is 70 times as great as that in Great Britain, and the position in Great Britain is worse than it is in Sweden, where the figures are 7 per 100,000. The point is that we are not tackling this matter in the correct way. We have here at the City Hospital 16 beds only for the whole of the Cape Peninsula, of 370,000. We have four beds for European males, four for European females, four for non-European males and four for non-European females. Imagine! 16 beds in all. That excludes the people who come here from overseas and are infected. Our chief syphilogist is working like a Trojan with his numerous assistants, but what can he do? The City authorities have asked the Government, they have asked the Minister of Health, to give us a grant to build a bigger hospital. They made their request in June, 1942, and plans for the hospital were submitted. And this is March, 1944. In December, 1942, the Health Department sent back the plans to the City of Cape Town Health Department, asking them to modify its plans. Well, we had no alternative so we modifed our plans—we are still waiting for instructions to carry on. I do not want to blame the Minister of Health. He will tell you, “I am doing my best, but I have only so much to spend on the whole Union.” Anyhow, I hope that in the fulness of time the Minister of Finance will grant a further increase. In conclusion I want to say that here in Cape Town we have a little society called the “Society for Combating Venereal Disease.” We are working very hard. The chairman of that society is the hon. member for Castle (Mr. Alexander). We go about the slums of Cape Town. We lecture the people there. We do all we can. And do you know what the Government Department of Health has condescended to grant up per annum— £100! Year after year we are in fear and trembling that it may cut that amount down, or wipe it out altogether. Year after year and decade after decade we make the same representations and year after year and decade after decade we receive the same replies. I hope now that we are discussing social security the Minister will see his way clear to increase the grants for these two very important services, Education and Health.

When speaking from these particular benches I speak with a certain amount of trepidation. Apparently we are handicapped by the fact that we are in favour of winning this war. On the one hand we are chided for being fundamentalists in the financial realm and on the other hand we are sneered at by the people here—the official Opposition—because we want to win the war. We want to win the war because we are conscious that our friends on the right (the Nationalist Party) are protagonists of a pernicious idea—they are protagonists of a fundamentalism which stands for a Herrenvolk with which we will have nothing to do.

You know perfectly well that that is not so.

If we, as members of the Labour Party, dare to criticise those things which we feel it is our duty to criticise, we are told by the United Party that we must not do so because it is our duty to help them to win the war. Well, we shall win the war very much more thoroughly and very much more quickly if some of our suggestions are put into practice. I want to make this assertion, that it would be possible to save even on our Defence Vote and apply the money saved more profitably to the interests of the people of this country. In making that assertion I know that I have not got the time to elaborate it. If I had ample time I could prove the correctness of my assertion. Now, Sir, the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) tried to expand the illusion of greatness. He tried to expand it to include the Minister of Finance. I do not know how much modesty the Minister of Finance has got—I do not know his private feeling about himself but as far as I am concerned, and I am sure members on these benches, too—we shall all intend to resist any idea about extending the illusion of greatness. We believe in a job tackled and a job being done, and if the means are there to do the job we do not believe in calling a man great simply because he tackles the job.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

I was saying before we adjourned that if a man was given a job of work to do and he had all the means to do that job of work he could not claim any commendations because he had done it. And I adhere to that. Now, if we are going to be debarred as members of this Party from putting forward our criticism which is the criticism of the technique of money, because by doing that we shall be embarrassing the Government, I do not feel that we shall have any justification for sitting here at all. It is the one thing which justifies our presence, and I am going to say that we insist on making that criticism in season and out of season. I want to say in regard to the attitude of the Minister of Finance towards this Budget that it is fair to pass this judgment on him—that he is the schoolmaster in the realm of finance, and he is the financier in the realm of education. The hon. member who spoke before me said enough to prove that my assertion is correct, and we cannot agree that the approach to our problems should be that shown by the attitude of the Minister of Finance. Now I want to make another assertion in regard to the costs incurred in payment for this war. The position is this: that never has the Minister of Finance been faced with the implications of what this war means in the way of costs. He has always been able to say: “This war is not costing us as much as we had reason to expect.” He has always been able to say that; rather unfortunately—because it shows we are not contributing our full quota to the war effort. And that has its effects psychologically. Once having told ourselves that we are not having to pay as much as we thought we would have had to pay, psychology comes in with the suggestion that you can therefore afford to spend a little more than you have to. And you find that the Minister of Finance has been doing that. And that is why I said this morning that we felt that in the conduct of the war there could have been economy in the actual war expenditure if the Minister of Finance had been sufficiently careful to have looked about him to see how he could have achieved that. But he knows he has not been called upon to spend as much as he thought he would have to spend so he has not kept as careful account as he should have done. Now I want to refer to some of the things referred to this morning by other speakers. One or two of the funds that play their part in our financial arrangements—I want to refer to the Superannuation Fund of the Railways. I have watched that Fund both as a layman and as an employee of the Railways, and later again as a layman. And I am particularly keen on watching it now as a member of Parliament. The position now is that you have in reserve an amount of £54,000,000. That amount came into being by the addition to the previous amount of the past year of about £2,250,000. There was £2,250,000 in surplus in the account of the Superannuation Pension Fund and that £2,250,000 added to the previous amount brought the total fund to £54,000,000. One reaction is this, that living in a world of private enterprise where not only people are enterprising but sometimes a little wicked, you have brought into being what is called the actuary or the policeman of commercial finance. Now the policeman has been called in in regard to your Railway Budget, and particularly in regard to your Railway Pension Fund, and the actuary has said, after going through the figures and considering all the possibilities and knotty points as a policeman should, that the fund is £6,500,000 in debt, and the result of that is that in spite of the fact that your present reserve is £54,000,000 the Railway-Administration have perforce to obey his dictum in which he says: “You must for the next twelve years add an additional amount of £470,000 to that Superannuation Reserve in order to make it solvent.” I am going to speak commonsense about it. I don’t want to argue about it. I want to tell the Actuary that he had no right to tell the Railways that, and I am going to tell the Railways that they had no right to listen to him, and if they both plead the exigencies of his office it is high time that this House saw to it that this Reserve Fund did not amount to such immense figures? If the contribution of £470,000 extra were in some way to react to the benefit of the people who are looking to that fund for benefits, I would not object strongly, but it is just that in the opinion of the Actuary the fund is not solvent, and not one penny benefit goes either to the Administration or to the people who should benefit under the fund, because of that added expenditure. I say as a reasonable man that that £470,000 could very well have been put to the abolition of the tax on travelling. I was alarmed when I booked seats for my wife and family to Durban, when I had to pay an additional 15 per cent. in tax, and I say that this £470,000 could very well be diverted to a case of that nature—or if it should be said that if people will travel they should pay—it could be used to improve the standards of these people who have to do the lowly paid jobs on the Railways. But we are checkmated on every hand because of the implications of the system under which we live which talks in terms of the technique of money in such a way as to give those people who want the present situation to remain the opportunity of telling you that it is very difficult to alter it or to do anything about it. There is another fund, an administration fund known as the Cape Widow Pensioners Fund. Here you have this position that a globular figure of £880,000 is standing to reserve; in the current year there was added to it a sum of £9,600; obviously the Cape widows are passing away. Certainly their numbers cannot be added to. I should like to know to whom that sum of £880,000 will go one day. Will it be presented to the last Cape widow? Is that the intention? If that is not the intention why should not this money be devoted to some purpose that will benefit the people who are the potential subscribers to that fund? The fact remains, however, that the men whose wives are dead have constantly to contribute towards that fund, with the result that every year there is added to the fund a surplus of money that is not spent. Those are the two funds that prompt me to ask what is wrong with the technique of our finance. I also want to appeal to the Minister to consider again, perhaps more in the interests of the worker than the people who are running the industries, whether he is prepared to see that secondary industry in this country is given the chance it looks for. I am convinced of this, if secondary industry in this country is to depend on itself or upon those people who are keen on its promotion, steps must be taken against the selling agent, unless industry is to be heavily handicapped. The selling agent is only concerned with importing goods into this country and selling them. He is a most dangerous menace to the success of secondary industry. If the Minister is really concerned with expansion of secondary industry to a degree that will enable it to provide total or even 90 per cent, employment, I challenge him to take drastic steps to see that the selling agent is kept in check. The Minister must eradicate in this country the person who merely looks overseas for surpluses and brings out goods to sell here. If he is not on the alert, the secondary industries of our country will fall victim to the surpluses of overseas markets. That, Mr. Speaker, will mean that there will be no advance. We must rid ourselves of that incubus. If the Atlantic Charter is inspired in any degree with a spirit of mutual benefit, it cannot contemplate that a growing country such as ours must be the repository of surpluses of overseas markets.

It does contemplate it.

I hope I shall not have to agree that Mr. Bernard Shaw is right when he says that you can interpret the Atlantic Charter in any way you like. We must be prepared to give total protection to enable our secondary industries to carry on and to open up the avenues of employment that this country is looking for. It may mean that nothing short of total protection will provide the means. There is another aspect of the problem of secondary industries which, I think that the Minister must also take cognisance of. It is the aspect of the provision of capital. The Governor of the Reserve Bank has told the country that there is in South Africa ample capital—he means, I take it, ample money reserves—to look after all the possible expansion we can anticipate in South Africa. The Governor of the Reserve Bank is in a position to know the facts, and what he says bears the stamp of authority. If it is true that there is enough capital in the country to provide for our industrial expansion, it is also true that unless that money is made available on terms that will enable people to make use of it, the desired expansion will still not take place. It is not the amount of money in hand that matters, but whether you use it or not. Looking at it from that angle, the people who control that money in this country must be prepared to foreswear once and for all the sacred rights of interest or usury. They must be prepared to cut down that interest to a minimum, in order that that money may be taken up and utilised for expansion. I want to say this, and I say it without any fear of contradiction, that there is enough intelligence in this country to ensure that if there is any danger of that terrible thing which is described as inflation, that we shall be able to take the steps that are necessary in order to prevent it. We should not fear inflation in this country, or in any other country merely on account of our spending money. It depends on how the money is spent. I want to say this, that if all the money available in South Africa is spent in doing a definite and organised job of work, none of that money will contribute to what is known as inflationary tendency, because obviously the money has been paid to people for doing this job of work. The challenge is to the Government, not to us on these benches. Is the Minister of Finance, representing the Government in this regard, prepared to spend all that money on a job of work? Is he prepared to use that money on an honest job of work? If the Government answers that question clearly in the affirmative, then I have not much fear for the future of South Africa, but if the Government evades and qualifies and quotes exceptions, then I am apprehensive. I am hoping that the Minister of Finance will present us in his budgets with the measures that are essential for doing the proper job of work in this country. I want to end on this note—and I am going to be cocky now—and say that if necessary we on the Labour benches are prepared to form a Cabinet, and do what ought to be done.

