I move as an unopposed motion—

The passing of Louw Steytler after a long and painful illness, not only creates a vacancy in this House but is felt by all of us as a heavy loss. He has been a member for many years, and not only has he been a member but he has always taken an active part in our proceedings. In our debates he was one of the most powerful speakers in the House, and his interest in the work of the House was always maintained at a high level. We have known him in this House as a stalwart character, as one of pronounced personality as someone who always expressed his opinion frankly and who in that way as an individual and as a member made a very strong impression on the House and on members of the House, and although he could express himself strongly and had strong opinions on a wide range of subjects, and never hesitated to give expression to them, he was always listened to with attention, and he never left a feeling that was regretted by other members of the House; good feeling always remained. We remember him as one of the characters in this House and he was not only a character in the House but an Afrikaner type. Our Afrikaner nation abounds in types. I do not think there is any other small nation where you find such a variety of types of people as in South Africa. You find them everywhere, in all ranks, and Louw Steytler has always appeared to me as an outstanding type of Afrikaner, as a great patriot, as a man with strong sentiments, as a man with a strong personality, one who never hesitated to express his opinion, and who always did his duty according to his lights. We remember him too as one of the veterans of that brave period, from which he emerged with such dazzling renown, and he has bequeathed a memory that will for all time be held in honour in South Africa. A son of the Free State, as a youth he took part in the Boer War, and in the course of that struggle he earned distinction in the field and later as a prisoner-of-war that redounds to the honour of our nation. I believe that when we think of him and when we honour him here as a one-time member of this House we also are mindful of the devoted service he gave to his people. On all sections of the House and of the people he leaves the impression of a chivalrous character, a man who was a man, a man who was straight, a man who came out with his opinion and who was always prepared to substantiate and defend his opinion. He was a man who greatly added lustre to the proceedings of this House.

I desire to identify myself with the remarks that have fallen from the Prime Minister and to second the motion that he has proposed. Mr. Louw Steytler who has now passed from amongst us was undoubtedly an outstanding figure in Parliament and in public life. As such he will be missed in this House and also outside the House. He was long associated with the activities of this House, and as the Prime Minister has stated, he has taken an effective part in the proceedings. He was one who stood very faithfully at his post, and in this respect he set an example. In the last few years it was absolutely clear when you observed him in this House and outside that he was suffering, that his health had deteriorated, but nevertheless he was always at his post in this House. He set an example worthy of emulation. As the Prime Minister has stated, we shall remember his work in this House’ in general and his participation in the proceedings, but there was one sphere in the activities of this House and outside as well in which he was specially engrossed and in respect of which he will be mainly remembered, and that was his exceptional interest in agriculture. Never when matters affecting the farming community were under discussion in this House did he neglect to stand up here and take up the cudgels for those interests. He displayed exceptional interest in those labours not only in this House, but also outside. There was scarcely a movement in connection with farming matters but he took an active part in it. All sorts of co-operatives were established in which he was interested, and he was inter alia for many years chairman of one of the largest farmer organisations, which undoubtedly did a great work for the farming community, and is still carrying on that work, in connection with the marketing of their products, namely, the “Boeresaamwerk”. I believe he was chairman of that organisation over a long period, perhaps even to the last. He was a member and chairman of other farmers associations, and in this respect as well he will be remembered for the important services that he gave to the country.

I desire to add a few words to what has been said. Louw Steytler always seemed to me to personify in himself some of the highest and best qualities of his race. In adversity, a toughness and endurance, which was outstanding on all occasions, and also the highest degree of courage, moral as well as physical. In both directions he gave outstanding instances, both in his work and actions in this House as a member of Parliament, and also in the field when fighting as a soldier. He seemed to me also to have in him a deep and marked grain of generosity and chivalry which we like to associate with the old rank of knighthood. In him there were those qualities which it should be the ambition of youth to see personified in themselves, and he was to all of us an outstanding example of loyalty and integrity. Happy is the country which can look forward to a succession of men of his type. May he rest in peace.