Before making a few remarks about the budget I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. Bosman) has just said. It is a rare thing for a member of the Opposition to be able to associate himself entirely with someone on the Government side. I want to do so in his absence. I feel there can be no difference of opinion regarding the seriousness of the position as he put it, and I hope that the Minister of Finance paid at least some attention to what he said. I think we are doing an injustice to many young men and jeopardising the future career of many of our young men. In regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) I must say it is remarkable that an old Parliamentarian such as he is should raise objections to this House making special provision for the appointment of a committee to keep an eye on the expenditure, even though that expenditure is for war purposes. It is most remarkable that a member like him should raise objections, and it is even more remarkable that the reason he gives for his objection is that the appointment of such a committee would lead to delays. It is in conflict with the whole conception of our parliamentary life over the past fifty years, and I am particularly surprised at the hon. member who is one of those who boast of the fact that they hail from the country which looks upon itself as the Mother of the Parliamentary system. Parliament, after all, is the sheet anchor and refuge of those who have to pay taxes, and the hon. member now objects to the appointment of a committee—well, it is beyond my comprehension! The hon. member also made a further remark to which I want to draw attention. Everybody feels, and the hon. member also felt, that the problem of inflation constitutes an ever increasing danger in South Africa. There can be no two opinions about it, and the hon. member himself is worried. We do not contend, as the hon. member pretends, that nothing has been done, but our contention is that a great deal more should have been done. Our criticism is that a policy is being carried out in bits and pieces while there should be a systematic application of measures for the control of inflation. There should have been a systematic application of price control, distribution control, and naturally also of speculation control. The hon. member for Sunnyside, in making an appeal to the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) at this stage is very late. True, it shows he is concerned about the position, but he should have consulted the hon. member for George at the very start; if he had done so things would not have gone wrong to the extent they have gone wrong. Mars, the God of War, overshadows this budget in every respect. Not a single speaker beginning with the Minister of Finance, has failed to emphasise that the war overshadows everything in this budget. So far as hon. members opposite are concerned they regard it as their primary and first duty to see the war through. It has been made abundantly clear, and it has been emphasised over and over again, that this side of the House wants nothing to do with the war, nor with the cost of the war. There can be no doubt about that. That being so I want to draw the attention of the House, and of the public, to the amount which the Government has already paid in connection with the war, and how that money has been spent, and is being spent, and what it may perhaps still cost us if we carry on in the way we have done in the past. We are opposed to the war and opposed to the expenditure connected with it because we believe the war to be the result of the criminality of Versailles. We believe it is due to that that this war has come about, and that these huge sums of money are being spent by the Government in this most reckless fashion. We are worried about the future, and in view of the responsibility which we, as an Opposition, have, we want to offer our services to see that the money is properly spent, and for that reason I heartily support the views expressed by the hon. member for George to bring the Government to its senses, and to point to the steps which must be taken to reduce the war expenditure. I feel I am not out of order when I say there is a feeling of sorrow in the hearts of three quarters of humanity because of this war that is being waged, and that there is no statesman in the whole of the civilised world to give a lead and guide mankind. The Minister of Finance has no right year after year to tax the people more severely for a war when there is no statesman to give a lead to the world. Money is being spent recklessly, and we feel, because of the dark future threatening us, we must try to bring common sense into its own again. For these reasons I want to draw the attention of the public to what the war has cost so far. This is a war budget. I want to give the Minister credit for the fact that he has again emphasised that if a country wages war it has to pay for it, and that the country cannot expect some other nation to pay for it— unless, of course, it wants to adopt the policy of the members of the Labour Party, of eventually making a token payment. That is a morality which fits in well with the war spirit, but I do not believe the Minister and the country will lend themselves to that sort of thing. Still, I feel that in that connection I must differ from the Minister. It is not the country which wants to wage war, it is a group of people, and that group should be held responsible and be made to pay for everything. That is why we object. I want to go further. The Minister did not say so in so many words, but the policy he is following gives me the impression that he is anxious to meet the costs of the war out of current revenue as far as possible. That is perfectly sound and perfectly correct. It is wrong on the part of this House to burden the next generation, to burden generation after generation, with the cost and the hardships resulting from the Government psychosis, and from the psychosis of those who support the Government, to wage the war. That being so, the coming generations should not be taxed unnecessarily severely. I don’t want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, but I want to draw the attention of the public to the cost of this war. I don’t propose giving all the figures—I shall content myself with giving the figures reflecting the direct expenditure. In the first year the amount was small but in the second year the expenditure had already reached £60,000,000; then it went up to £72,000,000; after that £97,000,000 and for the year now ending it will be about £101,500,000. Every year there has been a very large increase, far beyond the Minister’s estimates. The total already amounts to £336,000,000 and this year it is estimated that the expenditure will be £102,500,000—which amount will probably be very much exceeded, judging by our experience in the last few years. The way money is being spent has already been indicated by the hon. member for George. The question is whether the public know how much money has actually been spent on the war. Out of the total amount, at least £174,000,000 has, up to end of this financial year, been found out of loan funds. In order to find the money necessary to carry on the was as proposed by the Minister, the public, over the last five years, have had to have their taxes increased by about 150 per cent. For 1939-’40 the expenditure was £45,500,000; after that in 1942-’43 it gradually increased to £96,500,000; last year, that is to say the year now ending, it increased to £107,000,000, and the Minister now estimates for about £112,000,000, an increase, compared with 1939-’40, of about 147 per cent. For the sixth time the Government has imposed additional burdens on the taxpayer. In February, 1940, £6,200,000 in additional burdens; in August, 1942, an additional amount of £6,420,000; in March, 1941 an additional burden of £8,240,000; and in 1942, £9,256,000; in 1943, £9,225,000; and this year round about £5,000,000. In the course of five years therefore an additional burden of £44,500,000 per year has been imposed on the public. In order to get this money the Government has had to tap every possible source of revenue. I do not propose going into the sources of taxation, although some of them are very doubtful. For instance, there are the Railways which have also been used as a source of taxaiton, and the opinion has been expressed more than once that if this question were to be decided by a court of law the Government would not show up too well. But it is important to study the position this year particularly to see how this additional revenue is obtained from the public. There are one or two items of increase this year which are typical. Take the excise which has been increased almost every year; or rather, the excise on certain articles is constantly being raised from year to year. It is typical that for 1940-’41 the revenue from excise (not from customs but from excise) paid by producers to the Treasury amounted to £4,500,000; in 1941-’42 it was £5,000,000, the year after it was £8,296,000; in 1943-’44 it went up to £12,560,000, and in the ensuing year it is estimated at £12,750,000. An increase of 300 per cent. over 1939-’40. The rural areas are particularly concerned to notice that certain agricultural products are being specially hard hit by the high excise duties. So far as cigaretes and pipe tobacco are concerned there have been four increases, and an additional amount of £4,000,000 has been imposed. The Minister’s argument, of course, will be that the tax is paid by the consumer. The consumer will only pay to a certain extent and not beyond that, but the producer cannot say when he wants to stop producing. He is compelled to produce if he wants to make a living for himself and his family. I do not know whether a little incident I am going to quote will make the Minister realise what the position is: The day before yesterday a certain man who for years has been buying a particular type of tobacco entered a shop, and when he was told about the increased price he remarked: “Well, you can keep your tobacco.” The man stopped smoking because of the increased price. At any rate he stopped smoking that tobacco. The consumers curtail their consumption as soon as the taxes push up the price too high. Other members can speak about the wine industry. Then we have the increased excise on beer. If the excise is raised 100 per cent. it must detrimentally affect the producers. The hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) spoke the other day about the wealth created as a result of the war. He spoke shortly after lunch, and I am sure he had not consulted the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance only two years ago warned the House that the prosperity in the country was a false prosperity. I hope the Minister will repeat his statement. The Minister told the House that £336,000,000 had been spent on the war and if the Minister’s figures, which he gave the other day in regard to the permanent assets created by that expenditure are correct, then I say “poor South Africa.” Surely nobody is so foolish as to contend that war creates wealth. The hon. member for Vasco may be better off perhaps than he was before the war, but the people are getting poorer. The wealth of the country is being shot away through the barrels of the guns—our wealth is disappearing in smoke and fire. Subconsciously one is tempted to consider how these millions could have been spent. I don’t want to be problematical but if we remember that £336,000,000 has already been spent on the war, and if we realise that in 1939 only £113,000,000 was invested in industries and private enterprises—only one third of the total capital amount spent on the war—if one remembers those facts, one must appreciate the seriousness of the position. This £113,000,000 capital invested in industries and private undertakings gave employment to 353,000 people, 145,000 of whom were Europeans; the industries purchased South African raw materials to an amount of over £50,000,000, and they produced goods to an amount of £200,000,000, goods which are a permanent asset to our everyday life. These goods have not gone up in smoke and flame. That £113,000,000 capital enriched our country every year by an amount of about £99,000,000. It led to an annual increase of our wealth by £99,000,000. Here is an example to show the reckless way in which money is being wasted as a result of a war psychosis, money which could have been employed to the benefit of South Africa. I want to say in passing—I have not got the time to go into details—that in our Railway network a little over £200,000,000 has been invested, and about 125,000 are employed in the service of the Railways. South Africa cannot for one moment countenance doing without the services of the Railways. Now let me say a few words about our needs in regard to the further development of this country. As South Africa has certain peculiar conditions to contend with it is one of the Government’s duties to maintain its expenditure in conformity with the conditions applying in the country. Expenditure which does not take account of the existing economic structure of the country is imaginary expenditure, and must be condemned. I am not speaking from my own experience now, I refer to the conclusions of the Commission which reported in 1941, the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission, of which Dr. van Eck was Chairman. I give his conclusion in my own words. It is said that South Africa is a country with a very small white population which in the main has to bear the burdens of the State; South Africa is a poor country so far as production is concerned; it is a country which requires a lot of money to deliver its production. The Minister can find this conclusion in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Report. The Report further says that the cost structure of South African industries is very high. Our normal marketing area is very small. South Africa gets its main revenue out of an industry which is of a passing nature; its economic development in the past has been unsystematic, and is still unsystematic today. In other words, because there are special conditions prevailing in South Africa the Government is expected, and the Minister of Finance is expected, to give special attention to those special conditions, so that if a setback comes one day that setback will not hit us at the point where we are weakest in our economic structure, as summed up by this Commission. I have already mentioned the direct burdens of the war. I do not propose going in to details, but we should be shutting our eyes to facts if we took it for granted that this data which I have given the House is the total cost of the war in South Africa. One day we shall have to account for the great loss of life, for the great list of lives that have been lost. I am glad the Minister of Finance in his speech mentioned the anguish and moral suffering in that connection, which also has to be taken into account. No account is taken of that now, and nobody takes any account of the feeling of bitterness created by the war, the price of which will also have to be paid. Nobody realises it today—it will only be made clear afterwards — because nobody knows what the price is; nobody knows what the price is of the social chaos, of the bitterness, and of the racial relationship created by the war. It cannot be expressed in money today, and nobody knows what the price will be. But there are factors which can be calculated in money and I want to pause for a moment at those factors. Let us first of all take the interest burden. Take the loan funds which before the war amounted to £200,000,000, and calculate those at 3½ per cent. I do not think the Minister is able to get his money for less than 3½ per cent., but even if he could get the money at 3 per cent. it would still cost· him 3½ per cent. before he would be able to use it. We may therefore assume that the borrowed money will stand at 3½ per cent. interest. The Minister can do one of three things to get rid of that burden, he can convert the loans into a lower rate of interest, as was done in England in the past, but it does not seem possible to me to borrow that money in this country at a lower rate of interest; unless the Minister sees a way of getting the money overseas I don’t think he will find it possible to convert his loans into lower interest bearing loans. The second alternative is that which has been suggested by the Labour Party. We need not give much attention to that because it does not accord with this country’s conception of its obligations. The third alternative is to repay the loans over a certain period of time. I have calculated repayments at a redemption period of 25 years. If the Minister were to establish a redemption fund on that basis, namely to redeem the loans over a period of 25 years, it would mean that those loans would cost us £150,000,000 by way of interest. Now I also want to mention the pension commitments of this country. Any Government, whether it is a Nationalist Party Government or a United Party Government, has to pay those pensions. No Government can get away from that obligation. I do not think the Minister will mind—the investigation has been conducted—and I think he might tell the country and the House what he thinks will be the pension burden which will be imposed on this country as a result of this war. We can assume that a large percentage of the pensions will fall away after a period of 10 or 12 years, but others again will run for 25 years, and the Minister should explain to the public what this burden is going to mean to South Africa. I do not think the Minister can have any objection to telling the public what the pension burden caused by the war will eventually amount to. I don’t want to object to the State paying these pensions. It is an obligation which no Government can evade, but it is an indirect burden which the war imposes on the public. Now, I also want to mention the increased cost of living for which provision is now being made. We have no option but to provide for that increased cost of living unless the Minister tackles the question of inflation and price control with both hands. There is still another item under the heading of indirect burdens, and it is this, that the Government has undertaken to do certain things for the returned soldiers, and these things will mean a capital expenditure being incurred. That also is an indirect burden of the war. To say therefore that the war has cost us £340,000,000 up to now is only half of the truth. On the contrary I would say that within a comparatively short time it will be more than twice that amount, if one takes note of these things which I have already mentioned. And then we ask ourselves: What has the war brought us after all the burdens which have been imposed upon us? The Minister in a moment of optimism said: “We have delivered the goods.” I am sure he will tell us that we have £14,000,000 of permanent assets. If the Minister means that so much paper money has been provided to carry on the war, then we cannot deny the fact that he has delivered the money. But then we have a paper proposition put forward on a paper basis. I should like to give a little more attention to the Minister’s statement that “our balance sheet is not of too bad a showing.” If a business man were to draw up a balance sheet as the Minister of Finance has done, such a balance sheet would not only be damned, but it would mean that the man drawing it up was completely bankrupt. Unless the Minister of Finance accepts the proposition that war production is wealth—well, if he accepts that proposition, then I give in. In that respect the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) agrees with the Minister.

Partly.

I should like to analyse the psychological interpretation of that proposition. The Government has a duty resting on it to put the position more clearly to us. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) in discussing the Part Appropriation Bill emphasised the fact that we must be honest in our dealings with the public. I am not accusing anyone but I feel that certain data which has not been submitted should have been placed before the public. What have we achieved now as a result of this tremendous expenditure? I can summarise the results under four main headings. In the first place we are on the very verge of financial exhaustion, and in saying this I am only saying what the Minister of Finance and what the Minister of Railways themselves have said. The Minister of Finance now admits, “post-war financial problems begin to present themselves to us while there is still no relief of the major task.” It is not only post-war financial problems which are going to give the Minister of Finance trouble. He is not only going to have postwar financial troubles, but also “co-war” financial troubles, because we are approaching financial exhaustion. I should like to know from the Minister of Finance out of which source of taxation he thinks he will be able to get more taxes in the future?

Out of nearly all of them.

If there is increasing inflation; if the Minister borrows more money and releases that in the country, I assume he will be able to get more paper money. But on the basis of assets I should like to know from the Minister in what respect he can expect to get more out of those sources? I don’t want to deny that steps have been taken to counteract inflation. One of the main causes of inflation has been the lack of control over speculation in land. The Minister tried to prevent inflation there, but he has not succeeded in doing so to any great extent, but he had some 100 people at the back of him, and it was a case of “quot homines tot sententiae.” We have innumerable local and foreign problems. The fourth heading is a matter which requires immediate attention, and it is a stage which we have got to as a result of the war spirit. We shall have to take steps to meet the future. The country will have to be on the look-out to see what the requirements are, and the Government, which is responsible for raising the expenditure of this country, will have to accept responsibility for what it has done. It must not put any responsibility on this side of the House for what happens as a result of the continuation of the war. But where we can help in relieving the problems of the future there we are anxious to do so, because we want to be loyal to the citizens of this country. One of the disappointments in the Budget before us—and the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) put forward the excuse that we could not expect the Minister of Finance to go into all details of social security because other Ministers were responsible—one of the disappointments in connection with the Budget is that the Minister has not paid greater attention to that subject. This is one of the first things which should be embodied in a Budget—the provision which has to be made in view of the present economic position and also with a view to the future. In the Budget we have to take care of the present and of the future, and it is in that respect that we feel sufficient has not been done. All sides have repeatedly emphasised the need for industrial development. I want to ask this, in which of the existing industries does the Government think it will be able to place more returned soldiers when those industries have to work under normal conditions after the war. Additional sources of employment will have to be created. The necessary capital is available for such industries, but that available capital will not be applied for that purpose if there is no encouragement offered, and if no security is afforded to that capital. One of the first requirements which capital asks the Minister to provide for is that an assurance shall be given that there will be protection against unfair competition from outside, and until such time as the Minister gives the assurance that the industries will be protected against unfair competition, one cannot expect people to provide that capital. There is another point, the Government must provide for the increase of internal production and for the proper protection of such production. It must give an assurance that there will not be any undesirable immigration to the detriment of the workers of this country. It must give an assurance that protective tariffs will be added to it, not for unsuitable industries but for effective production. The Government can always, by means of the Department, or by means of the Board of Trade and Industries, arrange for supervision over the effectiveness of every enterprise in order to prevent any waste or extravagance. There are a few other points I want to deal with. Our country demands that more attention be given to the combating of soil erosion. The statement made by an official of the Department of Lands, after the floods in the Transvaal, are in the nature of a very serious accusation, namely that a large proportion of those floods were attributable to erosion. As we are going into an uncertain future where the Government has to make provision for some 300,000 returned soldiers, and where the country will be asked to approve of enterprises for the employment of those soldiers, the taxpayer has very dark days ahead of him, and we can only secure that future if we can depend on the spirit of enterprise and the co-operation of all sections of the population. If the various groups of our people can agree to face these many problems, then, and then only, can we look forward to days of prosperity. But so far as I am concerned. I must say that the budget before us offers very little assurance for such a future.

Most of us have grown accustomed to hearing about post-war reconstruction, but the post-war reconstruction I should like to see first applies to the population of the Union. I am one of those who would like to hear of a Minister of Finance coming down to this House and offering increased maternity grants for those who bring children into the world, and I should like that post-war reconstruction for the soldiers to come straight away. I know of cases of men who have spoken to me about the enormous cost of a child coming into this world under present conditions. I think at the very least £50 is the figure mentioned, and I certainly think it would be a very human thing for the Minister to adopt some such grant in aid under present conditions. After all, this House is an assembly of very human people, and I am sure that proposal would be adopted with acclamation by the whole House. I want to mention that farmers throughout the Union are gratified by the acknowledgement made by the Minister of Finance of the substantial extent to which they have reduced their indebtedness to the Government during the four war years. While this is so, I think that the Government is very much to blame in not having taken the farmers into their confidence with regard to the proposed control of the meat question, which was announced in the Governor General’s speech. The Government have merely announced that it has decided to accept the main recommendations of the Meat Commission’s report, but even at this late stage it has not divulged to this House or to the farmers as a whole what recommendations are to be adopted, nor has it disclosed how the recommendations are to be carried into effect. Now, this matter vitally concerns the livelihood of the farmers. I do not suppose there is any phase which more concerns the farmer than his contribution to the meat industry, and yet he is completely in the dark so far as any official announcement by the Government is concerned. The report of the Meat Commission is founded upon the evidence which was taken in private and not since printed for public information. That has meant that the whole of the proceedings of the Meat Commission have been enshrouded in complete secrecy, and there has been no opportunity for the general public to know even what was proposed and who proposed it. The report speaks of a somewhat nebulous body known as the “Controlling Authority” which is to be endowed with wide powers over one of the farmers’ principal products in the disposal of which they are vitally interested. The future control of the meat industry of the Union is a matter which vitally affects both producers and consumers, but at present we have no details as to the plan which the Government has adopted, and neither have the producers, nor the consumers, been placed in a position to offer any opinion as to the workability of the plan. One thing is certain in regard to the marketing of meat, that greater and greater power is being gained by a meat monopoly which, besides owning the majority of the butcher shops in the Cape Peninsula, has recently accquired control of a considerable number of butcher shops in Pretoria and Johannesburg, and is gaining ground progressively in other towns of the Union, in which they are represented. One of the most prominent members of the Meat Commission is better known as the head of the meat monopoly than in any other capacity. That does not convey any feeling of confidence to the consumers or the producers. The consumers live upon the meat products which the farmer produces for them. The monopoly thrives and flourishes on profits it makes from both sides, and it is high time that we realise officially that this monopoly exists, and it in no sense bedes good for either the consumer or the producer. The companies under the control of the gentleman who sat on the Commission own 50 per cent. of the cold storage space in South Africa, and one of the recommendations of the Commission is to the effect that existing cold storage facilities should be used by. the controlling authority to overcome seasonal shortages. Any shortage of supply during the war has been occasioned by a want of confidence on the part of the farmers in the marketing conditions. The Meat Commission recommends that cattle should be sold on a dead weight basis, and in accordance with the grading allotted at the abattoirs, but there is widespread complaint as to the inefficiency of grading. It has been admitted that the plan of the Government cannot come into force until there is a sufficieny of qualified graders. This specialised work is being entrusted in some cases to inexperienced and incompetent persons. In some cases men who know nothing about weight, or about the grading of meat, have been employed, and if they are questioned they tell you that such things have never previously entered their minds. In reply to a recent question which I asked in the House as to the remedy available to a farmer whose meat had been wrongly graded, I was told that the farmer had the right of appeal to the chief grader. That remedy can be seen to be a useless one when we realise that by the time the farmer receives notification of the grade the meat has been already sold, and is no longer under his control. Farmers are being encouraged to believe that their salvation lies in the direction of co-operative effort, but in our province many of them still remember the fate of the Farmers’ Co-operative Meat Industries Ltd., which, after receiving the undivided support of the cattle breeding community, had to be surrendered to the present meat monopoly of which I have spoken. I hope the Government will realise that farmers cannot be left in ignorance any longer as to the precise nature of the Government’s plans for meat marketing. I want to speak very briefly about the question of the poultry industry. There is already a proposed scheme under the Marketing Act which was published in the Gazette of the 18th February. But a prominent farmer who claims to be responsible for the production of 1,000,000 eggs per annum writes to tell me that if this scheme comes into effect, we shall be well on the way to eliminating the new laid egg and doing considerable injury to the pockets of both producers and consumers. We do not need to look around for examples of the bad deeds of boards and controllers. They are a commonplace in our daily lives. We know how the farmer is made to appear ridiculous by some of the boards which pretend to function in the interests of the farmers. Only a few days ago I had occasion to communicate with a grape grower at De Doorns, intending to place with him a standing order, as I have done for years, for the supply of grapes, but he told me that owing to the ruling of the Deciduous Fruit Board he could not supply me at all. He was prohibited from supplying me. Other people who are more or less connected with the Board are willing to supply you at three times the price which you have been accustomed to pay. This is the sort of thing that renders many of these Marketing Boards ridiculous, and an offence in the eyes of the public, and I hope that the new Minister of Agriculture, when once he takes office will see that an end is put to Boards of that kind. They are serving no useful purpose, and the sooner they are abolished the better it will be for all concerned.

I would like to say a few words in the language which, I think, the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) understands best, in regard to the meat scheme. The hon. member seems to be oblivious of the fact that only a little while ago an official statement was made by the Meat Controller in connection with this scheme. I can further say that if any hon. members were really interested in the scheme, they could have approached the people who drew up the scheme; they were in Cape Town, very often in the lobbies of the House, and they were willing to discuss the scheme. As a matter of fact hon. members on this side of the House discussed the scheme with them and made suggestions which we thought necessary, and we eventually agreed that this was a sound scheme.

This is the proper chamber for the discussion of such matters.

The hon. member says that this is the proper place for the discussion of such matters. I maintain that before these things are brought to the House they must be chewed, and chewed properly, so that by the time it is brought to this House, it will have been digested by the public. When you bring legislation before the House, it often happens that it is passed without the public having had an opportunity to make proper investigations. The hon. member spoke about the question of monopolies. I maintain that that is a real danger but I do say that the only way in which we can save the farmers from monopoly is by bringing this scheme into effect. The monopoly is there and it is getting a stranglehold on the meat question. We know that under the War Regulations the Food Controller or the Government has the right to confiscate any of these cold storages.

[Inaudible.]

Of course, you cannot confiscate without paying compensation, but the fact remains that whatever facilities we have today, we are bound to make use of, and if we do not make use of the existing facilities in the meat trade, we would not be in a position to provide new facilities. And as a farmer I say this, that the farmers as a whole realised that the meat position was becoming so uncontrolled that the farmer would eventually be the loser if something were not done. Prices were going against us; the consuming public was up in arms, and it was becoming difficult to justify any step which was taken in regard to the meat question in this country. An official declaration was made a little while ago, and I do not think we need worry about it any more. As a matter of fact the Government went further. They allowed members of the Board to visit farming centres and to discuss their plans with farming organisations in some of the biggest cattle areas in the country. To say that we are in the dark, is rather overstating the case. To say that the public is in the dark in regard to the scheme, is rather stretching the point. As far as I know the farmers throughout the country, by a very large majority are wholly in favour of the scheme, and although I admit that mistakes will be made ….

Who will pay for those mistakes?

I do not think my hon. friend will pay for them. He will probably get his meat a little more cheaply. In regard to the question of grading, I admit that that causes great difficulty. But. we will never start a scheme unless we start with something. We have to get people with experience, and the sooner we do it the better it will be for the farming population as a whole. My hon. friend made the point that he is afraid that the farmer will only be notified of the grading of his meat after it has been sold.

I am talking of experience.

I am talking about the new scheme, of which the hon. member cannot possibly have any experience as yet. Under the control scheme, the farmer will in the ordinary way be allowed to appoint his agent. If he wants to see his meat after it has been graded he will be allowed to do so. Furthermore, he will have the right of appeal. Nothing can be fairer than that. The farmer will be given every opportunity to see that things are run straight, and I would ask the hon. member to give the scheme a chance. If we make a success of this scheme today under war conditions, we could have a permanent scheme after the war. We could then assure the farmer of a reasonable price for his goods. Whichever way we look at this matter, I hope that that will be our attitude—to give this scheme a chance. I admit that the hon. member is right in saying that all the farmers are interested in this scheme, but I think we should all try to be helpful instead of criticising the scheme at. this stage. In regard to the Budget, the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) said that they as a party would do nothing to delay or to hold back the pensions which are due to the people who are on active service in this war. I hope that that will actually be the case. I am rather worried, because when the hon. member was not in the House last year, when a Select Committee sat to determine the pensions, all the representatives of the party opposite refused to take part. That made me suspicious, and it is a suspicion which is shared by very many soldiers, that since hon. members on the other side did not want to take part in these discussions, they are not interested in the welfare of the soldiers. I know that when the election was at hand, they stated in the Press that they would do their best for the returned soldiers. There is another point I should like to discuss with the hon. Minister and that is the question of the tobacco tax. Right through the Minister has justified increased excise by the fact that the previous taxation did not. lessen the public demand. I say that he is very largely justified, especially in the case of light tobacco and wine; there he is probably justified. But according to my information the consumption of the dark leaf tobacco decreased last year by about 25 per cent. If that is the case, I do not think that the Minister was justified in adding an extra tax on to the tobacco growers. The Minister must remember that cigarettes are sold in small quantities. The public has not the same facility in buying small packets of tobacco. It means then that if you make your pipe tobacco more expensive, less people will be buying tobacco and the people will be buying more cigarettes, which means that the people who grow the dark tobacco will not have the free sale which they had in the past. Cigarette tobacco is more expensive to grow, which makes it difficult for the farmers. Then too, certain areas are not suitable for cigarette tobacco and the areas where only pipe tobacco is produced are the poorest of all areas. Then there is another fact I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister and that is the question of seasonal advances by the Land Bank. I must make it clear that I am in full agreement that the time has come when banks governed by the people should be established in this country. But I would like to know from the Minister whether full security is given to the public by the institutions which we have in this country today. I am speaking especially from the farmer’s point of view. I know that advances are obtained from the Land Bank for seasonal and other purposes. Iunderstand—I am not a lawyer—but I understand that if a lawyer puts money into a trust fund, the party to whom it belongs is protected if anything should happen to the lawyer’s business; and I would like to know whether the farmer, where a seasonal advance is made to the farmer and something goes wrong with the bank, is protected in the same way. I think it is a very serious thing. I know that the banks advance money against receipts mostly, but not when payments are made to those banks, and I would suggest that payments should be made in such a way that they can go into a trust account so that they have the same protection which lawyers have when they deposit monies in the trust fund. I think that that protection is very necessary for our farmers. Then there is another point that I would like to raise and that is the super-tax in the smaller towns as far as industrial extension is concerned. The smaller industrialist whom one finds outside, finds that he cannot put much money into his business because his capital is small and the 8 per cent. which is normally allowed, is not allowed to him.

You mean excess profits?

Yes. Then you get the man in a big city with the large capital; he can exist; and I do say that we look forward to the extension of industries in the platteland. I hope therefore that the Minister will give this matter his attention and give us a reply on these points.

The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) in his Budget speech criticised the Minister in regard to the income tax system as applied to the farmers. The hon. member for George was pleading for the rich townsman and the rich farmer who buys farms to evade income and excess profits taxes.

No, I did not.

I always thought that the hon. member was anti-capitalist, but it seems to me now that he has changed his views. There is a reason for this change in outlook. During this war many farmers have become very rich men. They have made war profits, and many of these farmers today are—one might almost say—capitalists and I think the majority of them are supporters of the Opposition on that side of the House. Most of these men are against the war effort. They have done nothing to support the war effort, but they have taken every opportunity of making money out of this war. I, as a farmers’ representative on this side of the House, welcome the hon. Minister’s statement with regard to the farmers’ income tax.

But you do not know yet what it is going to be.

Yes, I do know.

You cannot know; he is still considering it.

I have just as much commonsense as the hon. member for George …

But the Minister said he was still considering it.

The hon. Minister indicated to us what the scheme was, and I do not think there is any doubt as to what that scheme is. The rich farmers and the rich townsmen who buy farms and who have made big profits, will not be able to offset those profits against the loss which they show from farming. That is what we understand. I wish to point out to the House how detrimental to the ordinary bona fide farmer this state of affairs has been. Many of these rich townsmen who have bought our farms—there are many of them in my constituency—have been farming on uneconomic lines. They have been competing with the bona fide farmer when they have not had to make a living out of farming. In fact, they were pleased to make losses, and in that way it was not fair competition. They have also upset the whole economy of our farming. They have raised the wages of the natives in our farming areas and those natives have become inefficient workers. In fact, these farmers do not exercise discipline or insist upon the natives being efficient. For this reason I welcome very much the statement made by the hon. Minister with regard to the farmer’s income tax in the future. It has removed the slur on farmers that they evade income tax. This question of the rich townsman buying farms in the country today has had a very bad effect on the farming industry on the whole.

Why?

I shall tell the hon. member why. In the first instance this practice has caused the inflation of the values of land—that is one of the chief reasons why the rise in the price of land has taken place. Secondly, it has led to unbeneficial occupation of that land. Most of them have not used the land to the best advantage of the country. Either their farms are purely pleasure resorts, or they farm with the object of making losses so as to offset their incomes from other sources and I say that they have upset the whole economy of the farming industry, and if this is not checked, farming as a means of livelihood for the bona fide farmer is going to become impossible. I only hope that the measures that the Minister is taking will result in less of these gentlemen buying farms in farming areas, and that there will not be the inducement from the point of view of taxation for them to do so.

Why do the farmers sell their farms?

I am sorry I cannot stop to enter into a discussion on that point at the moment; my time is limited. What we farmers feel today is that we are most anxious for the Government to adopt a comprehensive farming policy for this country.

And where is that policy?

We hope it will come.

“Keep on hoping although the skies are grey”.