I endorse what has already been said in connection with this motion. The passing of Oom Louw will certainly be lamented not only in this House but throughout South Africa. In my view what made him a national figure in South Africa was the undaunted courage that he displayed in his youth. I remember when I was a child and never dreamed that in later years I should have the privilege to sit with him in Parliament the brave deeds that he had done in his youth had in fact become legendary amongst us schoolchildren. We never knew what he looked like nor where he came from but the name of Louw Steytler was generally known amongst us children. His passing leaves a gap that will be felt both in this House and in our national life. When one thinks of the passing of such a figure it is always comfort to know that there remains in the land and in the community where his strength at last failed him, things that have not passed with him but which remain imperishable. There are things in the life of a man, his way of living and the things around him, that live on, arid in the case of Oom Louw there remains the spirit of courage and the spirit of graciousness that he revealed, as well as the memory of the active part he took at all times in the interests of the farming community, in our public life and in the people as a whole. He earned a glorious name which will never die but which will live on.

On behalf of my colleagues and myself I would like to endorse the tributes which have been paid to Mr. Steytler. I do not think there was any one in this House who was not impressed with the greatness of the traditions Mr. Louw Steytler represented. To us who came into this House representing a minority group, representing a not altogether popular cause, it was easy to feel in him sincere friendliness and great humanity. He could always see the standpoint of others, and was tolerant, even where he did not agree. His passing will sever a link with the great past, but we shall always cherish his memory as one of the finest flowers of a high tradition.

Motion agreed to unanimously, all the members standing.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Precedence of Government Business on Tuesdays.

I move—

I move the motion, and I should like to say that the proposal that the Government should from Tuesday, the 3rd of April, take over the time of private members does not constitute a departure from the procedure that has been followed. It has been the practice for years at this stage, from the 3rd of April in this case, to take over the time that is made available for private members on Tuesdays, and we wish to do that again now. It is still a time of war. We do not wish unnecessarily to protract the work of the Session and I think that now considerable time has been given to private members to broach and discuss the matters which they consider of importance, and to bring them to the notice of the country. The time has now come when matters of urgent public importance must enjoy precedence and when we must deprive private members of that time. I move.

I second.

The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister moved this motion as if what he is here proposing is merely in conformity with the practice that has been in vogue for a considerable period. I take the liberty of differing from him as far as this is concerned. It has, it is true, been the custom.

In war time.

Yes, in the last few years, but it is a departure from the old-established procedure, and although in the past few years that departure has been made, it has never occurred without a protest having been made from the side of the Opposition, nor without our having gone to a division in connection with it. What has happened in the past will of course be repeated on the present occasion. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will have to submit to that Under the Standing Rules and Orders one of the two days that are set aside for private members, Tuesday and Friday, automatically falls away at a certain stage of the Session. After the 51st sitting day the Friday automatically falls away as a private members’ day. That is the Standing Order and no one has any objection to that. The view is taken that the business of private members as far as legislation is concerned will have been disposed of by that time, or should be disposed of. Precedence is then given to Government business. But as regards Tuesday it has always been the custom to exclude Tuesday until the end of the Session. It is of course true that hon. members will, during the debate in committee of supply which involves voting here, have ample opportunity at certain stages to bring all sorts of matters up for discussion, but that is always unsatisfactory because it is very difficult to concentrate on a definite matter, because other members are able to intervene and to divert the attention of the House in another direction or in several other directions. This is unsatisfactory, and that is why Tuesday has been made available for private members’ motions which they can bring up right to the end of the Session. It is not just a question of the motions that are still on the agenda and which are important but it is possible for very important matters to loom up in connection with which no motions appear on the Order Paper at present, but which demand a proper discussion by way of motion before this House. Now the Prime Minister comes along and without advancing any special reason—it has only been the custom— without that course being justified he takes away the day. I think that is unfair and in the circumstances we cannot do otherwise than oppose it. I should like to take the opportunity too to ask the Minister for a little information. He is in a hurry. Apparently he wishes to speed up the work and encroach on the rights of private members. How does the position appear to him? Will this be a long Session or not? Does this haste on his part hang together with the fact that perhaps he wishes to go overseas? He has not yet made any announcement. An Imperial Conference is going to be held, there is a world conference that is going to be held at San Francisco on the 25th April. He has not communicated anything to us regarding whether he will be present and whether this haste on his part has any connection with that. I hope that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will inform us whether if he may be going away the business of Parliament that concerns important matters will be continued in his absence? Of course financial matters connected with the Estimates and taxation proposals, etc., can be dealth with even if he is not here. That is obvious. But the Prime Minister through the speech from the Throne announced that certain very important legislation will be undertaken during this Session, inter alia, measures in connection with social security. We have nothing on the Order Paper. Now the Prime Minister makes a proposition which is an indication that we are approaching the end of the Session, and we have not yet heard anything of the important measures that were announced in the speech from the Throne at the commencement of the Session. As yet nothing has appeared on the Order Paper. I think we ought now to learn from the Prime Minister what has become of them, or what is going to be done about them. We cannot support this motion, and shall vote against it.