We have many control boards in this country which we farmers all consider to be a necessity, but there is one control board that still has to come and I hope that it will not be long in coming, that is, the control of our land and of our soil. Even at this late date, if we could have control over our land and soil for future generations, a great deal will be done to save this country for the future. I wish to say that we farmers only hold the land in trust for future generations, and we have no right to exploit it and to ruin it as has been done in recent years. I would just like to quote from a statement by Dr. Ross, the Chief of our Soil Conservation Division, in which he states that the fertility of our soil lies in the first six inches and it takes 1000 years to replace the fertility of one inch of that soil if it is lost. He also says that 25 per cent. of the productivity of our soil has been lost in the last 50 years, and it is being lost at an increasing rate every year that we carry on with farming. Hon. members will realise what this means to the future of our country. If in the last 50 years we have lost 25 per cent. of the productivity of our soil what will be the position in another 50 years? That is why I would urge upon the Minister the urgency of bringing into being a control board which will control the use of our soil and of our land. In making that suggestion I would like to say that this has actually been done in New Zealand already, and it has been done after careful investigation and careful thought. It is not only to stop inflation and to prevent uneconomic prices of land, but by this measure you also control that only efficient farmers occupy your land. You would also have to have an economic farm, as to size and productivity; the size of farms will be controlled which means that no farm which is uneconomic could be farmed on. It also prevents rich farmers from occupying huge areas of land. The amount of land that any one farmer may own and farm on is controlled, so that you would not be depriving other deserving persons of the opportunity of farming. At the present time even with the high uneconomic value of land, there are many farmers who have made fortunes during this war, and who have bought one or two or even more farms, when they should only be entitled to a farm which will give a reasonable living and not. deprive ex-soldiers of land after the war. Unless something on those lines is done to control not only the use of our land and to decide who should farm on it and how farming should be conducted, I can see nothing but disaster in the future, and. I hope that the Minister will take a note of what I am saving. The time is ripe now. The farmers themselves realise what the position is, and they are asking for it at the present time. These rich townsmen should not buy farms to evade taxation and not beneficially occupy the land, and make it difficult or impossible for the bona fide farmer to farm alongside them. My time is just about expired, and I hope that I shall receive support for the suggestions I have put forward, from hon. members on the other side. I think it will be agreed on all sides that we cannot develop farming in this country on the lines which have been in force for many years; in order to make a success of farming it will be necessary to exercise control in the future, and carry out a progressive agricultural policy and build our land and not, destroy it. If we do not, our land and soil will disappear, and after all the land does not belong to us farmers, but to the nation as a whole. In a great many instances farmers have not farmed with an eye to the future, but merely from the point of view of profit. They have mined the soil and taken everything out, of the soil without thinking of what the consequences will be when most of our land has been ruined. I hope that I shall get some support from hon. members like the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) Who I know has improved his land by taking the sort of measures that should be generally applied in this country. Although we see effects of bad farming in most parts of the country, when you come to an efficient farmer, one who has the knowledge and knows how to farm, you will find that farms such as his are not only improved but they are farms that you are able to show with pride to farmers from any other part of the world. On the other hand, thousands of farms are ruined by inefficient farmers, who take all they can out of the land without returning anything to it.

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) has very good intentions. He put forward the proposition here that a limit ought to be placed on the amount, of land a farmer should be allowed to possess. There is a good deal to be said in favour of the land in South Africa being distributed among as many people as possible, because it is the backbone of the country, and it would enable us to have good citizens on the land. I very largely agree with what the hon. member has said. What he meant was that people should not be allowed to get hold of large tracts of land. I also agree entirely that no citizen should be allowed in any industry or in any enterprise to secure the power of setting up a monopoly against his fellow citizens. I do not accept the farmers, and just as the farmers should not be allowed to secure large tracts of land for the purpose of exploiting the rest of the population, so in industry and other enterprises no individual should be allowed to exploit the rest of the community. I want to say in passing that the least danger of all lies with the professional man, because the professional man has to work for everything he gets, he cannot get hold of large farms and develop them on a big scale— he has to do every bit of work himself. But the hon. member went wrong when he tried to attribute certain remarks to the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), when he alleged that the hon. member for George had said that the Minister should protect the cheque book farmer. Now, what did the Minister say?—

The hon. member for George said that because the Minister could not tell the House at five minutes to twelve at night what steps he was going to take, he (the Minister) must be careful, when he tries to get at the cheque book farmers, not to miss them and hit the working farmer. That is word for word what the hon. member for George said. He said that the Minister wanted to catch the cheque book farmers, but he should be careful that he did not hit the working farmer. The Minister has not drafted any measures yet, and I want to point out that the Minister did not mention the purchase of stock or cattle. That was the main avenue which has been used to try and evade taxation. Professional men and furniture manufacturers and all kinds of business people have bought farms and have tried to evade paying taxation by the buying of stock and cattle.

That is covered by what I have said.

It is quite correct that the Minister wants to stop people who buy cattle at high prices for the purpose of deducting their cattle transactions from their taxable incomes. In passing I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the money which is used for the permanent improvement of farms is a real asset to the country. I believe that even the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) would not object to companies and individuals investing money in farms with a view to improving them, because by doing so they render a permanent service to the country. Some people have done it in a stupid way and they have invested money which they will perhaps never see again, but those people are in the minority. But let me say that for every one on this side of the House who has done that sort of thing there are 100 on the other side of the House who have done the same. It is not illegal, and one can hardly speak of evasion of taxation, but that is what has happened. The Minister says that the way the restriction will be applied has still to be decided upon. Now, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that capital works and improvements which were only commenced since July, 1943, should really be excluded from the operation of any amendment which he intends introducing. I shall leave that point now. I had no intention of discussing it, but the remarks of the hon. member for Drakensberg were so striking that I felt I had to say something about them. We can divide this Budget into two parts, the one part dealing with war expenditure, and the other part dealing with the country’s current expenditure. So far as war expenditure is concerned, that expenditure is incurred for the purpose of winning the war. What are we fighting for today? Anyone with commonsense must ask himself what the eventual end of the war is going to be if the Allies are victorious, as our Government and the Russian Government anticipate. What will it mean? There can be no two opinions about it. The effect of such a victory means a dictatorship in every country in Europe except Great Britain. It means dictatorships from Norway to Italy, and from France to Russia; it means a communistic dictatorship right throughout Europe. We are not in favour of that and we are not going to vote for it, and that is the last word we are going to say about it. The public all through the country are flabbergasted at the cold opportunism of the Minister of Finance. He shows up the Government’s complete incompetence. When I say that the whole country is flabbergasted, I mean the voters—I don’t mean the parrot-press which praises up the Minister’s taxation proposals in which he taxes the wealthiest people to exactly the same extent as the less privileged arid the middle class people. After all the promises to the country, that the Government would see that social security was provided for all, that they would see that everyone was assured of employment, that they would see that everyone had enough food, that they would attend to the introduction of health services, that they would attend to housing and all the necessaries of life—what do we find? After all the promises, especially to returned soldiers, we find that the Minister for the year 1944 has actually increased old age pensions by 10s. per month. That is the full implication of all the promises.

Is that the full implication?

Yes, practically speaking. Perhaps a further £500,000 is provided for other services.

That is only one fifth of the cost of the proposal— that part.

That may be. The Minister, of course, takes into account that there is a normal rise in the normal requirements of the people every year. Then the Minister said that one of the reasons why he could not proceed with the social security and improvement schemes— and he emphasised this as one of the main reasons—was because the Public Service had been very much depleted. The employment and housing schemes could not be carried out because the Public Service had been depleted. I can only say that that apparently ends people’s hopes of the Government’s preelection promises—all this loud mouthed yapping about big schemes which were going to be undertaken. The whole country is astounded at the Government’s cold opportunism. This is big betrayal’s first year. We are entering upon the betrayal’s second year—the second year of the betrayal of the public and the electors, and the less privileged classes, and then we shall have the third year of betrayal and the fourth year of betrayal; and after that will come the fifth year, and that again will be a year of promises for the next elections. That is the way people are exploited under the existing system—they are exploited in a way that should never be tolerated. The democratic system should not be abused in that way to make it possible for the Government to betray the public. That section of the population which is living below the bread line has been fooled. They stand there cloaked in a purple cloak of regal election promises, and the underdog is deceived and misled. They stand there with a broken reed in their hands as a sceptre, and with a crown of thorns on their heads, a crown which draws blood, the blood of poverty and exhaustion called forth by the Government’s ill conceived policy. We know that that has been the position for a long time. All of us had hoped for better things. Even a child would not have dreamed that preparations for the full employment of the people, for food distribution throughout the country, and for health services, and preparations for housing, could be undertaken without expansion of the Public Service. Nobody expected that. All of us anticipated expansion of the Public Service, and that expansion is essential. People to fill the posts can be obtained. We find that there are more applications for admissions of students than ever before. We find that 40,000 to 50,000 people have already been discharged from the army. If the Government says that the fault lies with the Public Service, and that they cannot find additional staff, then it shows me that the Government is completely powerless and completely incompetent ever to tackle this big task. No child could say that all this work could be undertaken without the Public Service being increased. We need competent people in the Public Service for the purpose of carrying out the new schemes, and the universities must train our young people in such a manner as to fit them for the services for which they are needed. A plan must be devised for that purpose. Emphasis is laid on the soldiers. It is said: We must give work to all the returned soldiers and we must appoint them to jobs. I do not agree that social security should only apply to returned soldiers. But when the Government side emphasises so strongly that returned soldiers must be given social security, then I want to ask whether they are competent to provide that security to the soldiers. First of all when they emphasise the fact so strongly that the soldiers must be looked after, it goes to prove that the Government is incompetent to apply it to the whole population. But are they able to provide social security even for the soldiers alone? I want to give just one instance, one of many. A soldier returns from the war, and he leaves the army. He used to be employed on the Railways where he used to earn £7 per month. It is perfectly true that he is re-employed in the Railway service, and he again gets his £7 per month. But now, after the war, no house can be found for him. He works somewhere where not a single house is obtainable. There may be houses, but the rent is probably £7 per month. How is he to provide his wife and children with food and clothes? What do we find? The church has come to his aid. The matter is brought to the Minister’s notice. The Department of Social Welfare investigates his case, and what is the last report I have now received, after having worked in the matter for two months? That they have not yet found a house for him and that they do not know how these people are going to get through the winter. The State has ceased to interest itself in this particular case. The attitude adopted is that these people have landed in that position through their own fault, and that being so, the State need no longer worry about them. But it is going to be a bad day for the Government when thousands of soldiers return and they are treated in that way, after the wonderful promises that were made to them. The latest information I have received about these people is that they are accommodated in a tent because there is no house for them. Now, that man was a returned soldier. The winter is before us and these people will still have to live in a tent, without permanent jobs to give them a decent living. These are the people who voted for the Government. They were afraid to vote against the Government. We know why. Any number of promises had been made. We know what we were promised about a health service. Are we going to have the same sort of thing there. This is the first year of the great betrayal, the second year will come, and the third and the fourth, and in the fith year new promises will be made for the next elections. And what is the position going to be when the war is over? If we were in the midst of the war today, and bombs were dropped on Cape Town, and hundreds of houses were destroyed every day, it would be the Government’s duty to take a hand and provide these people with roofs over their heads. Housing would immediately have to be provided for the people who had been bombed out of their homes. The men who will be returning to South Africa from the war haven’t been bombed out of their homes; they are returning in small numbers today. But is the Government prepared for the day when the soldiers will be returning in large numbers? Has the Government got houses prepared which can be put together in a few days, when the necessity arises? Has the Government got any plans ready? Has the Government got a scheme? One of the Ministers made the statement that 30,000 houses were to be built during the year. I am not so sure that the Minister did not mention a much larger figure at one time. But let it be 30,000. I felt a little bit suspicious about these 30,000 houses, and I have made some investigations, and my information is that we have hardly enough material in this country for 8,000 to 10,000 houses. The Minister of Posts told us practically 90 per cent. of the material could be manufactured in South Africa today. At one time we had to build houses in South Africa without imported material. That was a few hundred years ago. Those houses were built and people lived in them, and some people are still living in those very houses today. It is not a question only of material, it is a question of organisation and planning. It is a problem for experts with knowledge, and with ability to see things through— unfortunately the Government has not got those qualifications. It is a duty which rests on the Government to plan in advance. Now I come to our industries. We all know the bad record of the old S.A.P. Government in regard to industries in South Africa. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) tried to make the House believe that the Prime Minister really was the man who was responsible for the establishment of the iron and steel industry in South Africa as a result of the attitude which he had adopted. There are not enough stupid people in this country to believe him, and probably he is the only man who does believe it. His statement in this respect is on a par with his other remark. He said: “The war has not hurt us, the war has been a joke to us”. I want to remind the hon. member of an incident of two women who were in a bus, and the one said: “Is not this war a joke? My husband is making more money than ever before.” And an English woman sitting behind those two women went for them in such a way that they were put off the bus. That English woman said: “I have lost a son in this war”. One does not measure these things in money but in sacrifice—often in blood and tears. Apparently the hon. member does not realise it, and now he tells us that the war is a joke.

That’s an old story.

It may sound like a joke to the hon. member, too, perhaps. What does he know about sacrifices? Has he ever been to war? Has he ever gone to a foreign country to look after South African soldiers and to help them? What sacrifices has the hon. member ever made? It does not become people like him to interrupt other speakers here. His sacrifice for South Africa is probably a joke, and a big joke at that.

Leave the soldiers alone.

I went to a foreign country to look after our South African wounded soldiers; I did so as a Nationalist and as a Republican.

Not your Party.

The Minister can do the country a great service by putting a stop to the speculation in fixed property. He has done so in a small way. He tries to stop inflation somewhat but now I want to ask him this: If I have a one thousandth share in a property which shows a profit, and I sell that share and make a profit on that, the Minister does not tax that profit under his new proposal. I just want to say this to the Minister. The day when he taxes every share in a business that is sold—and a share surely is a property—if he imposes the same excess profits tax on such sales as he now imposes on profits on fixed property, he will render the country a great service. Hon. members over there always talk about the returned soldiers. What about the young man who returns and who now makes a £1,500 profit? He may have made big sacrifices but when he earns £1,500 for the first time he has to pay excess profits tax.

Leave the soldiers alone.

When all this noise in the kitchen over there has subsided, I hope to be allowed to carry on. More than 10,000 people pay super tax. The Minister gets £11,000,000 in excess profits duty out of a few people. If only he would carry out democratic principles and lay it down that people in receipt of big incomes over £1,700 have to pay, so that the tax is distributed over the whole community, he would render a great service to the country. I only want to say that if the Minister were to apply that I personally would have to pay £300 more in taxation every year. Do not let us say that what I am saying here is said out of self interest. I would prefer to pay less, but I say that if the Minister does this, if he distributes such a tax over the super tax payers, who contribute £11,000,000, and over the whole community, he will render a great service to the country. I hope the Minister will bear in mind that the whole country is expecting him to carry out his promise in regard to employment, so that everyone will find work, and industry will be protected in such a way that there will be work for everybody, that health services will be so extended that the needs of the population will really be met. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman) said that he would like to see 7,000 doctors in this country. I do not agree with him because one can have too much of a good thing in this world. I only want to say after very careful investigation that we have come to the conclusion that if we had a superlatively good Government it would be possible every year to employ an additional 100 doctors, not in private practice but everyone of those 100 doctors would have to be in a Government post.

Another 100 super tax payers.

No; they will get about £1,000 per year—about one tenth of what the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) earns every year. Everyone of those doctors will have to be employed by the State and later on the State may perhaps be able to employ even more. There I agree with the hon. member for Gardens, but it is no use being over-optimistic in this world. Let us first of all see to it that the Government annually employs an additional 100 doctors until such time as we have about 4,000 doctors in the country, and later on the time may perhaps come when we can extend to 7,000 doctors if necessary. But I do not believe that that will be necessary. We can organise our medical services better, and it can be done in such a manner that with our doctors, nurses and social workers, and other available help, every doctor can be entrusted with 2,500 people, provided we have the necessary specialists in every region in the country, and that those specialists can look after the specialist work in that region. We need not quarrel about the exact figures. If the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) talks about 7,000 and I talk about 4,000, in all probability the right figure is somewhere between the two. But we want to have more services immediately, they must be provided by the Government, and the Minister of Finance must provide the money for those services. There is no sign, however, that the Government next year will employ one single additional doctor. The Minister said that there was a certain amount of expansion. It is about 1 per cent. and that means that where the State today employs 100 doctors. we may perhaps get one extra. We are anticipating that the State will every year employ 100 additional doctors until it employs 1,000. We are going to wait and see what the National Health Services Commission has to say; it will be interesting, and even if the Commission is not unanimous, it will not be such a disastrous thing, because we can look at the matter from all sides. I want to associate myself with the plea of the hon. member for Gardens for improved services in connection with infectious diseases. It will require a lot more money than is set down on these estimates and I therefore say that we have no sign here in this Budget of the conversion which we were told had taken place. In regard to the suggestion that we should have 7,000 doctors, we should not forget that that will mean that every medical faculty will every year have to turn out 252 doctors where they now turn out about 120. I also want to say this to the hon. member that not enough babies are born in Cape Town, Pretoria and Johannesburg, to give the doctors the training they require, and surely in the long run we cannot blame the Minister of Finance for that. If we want the numbers which the hon. member for Gardens wants, then we must have at least twice as many babies born, just to mention one side of the question, and to achieve that we shall have to recruit the services of the whole country. I also want to make an appeal to the country to put that position on its proper basis. It would be a very good thing. We talk about immigration, but there is a sacred and good kind of immigration, and we should avail ourselves of that to the fullest extent. It would mean increasing the population from our own ranks, and not in the way we have done in the past when we seriously neglected our duties to our own country in that respect.

In the short time allotted to one in a debate like this one has to get on to the point one wishes to deal with without any delay. I am going to deal only slightly with the Budget itself because I have one special subject which I want to bring before the House. In spite of the lamentations of Jeremiah which we have just listened to, I think the Budget which the Minister has introduced is the wisest he has ever introduced. I am not referring to the inequalities of taxation which will have to be dealt with. The Minister, when faced with the position of having to find £5,288,500 has taxed articles which cannot be said to be necessaries of life, and he has not imposed a burden on the small man. I have listened to many Budgets that have had to deal with the problem of finding certain amounts of money, large and small, but I have never listened to a Budget which has been so wise in spreading the incidence of taxation. And as regards the Minister of Railways I referred earlier to the necessity of knowing something about post-war development, and I was very glad to hear the long view taken by the Minister, and to hear that £30,000,000 will be spent on postwar construction. Now, I must get on to the special matter which I want to bring before the House, and that is the question of broadcasting. This matter was discussed in the House when the Act was introduced in 1936, and I must say that the general impression of South Africa, as I see it—if you ask anyone in the street what is the matter with broadcasting in South Africa, they will say: “Everything is the matter.” They are very dissatisfied, and they feel that the listeners are not getting a square deal for the licence fees paid. Comparisons are said to be odious, but you have to compare South Africa with other parts of the Commonwealth to see how woefully behind we are in regard to broadcasting. We have only one system, we have no advertising stations, or B stations as they are called in Australia, so there is no competition. Yet the programmes are very poor. Of course, it is impossible to please every section. Still, the programmes are poor— it cannot be denied. The music is poor, and they are not making use of the material there is in South Africa. There are a number of distinguished artists in this country and why they do not do any broadcasting I cannot tell. One of the reasons probably is the miserable and inadequate payment given —a couple of guineas—totally out of proportion with what is paid elsewhere; and in the meantime the Broadcasting Corporation is piling up huge sums in reserve. They are not spending the money for which they could get these artists. Distinguished actors and musicians are not used—they are simply allowed to go elsewhere. Altogether it seems to me that everything is wrong. The report has not been printed this year, but it was laid on the Table of the House. It is a very unpleasing report—it gives details of what was done during the year. Well, altogether it is very unsatisfactory. You have entrepreneurs of world renown—they come to this country but they are never used to build up the programmes. In other countries the intraduction of these famous artists is made entirely through the Broadcasting Corporation. I should like the Minister to tell us why it is not possible to make use of our artists and why these artists cannot be paid decent fes. The fee of a couple of guineas is so miserable that people will not accept it and I don’t blame them. There is only one exception I should like to mention—the Broadcasting Corporation managed to secure the services of a very great actress, Miss Marie Ney. Her performances have been brilliant, and there the Corporation undoubtedly did something very good indeed. But it only shows what could be done. If they would only do it on a large scale the result would be excellent. Now take the children. Why has the children’s session been done away with? It may be said to be a war measure, but at one time the children’s session was one of the outstandingfeatures of the programme. It should be reinstated as soon as possible. I was looking through the Broadcasting Year Book of Australia of fourteen years ago. Australia in 1930 was already miles ahead of our present boardcasting. We shall never make up the leeway because we have not got the intelligent and imaginative people necessary in charge of the system. The system is all wrong. The Government cannot control it. The Government has nominated the people, and after that they have nothing to do with it. But I know there are a lot of local advisory councils, but where are their reports? I have never seen them. Have any of those people on those Councils been selected because of their experience in broadcasting? If the Minister can tell us I shall be glad. I have been looking up the Australian report for 1930. Here are a few figures. During that year they put on 20 operas and musical comedies, 44 plays, 50 choral societies, 20 symphony orchestras, 44 prominent conductors from Australia and elsewhere, 20 world-famous pianists, and 54 singers, many of international fame. Compare that with the miserable performances we get in South Africa. We have had famous singers here recently, but you don’t hear them on the broadcast. The Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, state premiers, and people like that, and prominent men in commerce, are constantly heard on the wireless.

Are not we too busy making propaganda?

Even the judges in Australia are heard on the air.

Do you hear them passing the death sentence?

The head of every religious community is heard. And they don’t put their money into the Reserve Fund. They put the money which the listeners subscribe into the broadcasting.

Yes, we are too busy with war propaganda.

There is no question of propaganda. I am talking of an intelligent system of broadcasting.

Our broadcasting has no time for these things because there is nothing but propaganda.

My friend is taking it from a different angle. I say as far as the public are concerned they are completely dissatisfied with the programme.

I agree, they’re sick of it.

I am pleased to hear you agree with something.

Famous composers are heard in Australia, but you don’t hear them here. Consular officials of various countries are heard from time to time, and they give interesting information. Travellers give travel talks, the sporting section is far ahead of anything we have here. Altogether we are far behind in the race. While we are accumulating reserves the other people are looking out how they can interest the listeners. Now I notice that there were an enormous number of cancellations of licences in 1942—that is the last year for which we have the report. I am perfectly satisfied that if broadcasting were done well in South Africa we would have a considerable increase in the number of listeners. Are the people of the platteland given an opportunity of knowing what is going on? One thing which we should have had long ago is the broadcasting of speeches in Parliament.

Heaven forbid.

I don’t agree with the hon. member. The public is entitled to know what is going on in Parliament. The newspapers devote very little space to Parliamentary reports. It is ludicrous to think that any man can find out what is going on in Parliament by reading the newspapers. Only the most scrappy information is given. But the public of this country are entitled to have broadcasting brought to their doors, a man is entitled to turn on the wireless and hear what is happening in the House—and if that is done you will get a much more intelligent electorate.

They must not give television because if they see our faces together with our speeches—what then?

I must ask my hon. friend not to be too severe on some of us who have not got his good looks, and therefore we are rather diffident about television. As I say, everything is wrong, and I would put forward some suggestions to put it right. There was a lot of talk recently about the colour bar in connection with opera. Well, there is no colour bar in broadcasting. Every man who can afford to pay for a licence can have a set in his own home, and listen to the broadcasts and there is no colour bar. At present the fee in South Africa is rather high—higher than it is in other countries. Now, in Australia they have their advertising stations, their “B” stations, so that there is competition. We only have a national system here. At any rate there should be an opportunity for having these advertising stations because if you have competition of these advertising stations which always secure the best talent in the world, you keep your broadcasting up to the mark. Here they have nothing to compete with. They take the money and put it into a reserve because they may need it in some years hence. They had a capital scheme some time ago, they said: “We need this money for big developments”—but where are these developments? Now, compare the number of licences in Australia in 1930 with the numbers here. In Australia they had 322,650 licences in July, 1930, as compared with 52,154 in South Africa in 1942; the number went down very considerably in 1942, as compared with 1941. Now, what about music? In Australia the Broadcasting Corporation has educated the Australian masses by the wonderful things they have put on the broadcasts. There has been a taste in music developed which the country profits from. A critical audience has been created who know when a thing is good and when it is bad.

I suppose they even give them Wagner there.

I have never objected to Wagner. The hon. member is shooting at the wrong person. I do not object to music from a generation which happens to be superior to the present generation. I am not a racial musician—I don’t believe in racialism in music and I am not a racial politician. In Victoria, Australia, you have huge audiences who take part in community singing, collections are made, and the result, is that every Victorian hospital has been equipped with wireless receiving apparatus. Do our Broadcasting Corporation ever do anything in this way for charity? No, they have a lot to learn. Let. me say there is a lot which can be done, and should be done in regard to broadcasting. I only want this matter to be thoroughly considered and gone into, because I believe we are capable of developing broadcasting in South. Africa and bringing it to the home of every person in South Africa, whether he be rich or poor, and making it of great educational value. Before I sit down there is one thing I want to say to the Minister in regard to taxation. This matter of wine was brought up last Session. I would like to say in regard to this tax on fortified wine that there is something which I believe the Minister could do as a measure of justice in regard to that tax. The Minister may or may not be justified in putting a tax on fortified wine, but. he should do what is done in other countries—I believe it is done in Australia, and this is the opportunity to try and increase the sale of good wine. There is the question of the quality of the product, the price of which can be fixed by the K.W.V. under the law of 1940. The Minister should consider the question, while putting that tax on fortified wine, of paying a rebate to farmers who produce quality wine or good wine. The whole matter is controlled by legislation. That would have the result of this tax not being a hardship on the farmer, and it would tend to increase the amount of good wine produced in this country which would inevitably lead to the advancement of a great industry upon which we in Cape Town and in the Western Province depend largely for our economic security.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer)—I am sorry he is not here just now — made a dramatic onslaught on the Government in regard to its housing policy. I have no intention of answering him. I think the responsible Minister will be able to reply most effectively, but I do want to say a few words on the subject, and I first of all want to say that I think it is extremely regrettable that the hon. member should have mentioned a certain instance here, namely that of certain families who live in tents in the church grounds—I am sorry he should have used that instance to support his case. I certainly know very much more about that case than the hon. member for Stellenbosch who spoke about it, and I want to assure this House that what happened there was by no means due to a shortage of houses; the fact that they have to live in tents is even less due to the fact that these men had been in the army, or had been discharged from the army. It is regrettable that the hon. member mentioned those two most unfortunate families, and that he considered it necessary to refer to them in support of his case. It is a pity that he should drag those unfortunate people across the floor of this House. I want to repeat that it is not due to any shortage of houses that these people are living in tents, and it is even less due to their having been discharged from the army: I would in no circumstances have referred to the unfortunate position of those families in this House; rather would I have preferred to have done what I could do to improve their position.

Are there sufficient houses?

Those people can be housed not far from the spot where they are today. I am sorry the hon. member himself did not say what was the reason why they are not. He knows as well as I do why they are not given other accommodation today.

What is the reason?

I have already said that I have no intention of dragging their unfortunate position across the floor of this House. I want to associate myself with practically all of the speakers who expressed satisfaction with the general tendency of the Budget. The fact of the matter is that practically all interested parties in this country who were waiting for this Budget had expected a much larger deficit than £5,250,000, and that a much larger amount than that would have to be found by means of extra taxation, by means of fresh taxation. I do not think I am saying too much when I say that the Budget to those people and to the whole country came as a pleasant surprise in that respect.

What about the wine farmer?

I am coming to that. I say that to the country as a whole the Budget came as a pleasant surprise. That figure of almost £4,500,000, or round about that amount, which has been repaid by the farmers in State loans is most encouraging to me as a farmer, and I think that to agriculture in general it is proof of the fact that the farmer of recent years has been able to rehabilitate himself to a large extent if he is in a position to liquidate his debt to the State to such a large degree. It also goes to prove that in regard to loans from private institutions and moneylenders, the agriculturists generally speaking, are repaying their debts very largely. That proves many things which we can mention—one of which I want to refer to—it proves that when the farmer gets a reasonable price for his products he does not have to go to the State and ask for help to pay his debtor—to help him rehabilitate himself. Reasonably payable prices with planned marketing is the foundation stone which is required to rehabilitate agriculture as a whole. In the very limited time at my disposal I can only deal with a few points. When I express my satisfaction with the Budget in general that does not mean that there are not a few points in respect of which I am dissatisfied. I just want to say a few words about the increase in old age pensions. Undoubtedly the increase in old age pensions and invalidity allowances will give a good deal of relief, and we are grateful for that. I certainly feel that so far as the Europeans are concerned, the increase will be received with gratitude, and it undoubtedly meets a need which is very strongly felt, but I cannot refrain from expressing my deep disappointment at the very trivial increase allowed for coloured pensioners. I want to make a serious appeal to the Minister to increase this £3 for the coloured pensioners to £6. Make it £6 right through. I particularly want to put up a plea on behalf of the coloured pensioners in the rural districts who get so much less in comparison with the coloured people in the towns. I knew what these people’s conditions are and I can assure hon. members that they are living in very dire circumstances, and that 95 per cent. of them are people who have all their lives worked for very low wages. I hope the Minister will see his way to increase this amount of £60,000 set down for that purpose to £120,000.

Where is the Minister to get the extra money?