The Hon. Prime Minister has told us that private members’ motions are practically disposed of and that that is one of the most important reasons why he is moving this motion today. Far from the work of private members being completed, I want to point out to the House that there are still no less than 13 notices of motion by private members on the agenda, and if we only have two Tuesdays left, this will mean that at least 11 of these notices of motion will not come up for discussion at all. I would not say that they are all equally important, but there are quite a number of them which are of the greatest possible interest and which, particularly under present circumstances’ should come up for discussion. There is the motion of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) which deals with the outbreak of infectious diseases in different parts of South Africa, on which great public interest is being centred at the moment and which ought to be discussed in this House. It may perhaps be said that that matter can be dealt with under the Public Health Vote. But then we have the notice of motion by Mr. Haywood, who asks the House to appeal to the Government, in view of the rising cost of living, to consider the advisability of reviewing the ex-servicemen’s pensions and old age pensions in order to enable indigent war veterans and old people, whose only income is their pension, to go out and work in order to supplement their pension, without having the money thus earned deducted from their pension. Probably this motion cannot be dealt with now, and it will also not be possible to discuss it during the Budget discussions, because it will involve further expenditure, and it can only be discussed as a substantive motion. Then there is the important motion of the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) which will certainly come up for discussion, but the motion together with the amendment of which notice was given by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), which deals with the burocratic tendencies of the Governmént and of our whole system, will only come up for discussion on one day. I will not deal with the merits of the case. But the whole subject of a democratic form of government is a matter which is of great interest, and all those who believe that a democratic form of government is best, must now put their heads together and give serious attention to the matter of ensuring that the voids and wrong tendencies of the system are investigated and rectified, so that the democratic system can be brought more in line with modern conceptions, and the time has arrived for a revision of that system. There are antiquated customs and institutions in connection therewith which are no longer in keeping with a modern form of government, and I think that this motion is of the greatest interest in view of the future of a democratic form of government. It is impossible to settle a motion like this in four hours. It is of such importance that it demands the attention of the House for a few days. Then there is the important motion of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) which deals with the electoral system of members of Parliament and of the Senate. It is a matter of the greatest interest, which evidently cannot be dealt with now. Then there is the motion of the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) who asks for family allowances for European families. I do not know the circumstances which inspired the hon. member to move this motion now, but apart from the circumstances which inspired him, it is a very important question which ought to be discussed and which is linked up with the speech of the. Leader of the Opposition yesterday in connection with the native and coloured problems in South Africa. I am mentioning only a few of the most important motions which will either not be discussed or which can only be discussed partially, if this motion of the Prime Minister is passed. In the circumstances, it is quite impossible for us to support this motion.

I hope I shall not be considered to be taking up the time of the House unduly, but I feel that in regard to public questions as distinct from political questions, there has never been a Session where there has been more difficulty in bringing urgent questions to the notice of this House than we have experienced during the present Session. In so far as I am concerned, I merely want to leave the road open a little longer to ventilate very vexed questions affecting various stages of the food crisis. The food crisis is by no means over. We are confronted with the worst phases of that crisis, and among other things, with probably one of the worst phases of the question of demobilisation. There are certain vexed questions ahead of us, and I do feel that the Prime Minister would be taking an action that would be much appreciated if he would agree to leave private members’ facilities available a little longer. Because as a matter of fact, although we realise that he may not be able to stay much longer in this country, the work of Parliament is in safe hands in the hands of his deputy, and we feel that if the matter were left a little longer to his discretion we should tide over a period which most of us look upon apprehensively. It is not a question of politics but a question of the public interest and public voice. It is far more important that the voice of the private member should be heard instead of pushing on with Government business. The outside public are groaning under the system of controllers and the various ineptitudes that are inseparable from the present scheme of things, and the only safeguard the public have is the voice of the private member raised in this House.