I am convinced that the Minister by shifting things about a bit will easily find the necessary £60,000. Now let me come to another point. I don’t want to say that this is a grievance, but I had expected something different—I am referring to the tax on wine. I think it is a pity to impose any additional taxation on the wine industry. We as wine farmers realise that the wine industry produces a luxury article, and that if the country is in trouble and if there is a shortage of money, every. Minister of Finance stretches out his hand and grasps the first luxury article he can get hold of in order to secure additional revenue. I don’t want to be as pessimistic as the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) who stated the other day that the Minister was wiping out the wine industry. I am not one of those who believe that the wine industry will be wiped out as a result of this tax. Protest meetings have been held, and the hon. member for Swellendam has taken part in those protest meetings. I am sorry he is not here. He said: “There is very little sympathy for the wine industry in Parliament, and some of the representatives of the wine districts may possibly vote for this proposal as they believe this is a political matter”. I want to assure the hon. member that he need not look for the other representatives of the wine farmers behind the door which he himself has perhaps been standing behind.

Are you going to vote for this thing?

Yes; and I want to assure the hon. member that I am going to vote for this proposal not because it is a matter of politics with me—it is my own bread and butter—but I am going to do so as a man who makes his living out of wine, and as a representative of a very important section of the wine farmers. I am going to do so because in my opinion it is fair and it constitutes a balanced burden of taxation in the circumstances under which we are living, and under which money has to be found.

In other words you think it is right.

Whether it is right or wrong is not the question today. The point is that money has to be found, and any Minister in such circumstances would come down on luxury articles, that is why tobacco and wine are turned to first.

What about beer?

In the circumstances I am able to vote for this proposal.

Rightly or wrongly.

In the circumstances, according to the country’s needs, I shall vote for it. That is No. 1. In the second place I shall vote for it because I expect this to be a war measure which will disappear as soon as circumstances make it possible.

Have you had such an assurance from the Minister?

I have not yet had an assurance, but that is what I expect from the Minister.

Why is there no increased tax on beer and on whisky?

I certainly expect, if the circumstances require it, that the Minister will revise these taxes. If the consumption drops after the war, as some hon. members have said, then I definitely think the Minister will be obliged to review the tax; any Minister in times like the present would first of all tax luxury articles, but the Minister is not going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. We know that this sort of taxation provides round about £4,000,000 annually. Why should the Minister tax this industry out of existence? I expect this to be a temporary measure, and if the Minister disappoints me we can always go to the Prime Minister, as hon. members know. I just want to remind hon. members that had it not been for the Prime Minister, the position would have been very serious when the wine industry was threatened with ruin in 1924. It was the Prime Minister who saved us then by giving us control over distilling wine. It was the Prime Minister’s action which made it possible for us to put the wine industry on the sound footing on which it is today. And another reason why I know we can depend upon him is because it was due to him that we got control over good wine which enabled us to stablise the wine industry.

You are talking about a luxury article. Is not beer a luxury article too? Why is not that taxed?

There are a lot of other things the hon. member could mention—he could go on until tomorrow morning. In the third place I agree with this proposal because I have made serious representations to the Government, and I have requested them in future to pay greater attention to the wine industry as such—to the goose which lays the golden egg. I want to give Ministers the assurance that the wine industry as such is not asking for financial help, but it is asking for support, for assistance, in regard to the sale of our goods. We tax the consumers by the higher tax on wine, but what is the position? A man is accustomed here in the Cape to drink a certain class of wine or brandy, When he goes to Johannesburg or Pretoria he asks for the same class of wine or brandy but he does not get it. I want to make an appeal to the Government to establish a proper system of inspection to prevent the adulteration of liquor. Today we have one inspector for the whole Union and the least the wine industry asks for is one inspector for each Province. I know the Minister of Justice will say that the police must assist in that regard, but the work has to be done by experts. The police, so far as the adulteration of drink is concerned, cannot help us very much. In conclusion I want to draw attention to the liquor trade as such, and to refer to all the curtailments placed on the liquor trade. There are 3,000 farmers who are producers in this industry, and the State every year gets £4,000,000 out of the industry. I think I am entitled to ask that these restraining restrictions on the liquor trade, which have a detrimental effect and encourage drunkenness, should be removed. These restrictions handicap the trade with the result that the liquor trade to a large extent gets into undesirable hands, in the hands of people who are prepared to do anything in conflict with the law. If half of these handicaps and restrictions were removed, a better type of person would very soon enter the liquor trade than is the case today.

As a new member of this House, I looked forward expectantly to the Budget debate, and I listened with great interest to the statement on the part of the Minister of Finance and later to the speeches of members of the Opposition and members on this side of the House. It is my considered opinion that the Minister of Finance put the financial position of our country so clearly and, may I say, so simply that I think even the financial experts on the Opposition side could understand it without difficulty. I personally am convinced that the greater portion of the taxpayers of South Africa expected the Minister to dip more deeply into their pockets. We have a Budget of more than £100,000,000, of which nearly half is found from revenue, and I want to ask hon. members in all seriousness which section of the taxpayers, after 4½ years of war, one of the greatest and most expensive wars which the world has ever known, can really complain that they are bearing too great a burden. Is it. not a well-known fact that with hardly any exceptions, every section of the population is today in a better financial position than it was before the war? The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) and other hon. members of the Opposition tried to make our flesh creep with their pessimistic picture of the future, especially as far as the wine farmers are concerned. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, I know very little about wine, but after his speech I am convinced that he was not serious in making these pleas and representations, and I also doubt whether these pleas were taken seriously by his own side of the House. I want to repeat that no one can with justification complain that the taxes which now have to be paid will be too great a burden on any section of the taxpayers. I think the critical members of this House were on more solid ground when they pointed out that there are perhaps defects in the Budget, where no provision is being made for the future. We are all convinced of the fact that the future is gloomy, and even we on these cross benches expected more provision to be made for social security schemes, to which we all looked forward. I am no doctor of economics and no financial expert, and more particularly not when millions are thrown around like marbles, but I feel that there are certain defects in the estimates. I personally can suggest no improvement or solution, but I hope that the Minister with his experience and ripe knowledge will take precautionary measures for the future. After the Minister had made his Budget speech, the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) got on his soap box, and I listened very attentively because I had heard that he was the financial expert of the Opposition, and I thought that if there were defects in the estimates he was the right person to explain those defects to me and to analyse them in his speech. What did we find? His speech was certainly interesting and very amusing, even comical, and I think his speech entitles him to be classed with Noel Coward and the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). But after careful reflection, I cannot help thinking of the English saying: “After mighty labour the mountain gaye forth a mouse.” In the first place the hon. member criticised the war expenditure. It is, of course, his hobby-horse that we should never have participated in the war. But the hon. member was in a difficult position, because during the election the country approved of the war policy of the Government. The hon. member had to try to get past that by arguing that £6,000,000 to £10,000,000 could be saved annually on the war expenditure. He did not explain how that could be done, No one on this side can deny that in certain respects money is perhaps unnecessarily spent on the war, but we must remember that there are approximately 500,000 persons directly concerned in the war effort, and that this organisation was built up over a period of 2½ years from practically nothing to its present position of prestige. If there is waste, we deprecate it, and we expect the Opposition to suggest how it can be avoided. But the further argument of the hon. member for George, which was later repeated by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) left me aghast. He mentioned the case of three persons, firstly a Minister of the Crown, secondly a doctor, and thirdly an industrialist, each earning £2,500 per annum. The first pays only £290 by way of taxation, the second pays nearly £900, and the third pays more than £1,000. I do not want to go into his figures. I take it for granted that they are correct. But surely the hon. member knows that there is a very simple explanation for that difference in taxation. But my point in this connection is that every Opposition newspaper and all the members on the other side have always maintained that they are anti-capitalistic, that they champion the cause of the poor man and the middleman, and nevertheless their expert critic rises and complains about the tax levied on persons who receive the meagre remuneration of £2,500 per annum! Is that anti-capitalistic? Let them rather plead the cause of the poor farmer. The person who needs protection is the poor man, but the hon. member pleads for the man who receives £2,500 per annum.

You are distorting the facts.

I want to make a plea on behalf of the farmers, not the big-scale farmers but the small farmers. The hon. members for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) and Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) spoke of farmers, but they made a plea on behalf of farmers who can look after themselves, farmers enjoying big incomes. In my constituency in the Western Transvaal, the so-called cradle of Nationalism, the population consists mainly of small farmers. I make bold to say that 90 per cent. or more of the voters in my constituency are small farmers, farmers who own property valued at anything from £500 to £1,000, and with a prewar annual income of no more than £50. How one can make ends meet on such an income I leave to the imagination of hon. members. If the farmer does not receive certain free facilities, such as housing, milk, vegetables and meat, which he gets from his farming operations, he ekes out a very poor living. He may not starve; there is always mealie porridge and sometimes a little milk, but what about the undernourished children and what about the other articles which he requires, and which are regarded as essential in the cities? What about clothes for himself and for his wife and children? What about doctors’ bills? What about the groceries they have to buy? What about the education of their children? It may be said that a number of these things are provided by the Government, but any farmer who has a sense of independence looks upon assistance from the Government as charity, and he will only accept it if he must. He cannot afford to hire labour. His wife and children have to assist him. I notice that the Nationalist Party pleads for at least one holiday a year for every worker. Which farmer gets one holiday a year? I am convinced that in my constituency not 5 per cent. of the voters have ever seen the sea or had a holiday. The farmer works from the 1st January to the 31st December, from early morning till late at night. There is no 40-hour week for him, but only work, and no opportunity of developing his brain and improving his intellect by seeing other parts of the country. I do not want to enlarge on this. I think every hon. member is aware of the fact that the small farmers in South Africa are in a critical position. Perhaps they are slightly better off than they were in the past, because their incomes have risen somewhat, but what will their position be in the new order after the war? What solution can be found for their problems? I notice that in the new orders which are now being advocated, provision is made for the workers in the cities, and I want to emphasise that many coloured and native workers in the cities today live on a higher plane than many farmers in my constituency. I do not begrudge them that, but why cannot the same privileges be accorded to the hard-working farmer? Under the new order the smaller farmer must also be taken into consideration, on an equal footing with the worker in the city, otherwise the farmers will continue to migrate to the cities, and aggravate the difficult position which exists there. We hear a great deal today about the settlement of soldiers on the land. If no better provision is made for the soldiers than is made for the small farmers, the scheme to place the soldiers on the land will suffer shipwreck at its inception. And what is the solution of this problem? The hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) said a moment ago that if the farmer got an adequate price for his products, he would be satisfied. That may be the case where the farmer farms on a large scale, but it is not the case where the farmer farms on a small scale and has perhaps two or three morgen under irrigation, and possibly a small span of oxen. If he has to get a price on which he can live, it would become unpayable for the consumer. Moreover, if the price is fixed on that level, the large-scale farmer will make so much profit that he will derive the benefit from the increase in prices and not the small farmer. I just want to repeat that if provision is made for a new order, for a better future for all sections of the community, I want to ask the House and the Government to see that the interests of the small farmer will be the first to be taken into consideration. Last week I had the opportunity of returning to my constituency to inspect the damage which was caused by the recent floods, and it was sad to see the condition of misery in which those people find themselves. Not only were many crops washed away; but even the small dams, the furrows and lands were all washed away. Some of these people came to me and told me that they could not carry on, that their spirit had been broken, that they were going to down tools and seek another haven. It was only due to the assistance which the Government has promised to render that I could convince them to carry on and to do their duty. I agree with the hon. member for Stellenbosch, where he described the farmer as the backbone of our country, but it is not in the first instance the large-scale farmer who is the back-bone of our country; it is the small farmer who, with resolute determination, does his duty, and is deserving of that distinction.

I want to raise a few points. The first point I want to raise is in regard to the marketing system. We on this side of the House want a proper permanent marketing system with fixed prices on an economic basis, plus profits. Furthermore, we want agricultural credits. We want the agricultural credits to be converted by the Land Bank, and if necessary we want the Land Bank to function as a Farmers’ Bank. Now, I also want to say a few words about farm labour and about economic development. First of all I want to make a few remarks about the statement of the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus). I have never yet seen anyone doing an egg dance like the hon. member did here today. He did not know whether he should criticise or approve of the tax on the wine farmers. Eventually he said he hoped the tax would be of a temporary nature. Let me assure the hon. member that it will be a permanent tax, because the Government will need that money even after the war. I wonder whether he realises that 3,000 farmers today have to pay a tax of £4,000,000.

The drinkers pay it.