I do not think that the food crisis which was mentioned by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) will be much assisted by the retention of Tuesday mornings by private members.

No, only a new Minister will help.

The food question has already been discussed during this Session from every angle, and there is still an opportunity for the matter to be further thrashed out during the votes of the Ministers concerned. I do not think that the reason advanced by the hon. member has any substance. The points mentioned by the hon. members on the other side can be broached during the discussion of the votes of the Ministers concerned, and I see no force in their objections. Then the hon. Leader of the Opposition asked how long the Government expected the present Session to last, and if my going to the conference in San Francisco was the reason for the speeding-up which is now taking place here. No, I do not think so. Possibly I will have to go away early in April, and I do not think that this motion has anything to do with that. In any event I will be away long before the conclusion of the Session. But the present Session cannot go on for ever, and we think that it should be possible to dispose of the urgent work of the Government in the course of May. Take the question of social security. The relative act is being drawn up and we hope that it will come before the House within a reasonable time. The intention is to lay the legislation before the House and to have it passed during this Session. I do not think, if it is introduced in time, that the business of the Session will be unduly delayed. I do not think it is necessary, for the reasons already given, to withdraw this motion. Concerning my own departure, I will be in a position at a later stage to give the House a good deal more particulars. Now is not the time to do so. I will give that information later and meanwhile I think that we should follow the practice which has originated during the war, at this stage to take Tuesdays for Government business.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—79:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus, J. G.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Maré, F. J.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—35:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Ludick, A. I.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

To obviate a possible misunderstanding I should like to commence by saying that today I shall follow the same practice as I have followed during the past few years, namely, to deliver the reply to the Budget debate in one language In conformity with that practice as I presented the Estimates in Afrikaans my reply will be in English. I mention this so that no one will accuse me of discourtesy because of replying to an Afrikaans speech in English.

†This debate which has now come to its close has been characteristic of all Budget debates. The two Budgets were presented by the hon. the Minister of Transport and myself. They were duly debated. Around the debate on the Budgets there grew up a discussion on matters of all kinds more or less remotely related to the Budgets. Through the inevitable four days of debate it wound its discursive way to its inevitable end. One could not help being reminded that “even the weariest river winds somewhere safe to sea”. It will, of course, not be expected of me to reply to the whole of the debate which has taken place during these fours days. I shall only deal with what one might call the debate within the debate, namely, the discussion of the Budget as such. I also do not intend to deal with the speakers in this debate one by one. I shall rather deal with the main points that have been raised, grouping the speakers as I do so. Of course, it is customary in a reply to the Budget debate to devote considerable attention to the first speaker in that debate, the leading critic on the Opposition benches. I do not intend to do so this morning. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) in opening this debate, was more than ordinarily discursive, and it would be better to deal with the points he raised as they arise in the course of my handling of the debate as a whole. His speech, however, does call for a small amount of preliminary attention. After all my hon. friend opposite is still the chief financial critic of the Opposition. I am not going to characterise that speech in specific terms, as the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) so unkindly did. I am simply going to raise two points. I shall give the facts, leave them to speak for themselves, and let the House characterise the speech of my hon. friend for itself. The first is this. At the outset of his speech my hon. friend quoted comments on the Budget as presented by me from the English press. I looked up one of those comments, the comment that appeared in the “Star”. My hon. friend’s quotation was: “The country will start reconstruction on the wrong foot”. He created the impression, indeed he said so in terms, that that was the considered opinion of the “Star”. He will correct me if I am wrong. That is not the case, Mr. Speaker. That statement was made by the “Star” as one of the criticisms which might be directed against the Budget, but the “Star” went on to say, expressing its own opinion, that while there might be some substance in that opinion it did not take full account of the position. I will leave it to the House, as I said, to frame its own opinion of the hon. member for George as a controversialist. The other point to which I want to refer is this. The hon. member criticised the proposed readjustment of the personal and savings fund levy. The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) has already dealt with this in part, but I cannot let the hon. member for George off at that. The hon. member for George said that we had picked out, in our proposal in connection with the personal savings levy, for further taxation one group, between £250 and £300, and we were going to take £180,000 from them. I want to be perfectly clear on what the hon. member for George said, and he will correct me if I am misrepresenting him. Let there be no misunderstanding. He then went on to quote from the report of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. He said that this group, the group under £300, which we are going to tax so heavily, the whole of that group, has a taxable income of £175,000 a year. That group with that taxable income was being singled out for taxation at the rate of £180,000 a year. Then he went on to say that the group with the taxable income of over £20,000 a year had a collective taxable income of £28,000,000. He implied that they were not going to be taxed any more than they are today as a result of my poposal. He also said that the over £20,000 a year group paid in taxation £3,400,000 a year. The hon. member has an opportunity of correcting me, if I am wrong. He has not done so. I have therefore not misrepresented him.

You have in one respect.

And that is?

I did not say that that one particular group was going to pay the whole additional tax of £180,000, and that makes a world of difference. I distinctly said that that group was expected to pay 10s. more, from £2 10s. to £3.

The hon. member said—

That is the group which I singled out for more taxation. Let me now draw the attention of the House to the hon. member’s mistakes. In the first place it is wrong that the re-adjustment only affects the people under £300.

Nobody ever said that.

The hon. member did say that.

I deny it,

But even if the hon. member wants to get away from that and says that it affects mainly the people under £300, it is still wrong.

I did not use the word “mainly” either. I object to words being put into my mouth that I did not use.

The hon. member said that we had singled out that group for more taxation.

I said that that group was expected to pay more; their taxation has increased from £2 10s. to £3.

The hon. member’s words were—

He cannot get away from it. I am pinning him down to this. That is the group which the hon. member said we were singling out for more taxation. Of course, this redistribution affects all people who are liable for this tax from the lowest to the highest. It affects the income taxpayer as well, and of this £180,000 all but £20,000 comes from income tax payers. Only £20,000 at the utmost will come from non-income tax payers, and there are no income tax payers under the group under £300, and indeed the group of non-income tax payers is much less than the group between £250 and £300 which my hon. friend said we were singling out for more taxation. When the hon. member gave his figure of £28,000,000 as payable by people with a taxable income of over £20,000, he did not tell us that most of that is accounted for by companies. Twenty five million pounds of that is accounted for by companies, and he did not tell us that the tax on the company is a tax on the shareholder in the company who is, of course, spread out over all these groups. He did not tell us that. Three million pounds is in respect of individuals. When he said that all that those over the £20,000 group paid was £3,400,000, he only gave us the figure of normal tax. He said nothing about super tax; he said nothing about the excess profits duty and he said nothing about sundry other impositions. In other words, he created the impression that that was all these people were paying, and then he went on to say that that group under £300 which we were singling out for taxation has a total taxable income of £175,000, he was making the most stupendous blunder of the lot.

Why don’t you add a few more adjectives?

I have not got the adjectival resources of my hon. friend. Surely my hon. friend must have realised that the total taxable income of people with an income under £300, the great bulk of the people of this country, cannot amount to £175,000. That is why I interjected across the floor of the House and said: “Do you not mean £175,000,000?” The hon. member must have realised that the total taxable income of people with an income of less than £300 a year cannot be £175,000. If he had looked at this table a little more carefully, he would not have made that blunder, and if he had looked at the first few columns of this table, he would have found out that the number of tax payers whose total taxable income amounts to £175,000 is just about 1,000, and then perhaps he might have remembered that normally anybody with an income of under £300 does not pay income tax and would not be in a schedule like this at all; and if my hon. friend had looked further he would have seen the explanation in the same table; he would have seen the footnote; he would have seen that these people in the table are those who have been assessed on a proportionate basis for a period of less than twelve months; in other words, they are not people with an average taxable income of under £300 a year at all. Now I think my hon. friend realises what a mistake he made. I am not going to characterise my hon. friend any further. I only gave him one adjective. I let the facts speak for themselves, and I let the House judge for itself what its opinion should be of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) as an interpreter of figures. I said I was not going to characterise him any further. I have found in the past that my hon. friends opposite do not like it when I characterise the hon. member for George. They have suggested that I am trying to teach him his job; they have suggested that I am presumptuous enough to play the part of pedagogue to him in public finance. Consciously I have never tried to do so, but if I have done so unconsciously let me admit at once that I have failed utterly.