Every ordinary wine farmer has to pay a tax of £1,300 per year. I know it will be said that the consumer pays it, but indirectly it is the wine industry which gives the Government the opportunity of taxing the consumer. Instead of protecting the wine farmer the Minister now uses the wine industry as his best milch cow. Let us compare the taxes on the wine industry with the taxes on the gold mines. These 3,000 wine farmers pay a tax of £4,000,000. I feel this is the Government’s best milch cow because the farmers are organised and it is therefore easy for the Government to collect this money. The same thing applies to the tobacco farmer. The tobacco farmer is independent; he does not ask the Government for help, yet he is taxed to the utmost. Here we have the two best organised bodies in South Africa and the Minister does all he can to tax them to the utmost in order to see his war effort through. Now I want to refer to a few of the remarks made by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson). The hon. member acknowledged something here which was very true. He said that we had never yet had an agricultural policy in South Africa, and he hoped that such a policy would be framed. Now what is the real position? Agriculture has been neglected in the past. Gold was South Africa’s idol, and agriculture was only a side issue, but the time will come when agriculture will again occupy its rightful place. Even today we are being told that the mines will be worked out within fifteen years, and the day will come when agriculture will occupy the premier position in South Africa. We have seen the same thing happen in Australia. Australia for a time expanded and lived on its gold, but when that source of revenue fell away Australia had to go back to its primary and secondary industries. I should like to know this: Let the Minister tell us what the Government’s agricultural policy is?—we don’t want just a patchwork policy such as we have had in the past. Those old trousers are worn out as a result of all the patches—and there is nothing left of them. We want to know what is the Government’s policy for the next five, ten or fifteen years. We want the Government to lay down a policy of a permanent nature. I agree with the hon. member for Drakensberg when he says we have no agricultural policy. He said a true thing when he made that statement, but after the hon. member had made that statement he praised the Minister. Of course he did. Because party politics came into it again. The hon. member for Hottentots Holland also did so. He made a charge against the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) but he himself did what he accused the hon. member for Swellendam of doing—and the hon. member for Drakensberg did the same thing. The hon. member flattered the Minister. I am not satisfied that the Minister has been reasonable towards the farmers. I have already said that he is taxing the wine farmers and the tobacco farmers very heavily and that he is getting a lot of money out of the products of the wine and tobacco farmers. And what has he done about the estate duty? Here, again, he has hit the farmer. The farmer protests most strongly against these estate and succession duties, and there are also a good many difficulties about the transfer duties. But the Minister gave so little consideration to his proposals that within fourteen hours he had to change his ideas and alter his proposals. He could not have given much thought to his proposals. And now. I want to say a few words about a permanent marketing system. It’s no use having a marketing system which is only temporary. If the Minister imagines that a temporary system is going to be any use after the war, then he is quite wrong. We want a system of a permanent nature and not just a temporary system, we want the prices of the farmer’s products to be fixed on an economic basis, plus a profitable basis. The farmer has also arrived at the stage where he refuses to be the milch cow of big industry any longer—he wants to keep a little milk for his own children. How are we to achieve that? There is only one way to achieve that, and it is by means of boards. Australia has also done so. We are in favour of the principle of boards, but unfortunately the constitution of our boards is not as it should be. Our boards are weak—there are too many people on the boards who have their own interests to look after—people like the middlemen are on the boards. In Australia they have a comsumers’ board and a producers’ board. The consumer, of course, is represented on the consumers’ board, but another board is constituted from the two boards—a joint board. That board consists of three producers and three consumers, but the three producers are not allowed to be interested in a particular commodity. They are there to study the interests of the consumers, and I think that is an ideal which we should strive after. The farmers in Australia also have a system of export and a system of local marketing. Their system of export is arranged in such a manner that anyone who wants to export can use the existing facilities. Take wheat. In New South Wales they have 278 grain elevators. Those grain elevators are fully controlled. We on this side of the House take up the attitude that half control is worse than no control at all. Let me tell hon. members why it is such a good thing to have such control. If contracts come in from other countries one must know at once where to get the things that are required. Here in South Africa if we get a contract one. has to chase about to find out where the goods required can be obtained. We have no foreign policy. Australia has an export trade amounting to £120,000,000, and although we have no export trade at the moment the time will come when we shall have to have a proper export trade. Now I want to say a few words about meat. One cannot, control meat unless one has cold storage accommodation. The first essential in meat control is storage accommodation. When we came back from Australia about seven years ago we drafted a report for the Government. Mr. Schutte was in Australia before that and he also put in a report. All those reports state clearly that the first essential, if one wants to control a perishable product, is to have cold storage accommodation. In Australia the cold storage accommodation is in the hands of the Government and of the Municipalities. Any man there can get facilities through the cold storage concerns; even if a man is a retail dealer he can make on payment of a small fee, use of the cold storage facilities. Here in South Africa it is the middleman who has all the cold storage accommodation; he is the boss, and everyone else is his servant. He sits there exploiting the producer and the consumer. He has all the power; the State has no power, and the Municipalities have no power. And now there is a point on which I feel very strongly. In South Africa we have the Imperial Cold Storage. They own 50 per cent. of the cold storage accommodation in the country, and now the Industrial Development Corporation comes along and invests, I believe, £120,000 in an industry which is already doing very well and paying very well. If by investing that money the Corporation could get a controlling say in the cold storage after the war—and I say so deliberately—then there would be no objection, but this is a temporary measure in which they are only helping the middleman to push up his shares. Is this good business? We are told that the Industrial Development Corporation has put the money in the Imperial Cold Storage as an investment. If that is so then I say the sooner we get rid of the Industrial Development Corporation the better it will be for us. I don’t want to criticise the Meat Commission’s report here. I think it is a step in the right direction. We want to see the whole thing put on a proper basis. We want the Meat Board to get statutory powers; we want the Meat Board to be the master, but I understand there are certain gaps and anomalies in connection with the Meat Control Board. I understand that Mr. McLoughlin has resigned. I should like to know from the Minister why Mr. McLoughlin has resigned? If there are any gaps those gaps should be filled. The marketing system must be put in order in such a manner that it will be of a permanent nature. We feel that is absolutely essential.

Now I come to agricultural credits. Some people may take it amiss if I say anything against the commercial banks, but if anyone got to know the commercial banks, it was the farmers during the last depression. The commercial banks gave us an umbrella when the sun shone, but they took our umbrella away when it started to rain. I know of farmers who had deposits with the commercial banks and who went to the banks to ask for a small advance, but the banks refused to accommodate them. They used South African money for speculation purposes, to satisfy the shareholders and to pay them big dividends. I am told that the banks in those days had the Government in the hollow of their hand. The reason was that they were overseas institutions and the Government was unable to control them. The result was that when they had smuggled enough money out of the country they forced the Government to go off the gold standard. We feel we must do something to protect ourselves. We are told that the farmers have repaid £4,000,000 to the Treasury. I ask whether it would not have been better to keep that £4,000,000 in the Land Bank and to convert, the Land Bank into a commercial bank which can give short and long term credit. Would not that get us out of the power of the commercial banks?

What would the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) have to say about that?

I don’t care what the hon. member says about it but I feel he will be in entire agreement with me because I have discussed the matter with him. I don’t think the Government should bear all the responsibility. I feel the farmers should also invest their money in that bank. In that way the farmer becomes the master in his own house. I feel we must expand in that direction, and if the farmer wants credit he should not have to go to the commercial banks but to his own institution. I feel that that will place the farmers on a sounder basis in days to come so that they will no longer have to say “yes boss” to the commercial banks. Now let me say a few words about farm labour. We hear lots of talk about farm labour. We hear that the farmers do not pay their labour properly. There are many farmers who want to pay their labourers well, but many farmers cannot afford to do so. If the farmer has not got a permanent marketing system with fixed prices and if he has not got his own banking system, how is he ever going to know what he can afford to pay his servants; and if we have a sound marketing system in this country, a sound credit system, the farmer will be able to pay his labourers more. Without that it is impossible for him to pay those high prices. The Native Affairs Commission some time ago said that every servant on a farm cost the farmer £50 per year, and I quite agree that in normal times that is the position. Today, however, it costs the farmer more than £50. The cost of food, clothes, machinery and everything has gone up. If one takes all these things into consideration then each servant costs the farmer more than £50 per year. But if we had a proper system the farmer would be able to decide how much he could pay his servants, and our friends on the Labour benches would not then be able to say that we did not pay our servants enough. I now want to come to another point. I feel the time has come when we should get agriculture as far as possible away from the political arena. I have raised this point on a previous occasion. For that reason it would be a good thing if our agricultural unions could appoint an economic agricultural council. Or the Government could do so—a council which to a certain extent would take the responsibility off the Minister’s shoulders. The Minister of Agriculture is not an expert in every respect, and he often cannot keep pace because so much responsibility is attached to his post. Would it not be a good thing to have such a Board which could work with the Minister’s Department? The Department today is compelled to carry out the Government’s policy, and that is where the whole trouble arises. The Department is the Government’s servant, and simply carries out the Government’s policy. If we had an agricultural council and a Department, we could have an independent economic council, but the economic council would also have other work to do. It must be the connecting link with the country’s industrial development. There must be co-ordination. Industrial development, of course, must also have such a council, and they will have to agree how they are going to fit in. To my mind our industrial development today is a failure. We have been told that our industrial development was going to expand tremendously during the war, but we are deeply disappointed at the development which has taken place in our industries here. We have been told that after the war we shall be practically independent. I want to ask the Minister in what way the Industrial Development Corporation has done any good to the platteland? Has the Industrial Development Corporation established any small industries on the platteland? Has it tried to do so? No, it has not done so. The idea of the Industrial Development Corporation was to decentralise and not to centralise, and it is there where it has failed. It has even gone so far as to invest money in an enterprise which for years has been a parasite. Now I want to ask the Minister whether it will not be possible to carry on our industrial development in the rural districts, whether it will not be possible to establish industries on the platteland so that our young men and young girls need not all go to the towns to make a living? Let me say how that can be done. We can establish cold storages and abattoirs in the producing areas in places where the animals are bred. Hon. members know that if an animal has to be transported hundreds of miles to its destination it always gets bruised; it goes down in weight and grade, and this sort of thing costs the farmer thousands of pounds every year. If we had cold storage accommodation in the producing areas that sort of thing would not happen. One could have factories there for the canning of meat, tongue, etc. In that way thousands of people could be employed on the platteland and the farmers could be saved thousands of pounds. If we had cold storages a permit system would no longer be needed. If we had these cold storage facilities it would be possible to have a grade of meat which could be supplied to the consumers all the year round. But what happens now? A farmer has 1,000 sheep and it takes him five months to get those sheep on the market. By the time he has got all his sheep on the market those sheep are thin again, but if the farmer had a place where he could send his sheep when they are fat, that sort of thing would not happen and the people right throughout the country would have a good grade of meat to eat. Now there is another point I want to bring to the notice of the House. The hon. member for Hottentots-Holland spoke of £4,000,000 which had been paid back to the Land Bank.

£4,500,000.

How much of that is borrowed money which the farmers were able to get more cheaply from private moneylenders?

Not more than 2 per cent.

I am sorry to say I do not believe it. In our part of the country they come and offer the farmers money at a very low rate of interest. I myself have warned many farmers not to borrow money in that way. In my part of the country very little of that money has been made out of farming, and a good deal of that money has been borrowed from commercial people, and those poor men are going to be landed in the same trouble as they were in before. I am sorry the Land Bank has gone so far as to return that £4,000,000 to the Government. I think they should have used it as a nest egg because after the war, in spite of all the nice talk we hear today, money will be very scarce, and the farmers will again have to go to the Minister for assistance. The old system will come back again.

Only £1,000,000 of that £4,000,000 comes from the Land Bank.

Well, even that £1,000,000 should not have been given back. For that reason I am advocating the extension of agricultural credits, so that the Land Bank will be able to take over all farm mortgages. We know that it cannot be done immediately, but we should make a start with it at once, because if we do not do so we will have the same trouble as we had before the war.

I do not know whether the Minister will stand inexorably by the taxation proposals which he has announced, or whether there is any possibility of inducing him to introduce changes in his proposals. I don’t quite know whether this debate is meant to give members the opportunity of making suggestions or of sowing seeds in the hope that a few grains may be productive of something useful. I have got up to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) primarily in regard to the survey of agriculture in the Union. A few days ago I made mention here of a grass survey, and I particularly mentioned the various types of grass in the Northern parts of the country. Since then I have received a letter from the Curator of the Museum in Kimberley, Miss Wilmot, who takes a great interest in that question. She draws my attention to the fact that although the Government’s botanists have for years promised that they will tackle this matter, all that has been done so far has been the establishment of a station at Droëput in connection with the investigation into the Vermeerbos. This is only one little bush of the 1,600 different varieties growing in that part of the world, and we are very anxious to have a larger amount of money put on the estimates for this purpose. The work is now being carried on by this lady in Kimberley but she finds it very difficult to bear all the expenses. The Cape Provincial Administration gives her £900 per year and private donations amount to another £100, so that she gets about £1,000 for this work, but that is quite inadequate to carry out the work properly. Now, having dealt with this question of grass surveys I want to come to the question of agricultural surveys. The object of such surveys would be to find out whether the position of the farmers in South Africa is sound. I am rather nervous that it will be found that a large percentage, I estimate at least 25 per cent., are living on an uneconomic basis. I am now referring particularly to the smaller land owners. They are in the unfortunate position where, in order to make a living, they are compelled to overgraze their farms. They cannot afford to huy more land and the result is that they are busy exhausting the soil, tramping it out more and more, and thus reducing its economic value. What are we to do now? If we say that 25 per cent. of the farmers cannot make an economic living on their farms then the best thing to do is to try and get them away from the farms and make consumers of them, but before we take them away from the farms we have to find some place for them to go to. I again want to turn to the Northern parts of the Cape, and I want to show that we, in those parts of the country, are looked upon as the Union’s stepchildren. Nobody really wants us—the only thing we are wanted for is to pay a bit of taxation. The Transvaal is not anxious to have us. We do not really belong to the Cape Province, and we are always right at the back when anything in the way of charity is handed out, but I do want to say that the day may perhaps come when the Northern parts will carry the whole of the Union. We have minerals there, especially base metals; we have iron of the very best quality. The iron fields round about Postmasburg can produce the best iron in South Africa. We have manganese, we have lime, and we have water in the Vaal River which can be made available for industrial undertakings, with very little difficulty. We have four of the five products which are essential for the establishment of an iron industry. Why cannot we have an iron industry in those parts? Why cannot something be done for these Northern parts of the country? If we were to establish such an iron factory between Kimberley and the Vaal-Hartz, somewhere along the Vaal River, it would be of the greatest service, not only to those parts but to the whole country. It would be a blessing to the Northern parts. I want to point out that the iron ore will be closer to such a factory than Vlekpoort is to Pretoria. Then we have manganese, lime and water. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that he really should have an investigation made into this question of the establishment of iron works in those parts of the country. If such an industry were established it would have to be established with the surplus labour on the farms. We must offer those people something and concentrate them in such areas. I also want to suggest that the Government should work these base metals in the mines and elsewhere exclusively by means of white labour, even if that should involve the Government in paying a subsidy. It would pay the Government better to try to keep those people on the farms than to carry on as they are doing today. The Minister of Lands a few days ago referred to the fact that the people in those parts—at least the white children in those parts—are getting a very excellent education. I think the great majority of us know that the education which most of those children get is of such a nature that 50 per cent. of them only go as far as standard VI. I ask hon. members what is the use of that type of education to a child who will one day have to make a living? All they have learned by the time they leave school is that knives are manufactured in Sheffield and cheese in Denmark. They are taught things which are no use to them. The position today is that when they have passed standard VI they are sent back to the farm to start farming there with the little bit of knowledge they have acquired. They go back to the farm and become farmers again, and as a result of the shortcomings from which they suffer they find they cannot make a living. We can draw those people who have not learned any trade to the industries—and we can also find work for them in the mines where base metals are being exploited. There we can provide better housing and other amenities for them, and at the same time, when we have concentrated the children there, we shall be able to give them a proper technical training. I also want to say that an agricultural survey will show that the time has arrived when serious attention should be given to the question of sub-dividing land. In 1937 the Minister of Lands of those days, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) introduced a bill on the non-profitable occupation of land in which provision was made that if necessary the Government should expropriate land. If the Government were to carry that law out to its full extent it would cost the State hundreds of millions of pounds; but the old saying is: “Prevention is better than cure” and we must try to take steps to stop this sub-division of land. I think the Minister should have the courage of his convictions and should introduce legislation under which every individual who has a farm—it does not matter who it is — will be prevented from selling part thereof unless he can produce a certificate to show that that piece of land can be profitably occupied. Our people are suffering from what I may call land hunger. Prices are today unprecedently high, and for the sake of finding a place where they can settle we see that men are buying farms at exorbitant prices, although they will never be able to make a living on those farms. They carry on farming operarations there for a number of years and then they find they are going back all the time, so they simply turn the burden over to someone else. We should lay it down that no land can be sold unless a certificate is issued by properly authorised persons to show that such a farm can be beneficially occupied. We have that principle in our towns. We have an Ordinance in connection with the layout of towns and dorps, and that Ordinance prohibits any person cutting up an erf without proper sanction; and we shall be compelled, if we want to stop the drift towards poverty, to introduce legislation to prevent land in certain areas being sold without a certificate. I hope that along those lines it will be possible to stop that process from developing any further. I also want to bring to the notice of the Minister a few matters in regard to stock and cattle farming, particularly in my part of the country. Prices are good today and every man can make a living, but the position is gradually beginning to change even now. In the past, too, we had a similar situation when we were producing various commodities, but we did not know what to do with our horses, cattle, our cows or our calves. We cannot expect the present level of prices to continue; we have to look to the future, and during the past few months, since the convoys have stopped coming round our coasts, we have already noticed a change coming over the meat market. The time has come when the Minister should consider abolishing the meatless day. We have a report from Dr. Schutte which shows that the numbers of our cattle, in spite of the large quantities that have been sent to the markets, have not come down, but in actual fact have increased. We have more cattle in the country today than before. If times become normal we can expect to again be faced with all kinds of difficulties and we can expect once more to have a surplus of cattle. I therefore think the time has now arrived for the Minister in charge of this matter to start making plans and to look out to see whether the consumption cannot be increased, because if no such steps are taken we may have the cry not of “eat more fruit”, but “eat more meat”. Instead of having meatless days we may have the cry of “eat more meat”. I am afraid it will not take very long before we shall once again have over production, and when that time comes we shall again have to contend with the same difficulties we have had to contend with in the past. I therefore want to suggest that part of our rural population should be converted into consumers, and in addition to that we must devise plans to ensure that the demand for meat is increased. We hope that if the social security measures are applied, and employment conditions improve, a way out of the difficulty may be found. Of course, members are always asked many questions in their constituencies, and are always instructed to raise these questions here in Parliament, but it does seem to me that it will not be much use appealing to the Minister to provide more boring machinery. The Minister has told us that he has none. We have always been told that, it is no use asking for an extension of our telephone services, or for an extension of the bus services. All these things are necessary to put farming on a sound basis. Somebody has suggested that the Minister of Finance might be asked to introduce additional taxation. The taxation suggested is not a tax on wine or anything of that kind, but it has been suggested that the Minister should put a tax of 6d. on every tube of lipstick. If that were done the State would get an additional £10,000 per year, and it would be a very excellent thing if we could destroy the use of lipsticks. Somebody else complained of ladies wearing such high heels, and suggested the imposition of a tax of 1s. per inch. If that were done we certainly would have healthier women in this country.