You failed at your other jobs too.

I think this is my outstanding failure. My hon. friend and I were both once members of the teaching profession. In the light of the results as here disclosed, I think it is a good thing that I left my teaching job. I was not cut out for that role, but I leave it to others to say whether it was also a good thing that the hon. member for George left his teaching rôle. The hon. member for George initiated two lines of criticism which ran like a thread through most of the subsequent debate in so far it concerned the Budget. In the first place, he said that it was a tame and featureless Budget; there was nothing very sensational about it and nothing very epoch making. Other members said very much the same. I am not quite sure what features these various hon. members wanted to see in my Budget. The hon. member for George speaking for the Opposition, said, in effect, “spend less on defence; spend more on social services; tax less” and by implication he also said “borrow less”. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) echoed that. He said the Budget was disappointing; we had not increased the expenditure on non-defence services; we had not reduced taxation. The hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) speaking on this side of the House, did not say spend less on defence, but he did say “reduce the burden of taxation on the big people so as to stimulate enterprise”. The hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) speaking for the Labour Party and followed by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) said: “Borrow more and spend more on social services.” The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno), speaking for the native group, said; “Borrow less and tax more on the higher income groups.” The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) speaking for the “Independents” in this House, said: “Spend more but decrease the burden of taxation on the middle and lower groups.” The Dominion Party apparently had no views on the Budget as such. When I survey these features which responsible speakers in various parts of the House would have liked to see in the Budget, I cannot help feeling that in the multitude of counsellors there is hot always wisdom, and that perhaps I have attained safety by keeping to a middle position. Perhaps it is as well that my Budget did not have more of these features which hon. members would have liked to see. Undoubtedly it would have attracted more criticism from members who did not like particular features which other members proposed. I would like to commend those who have followed this particular line of criticism to the wise remark with which the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. De Kock) opened his speech. “They complained,” he said, “that the Budget is tame and featureless. It is tame and featureless because most people expected the Minister to come with new taxation, and now they are disappointed.” The hon. member for Vryburg was quite right. They are disappointed. The hon. member for George was disappointed because he found so little that he could criticise. Is the Budget really so featureless? Is that term proper to a Budget which has tackled the provincial problem, one of our most difficult problems, which has made a new approach to the problem of mining taxation, especially in regard to ultra-deep level mining which may be, as my colleague, the hon. Minister of Mines, emphasised, of the very greatest importance to our future, and which has also dealt with the question of native education? Can such a Budget really be described as featureless? No, this Budget is only featureless in the sense in which the newspaper reader of today throws aside his newspaper in the morning and says that there is no news in it because there is no news of a new capital captured or of some new river barrier crossed, quite unmindful of the fact that in the previous day’s fighting thousands of men laid down their lives and that untold disaster was wrought. We have become so satiated with sensations and with features that our appetite has become cloyed. One may well say that a country would be happy if it could have a succession of featureless budgets. I hope that position is still in store for our country. But in one sense this Budget is a featureless Budget; we have not overhauled our system of war taxation. But I ask, is it not perhaps just as well that we have not by doing that announced to the world that South Africa is less interested in the war and is now giving up the path of sacrifice for the path of profit making? If in that sense my Budget is described as a featureless Budget, I accept it and I welcome the soft impeachment. Before going on to the second main line of attack, I want to stop just for a moment to deal with a point made by the hon. member for Ceres. He said that the White Paper had misled the public by making them expect additional taxation and then the Budget came along and did not fulfil that anticipation The hon. member quoted this statement in the White Paper—

But immediately thereafter the White Paper went on to say—and I emphasise this point because I think the hon. member has overlooked it—

I do not think anyone can fairly have inferred from that that we were in this particular year going to impose the taxation which we said was so necessary if the whole scheme came into operation, and I think that very few people drew that inference from this statement. Now I come to the second main line of attack initiated by my hon. friend, the member for George. The Budget, he said, represented a continuation of a taxation system which crushes all initiative and enterprise. I think he said that. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) went on to say that in the Budget there was no encouragement for production, that there was no encouragement for investment. The hon. member for Fauresmith obviously did not regard the Budget as a sufficiently capitalistic Budget. May I refer him to Sir John Anderson whom he takes, strangely enough, as his financial exemplar when it suits him, and who made it quite clear that he refuses to entertain any idea of reducing the 100 per cent. rate of excess profits duty while hostilities last. The hon. member for Ceres took up the strain and said that the Budget made no provision for industrial expansion. Then there was the hon. member for Vasco who generally lauded the Budget but when he came to the taxation his praise took the form of faint damns.

They were not faint either.

Oh, no, he was not as loud as my hon. friend,’ the member for George. The Minister, he said, should have taken the opportunity of overhauling the taxation machinery; why were there no changes in this Budget? Businessmen are sitting back and not working because of the burden of taxation. And then the hon. member for Fordsburg, a very strange bedfellow for the hon. member for Vasco, took up the cry that taxation is hampering development and that the excess profits duty is stifling initiative. I find it difficult to reconcile those statements with the fact that our excess profits duties are constantly increasing. Endeavour is being stifled, enterprise is being throttled. Businessmen are sitting back and doing nothing, but they go on making increased profits. The Budget has shown that in the last year the excess profits duty yielded £2,500,000 more than we anticipated. That is a strange sign of the throttling of endeavour, of the stifling of enterprise, and it is the more remarkable if we accept the statement of the hon. member for Fordsburg, that there is 50 per cent. evasion in regard to the excess profits duty. That would mean, of course, that we should have collected this year not £15,500,000 but £31,000,000. It would have meant that the excess profits made this year would have been over £40,0000,000. I say it is very difficult to understand these figures and at the same time accept these things which have been said by the taxation critics. I hope that these senior members of the House whose names I have quoted will forgive me if I refer them to the speeches made by two of the newer members of the House. I refer to the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Williams) and the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris). I would commend to those hon. gentlemen the sane and sober approach of those two new members. The hon. member for Boksburg dealt very fairly with the reaction to the Budget outside. He said it was an entirely neutral reaction. He spoke of the thinly disguised disappointment of the business community, which had been led by rumours to expect relief from the excess profits duty, but as a whole, he said, “industry accepts the position and is grateful to the Minister for the assurances he has given in regard to the taxation system”.

That is not correct.

The hon. member for Zululand in his well balanced review of the Budget, showed an excellent appreciation of the nature of the problem with which in this Budget we have had to deal. But let me come back to the hon. member for George, and his statement about the Budget as representing a continuance of the system which is crushing all initiative and enterprise. Does our present system really crush all initiative and enterprise? I think Sir, the facts are against the hon. member for George. In my Budget speech, I referred to the position in regard to the registration of new companies. I shall do so again. The 1943 figures showed an advance on the previous years. In 1943 there were 1,405 new companies and companies which increased their capital, and the amount involved was £18,190,000. In 1944 the number of companies had grown to 1,932 and the amount involved had grown from approximately £18,000,000 to £49,000,000. The hon. member for Fauresmith may try as much as he likes to argue away those figures, but the important aspect of these figures is the comparative aspect. Those figures show that industrial development in South Africa is not standing still. They show that it is not true that all initiative and enterprise are being crushed. The hon. member for George told us that people were afraid to invest their money. Had he not read what happened a few weeks before his speech when Plywoods Ltd. in Cape Town opened a subscription list for 200,000 five shillings shares and got applications for 10,400,000 five shillings shares? Had he not read before his speech this statement in the “Rand Daily Mail” under the heading “Flood of new Issues”, “Millions of pounds on offer”—