Might I say at the outset that after four and a half years of war we in this House are entitled to look back in retrospect and judge for ourselves whether the Budget is sound or not. Psychologically, as far as the people in the country are concerned, if the Minister of Finance does not dip too deeply into their pockets they say the Budget is a good one. Well, from my point of view that does not interest me, because I am quite certain that in a year or two when, and if the Minister of Finance has to dip deeply into our pockets, he will not be the white haired boy he has been up to now. I am judging this Budget from the point of view of where we are after four years of war, and I take into consideration the difficulties which the Government has had to go through and which the Treasury has had to go through. When we look back in retropect we realise that in 1939 our war potential was nil. What did we have apart from the Service Battalion—a few obsolete planes and a number of out of date machine guns. I have been told by people who know that in the stores we had more braces than trousers and socks and a few bush carts. Now, if hon. members were to have a look at our stores they would realise what has been done, and they would take off their hats to the Administration and to the Government. After four and a half years of war I say this, that I doubt whether there is any other party which could have carried on the Government of this country as well as the present Government has done, and I also say this, that if the present Government has piloted the country through the very difficult period of war in the way it has done, it is just as capable of piloting it through the transitory period of peace after the war. That brings me to the point that the criticism levelled against the Government so far is unwarranted, because I am certain that if given a chance this Government will carry the country adequately through the transitory period from war to peace. We must give them a chance—don’t forget Rome was not built in a day. Now let us come to the position as far as the Treasury is concerned. In 1939 our expenditure on war was about £4,000,000. In the current year our expenditure is about £102,000,000, yet throughout that progressive period of increasing expenditure we have been fortunate enough with our small population to be able to finance our war expenditure to the extent of 50 per cent. out of current revenue. That proves the financial stability of the country. But still we must realise that we have the future to look at.

As far as taxation is concerned I do not think that we have been hit badly at all. We have heard a lot of people moaning about excess profits duty and other taxes. But we have to realise that we have a responsibility to this country, we have to meet our bills, and we have to meet them honourably, and I do not think the Minister has overtaxed our resources. We only have to look at the taxation in other countries. I have a little pamphlet here. Where a married man in this country with one child on an income of £400 per year pays £4 15s. and on an income of £500 per year, £11 1s 9d., in Australia he pays £60 on the former amount and £95 on the last amount. I think hon. members will agree that as far as this country is concerned we are taxed very lightly indeed, and I am certain that if the Minister of Finance in future does dip further into our pockets we shall face up to our responsibilities willingly. True, our national debt has increased. The Minister told us the other day that it had increased by £184,000,000 and that it now stands at £475,000,000. I do not think that is a tremendous increase for the simple reason that we have financed 50 per cent. of our war expenditure out of revenue. We are not passing much on to posterity and I think it is only right that posterity should have something to pay for, and I am quite sure that our children will face up and gladly face up to their responsibility. We have to see that our machine is a creative force, and is run on sound lines. I know that the Government are well disposed—the trend of legislation recently has been such, as far as I can see, that the Government have made up their minds to face their responsibilities, and that they will play a co-operative part together with private enterprise to stabilise our future. We have had evidence of that recently. I am sure that if we give the Government a little assistance we shall have a bright future in this country. Now, dealing with the Budget generally, I am not going into globular figures, but I want to say that there is one increase in one vote which pleases me particularly, and that is the increase of £423,000 for the Native Affairs Department. I know that if one talks too much about our native population there are some people who accuse one of being a Negrophilist—a Kafferboetie. But I want to say again that the success of the European population hangs on how we carry on, how we treat, the non-European population. I am convinced of that and I also want to say this, that as far as politics are concerned the native question has been made a shuttlecock and battledore of politics for the last fifty years, and the sooner we come to realities the better it will be. The sooner we put our Native Affairs Department on a proper basis, the better it will be for the future. There is much development needed as far as the Native Affairs Department is concerned—that Department is doing yeoman work, and it is gratifying that this additional amount is being put down for that department. In fact, I shall be pleased to see the vote for that department increased to £3,000,000. The investment of money in this country, the development of our resources will lead to the development of industries, and production, and will put South Africa on a sound and solid basis.

I want to associate myself with those who have congratulated the Minister of Finance on this Budget. It is generally known that for years we have not had a Budget which can be criticised as little as this one. The Opposition has certainly done its best to criticise it. I want to say this for the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), that he has made the best of his case in levelling criticism in his usual capable manner, but even he could not get hold of anything really tangible to criticise.

Is it pleasant to be a S.A.P. member?

Hon. members over there only think of the past; that is why their numbers are continually dwindling.

Oh, no, our numbers have increased from 28 to 42.

The Minister’s slogan was “From those who have shall be taken”, and “to those who have not will be given”. It is not only this House but the country as a whole which supports the policy which the Minister has adopted.

You are wrong, “to him who hath shall be given” and “from him who hath not shall be taken even that which he hath”.

My hon. friend is completely off the track; he usually is, and he is just as bad today as he always is. Like other members I welcome the concessions which the Minister has made to the less privileged sections of the community in this country. I welcome the increase in the pensions and even the extension of those pensions to those sections of the population which in the past used to get something by way of charity, but who will now come under the law so that henceforth they will be able to claim these benefits. Then there is another thing which had a humiliating effect in the past. I am referring to the means test which used to be applied when a person asked for an old age pension. One of the children might be earning good money, but generally we know that it is a bad day for the parent when he has to turn to his children for help. I am very glad this means test has been done away with, and that the earnings of the children are no longer to be taken into consideration. I also feel that the time has come when the Minister of Finance should consider abolishing the Native Poll Tax, especially in the case of those natives who live outside the native area. The conditions under which they live in no way differ from those of the coloured people or those of the other labourers on the farms, and I do not think it is fair that they should be called on to pay the Poll Tax. Then if possible, in view of the shortage of labour on the farms, if the tax cannot be entirely abolished, I should like the Minister to provide that natives who have worked six or eight months on a farm will be absolved from paying the Poll Tax. What is remarkable to me is that although all these millions of pounds have been spent on the war none of our essential services have suffered as a result. On the contrary, not only have those services not been neglected, but our social services are extended in every possible respect, as hon. members have already shown. This point has already been referred to, but I still want to draw attention to the fact that if a man bought land after the outbreak of war and he sells it today at a profit, he has to pay a tax; in those circumstances I feel it is only fair that there should be a tax imposed on the man who buys mining shares and then sells them at a profit. I know that there would be many difficulties involved if such a step were taken but I hope the Minister will again give his attention to this point, because there really is a feeling in this country that if a man who makes a profit on the sale of his land has to pay a tax, the people who make profits on shares should also pay. We know that huge amounts are made on the Stock Exchange but those profits are not taxed at all. Now I want to address a few words to the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) who interrupted me a few minutes ago. He put up a plea against the excise on fortified wine. Last year he put up a similar plea in regard to the excise on brandy, and he told the House that as a result of the increased excise there was going to be a great falling off in the consumption of brandy.

Of course.

Has that actually happened?

I said that that would happen after the war, when things were normal again.

We are not talking now of what is going to happen after the war.

You know nothing about it, and you should not talk about it.

I know that the hon. member knows more about it than I do, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Last year he made a prophecy and he has turned out to be a false prophet. I want to say now that it will be proved next year that he has again been a false prophet. Now I just want to say that I am wholeheartedly in agreement with the Minister’s announcement in which he informed the House that he was going to limit the expenditure for the purchase of stock to the quantity of stock sold in that particular year. We know that this has a lot to do with the troubles we have had in connection with meat in this country. Perhaps it is to a slight extent attributable to that, that the farmers have practically locked up their stock and kept it off the market. That has been done by cheque book farmers, and the Minister is quite right in putting an end to it. I want to say that the reception given to this announcement, not only in this House but throughout the country, shows that the Minister was fully justified in the action he took in that direction. The same applies to the improvement to farms, and although the Minister has not yet told us what he is going to allow for improvements from year to year I trust that when he lays down the percentage his decision in that respect will also meet with general approval. The fact of the matter is that there has been a considerable amount of tax evasion in connection with the matter I have just mentioned, and the Minister is perfectly entitled to put a stop to it. Now I want to say a few words about soil erosion. Soil erosion undoubtedly is the greatest national evil in South Africa and during the last few years it has increased alarmingly. One only has to go to farms which one used to know ten or fifteen years ago, farms which in those days had plenty of grass and trees, and today one finds that there has been over-grazing, and that the veld has deteriorated in a most alarming manner. Permanent streams have dried un and the veld has deteriorated. One thing which is very encouraging in regard to soil erosion is the fact that the townsmen are also beginning to realise that it is to their interest too that our soil should be preserved. That is a very encouraging sign, and it gives me courage to approach the Minister and to ask him to have more money spent on this particular matter. We were doing very good work when the war broke out as a result of the statesmanlike policy of the Prime Minister, who is the father of the anti-soil erosion measures. A good deal was done in a few years to counteract the evil, but unfortunately the work had to be stopped to a large extent, and part of the work done has to a great extent already been undone. I not only want to ask the Minister to have the work proceeded with but I also want to express the hope that the responsible Minister will give instructions to his Department to immediately devise plans so that the matter may be tackled on a large scale after the war is over. I fail to see why large quantities of war equipment, which after the war will no longer be of any use, cannot be supplied to the farmers at reasonable prices if it can be used for farm work and for the prevention of soil erosion. Camps could be established at central places where those people in want of employment could be given work so that the whole matter could be tackled on a national scale. I spoke earlier on about the interest which townsmen are beginning to take in the soil erosion problem, and I want to pay a tribute to the Voters’ Association of Port Elizabeth which has taken up this matter very thoroughly; the towns people have also put their hands in their pocket to try and do something to help the project along. Recently they hired a big theatre in Port Elizabeth where they got Mr. Van Rensburg to show his film so that the whole position might be brought home to everyone concerned. Now, I also want to say a few words about meat control. A shortage of meat arose in South Africa, particularly as a result of the big convoys which called at our ports, which did not only take meat on board for the time they were here, but which bought meat to see them through the trip. In addition to that large quantities were sent to other countries to feed the soldiers. One need only know the quantities of meat that go into a ship, the quantities which a ship can load, to realise how our meat market must have been affected. In addition to that we have a large number of people from other parts of the world here—people who have taken refuge here from other parts—and who are staying in South Africa for the duration of the war. All these things have contributed towards dislocating the meat market to a certain extent. In one area too little meat was on offer, which sent the prices up unduly high. In other places again there was too much meat and prices dropped. The buyers who were sent out by the Government to buy up meat often set about their work in an injudicious manner and sent up the prices of cattle unnecessarily, and as has been said, the big convoys made the position even more difficult. The control of meat which is now being proposed is undoubtedly to a very large extent due to the agitation set up by the consumers in the towns. We can quite understand that, and we also realise that the Government is anxious to meet the demands of these people, but if we study the Census figure it is found that we are rapidly restoring our herds to their normal level. I believe the herds of this country are not very much below normal at the moment and that ere long there will again be an accumulation of meat. The idea of the control, of course, is to supply the consumers in the towns with meat at a price somewhat lower than what it is today, and to assure the producer of a stable price. I fully agree with the idea, but I am afraid that in actual fact that is not what is going to happen because what is the position? We only have partial control, and partial control will never prove successful. With partial control there will be different prices for meat—prices will fluctuate in the different towns, and I am afraid that as a result there will be a state of absolute chaos. While the prices of meat in the rural areas will be lower in those parts where we shall be allowed to have auction sales, the consumers in the towns will feel that they are made to pay too much for their meat; this will again set up an agitation, and there is the danger that a complete collapse will follow. I am speaking now as a representative of the consumers, and also as a producer myself. As producers we were quite willing in the past to accept the market position as we found it. I am quite convinced we shall never again in South Africa get back to the low prices which we had in the past. After the war we shall have a larger population and the demand for meat will increase.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 8th March.