And then the hon. member for George paints a picture of a timorous public sitting on it; short-term money and afraid to invest it. I can understand in regard to this question of reducing taxation the attitude of the Opposition. My hon. friends opposite have always been against war expenditure; they are still against war expenditure. The hon. member for Ceres said so in this debate. Their amendment asks for a reduction of war expenditure. If our war expenditure were to be further reduced, there would, of course, be scope for the reduction of taxation, although to my mind a reduction in our borrowing should have the first claim on any such saving. But my answer to my hon. friends opposite, when they press for reduced war expenditure is simply this: Having regard to the part which South Africa is playing in this war and intends to continue to play until the very end, having regard to our obligations to our returning soldiers, and to our determination to carry out these obligations, there can be no question of reducing the figures of war expenditure below those given in the Budget. But I find it more difficult to understand the attitude in regard to taxation of those who do not challenge our war expenditure, but who are convinced as to the necessity of its maintenance at the present level for the forthcoming year. I would like to put a few questions to the hon. member for Vasco, not so much in his personal capacity, but rather as a representative of a point of view which is chiefly heard outside this House. The first point is this: The hon. member for Vasco said that the burdens of the taxation system are such that the people of the country are not encouraged to put forward their best efforts. He referred in particular to business men. He implied that the burden must be reduced. The system of war taxation must be overhauled. Of course, he was referring to the excess profits duty and the trades profits special levy.

Not necessarily at all.

What are the main features then of the system of war taxation?

You have the super tax.

That is not part of the system of war taxation. My hon. friend now says there is the super tax. Let me accept that. In other words, my hon. friend wants a relief of super tax.

I do not want immediate relief at all. I want a new machine.

But my hon. friend said that the changes should have been made now.

I said you should announce your new machine now.

In other words, I should announce the taxation which is to come into operation a year hence. Surely one does not do that sort of thing. Let met make this perfectly clear. If taxation is to be reduced, super tax or whatever it is, so that the people at the top who are now sitting back and paying less taxation, someone else must pay more, and my question is: Who are the people who will have to pay more so that the people at the top may pay less and so that enterprise may then be stimulated?

Not necessarily those at the top.

Who then?

Those who are more heavily taxed.

In other words, the people at the top must pay less. Who are the people who have to pay more?

Those who are paying less.

You cannot get this relief which my hon. friends want for the stimulation of enterprise at this stage while defence expenditure is high, unless other people have to pay more. You cannot get away from that fact. The second point is this: Can anyone really expect full-scale industrial development in war-time? How much industrial development of a peace-time character has taken place in the United Kingdom during the war? We in South Africa have had a fair amount of industrial development during the war. Could we really have had much more? What has been the limiting factor in South Africa? It has not been taxation. It has been the shortage of materials and the shortage of manpower. The hon. member for Vasco knows it, he said so in his speech. He talked of his own experiences. He gave us his own experiences as to the difficulty of expanding business, and I say again to those people outside that you cannot get full-scale industrial development in war-time and I commend to them the quotation from Lord Keynes, given to us by the hon. member for South Rand, that it is not a question of finance; it is a question of material and manpower. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) yesterday, echoeing these same people, said that the excess profits duty has curtailed enterprise. It is not the excess profits duty; it is manpower; it is material. It would have been more correct to say perhaps that what the excess profits duty is curtailing is the full exploitation of the profit-making opportunities which have been created by war conditions. Then, Sir, I put a third question. The hon. member for Vasco referred to my consultation with the representatives of commerce and industry. The hon. member for Vasco seemed to think that that body with which I am consulting was appointed by me. It has not been appointed by me; it was appointed by commerce and industry. I have not had anything to do with the appointment. I welcomed it, but commerce and industry appointed it. I have not yet received the final proposals of that body. I believe they are meeting today, so perhaps I shall receive their final proposals in the near future. Surely the hon. member for Vasco did not expect me to come along and announce any new taxation machine before I had heard the final proposals of that body.

Announce you are going to have a new system of taxation.

I did announce that in my speech; I announced it perfectly clearly. Then I want to put the final question. The hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) said there was a great deal more excuse for the Minister during the war period doing nothing, than there is today. Are we not still in the war period? “During the war period there was a great deal more excuse for the Minister doing nothing about the matter than there is today!” What I want to say to the hon. member and to those outside the House who hold similar views to those expressed here, is this. Would these people have been proud of South Africa if we had put forward a Budget which implied that ours was the first of the belligerent countries to overhaul its system of war-time taxation, to make changes before the war is over, and so inevitably create the impression in the world outside that South Africa had lost its interest in the war? May I make a final point? In my Budget speech I referred to the importance of taxation policy in relationship to the problem of inflation, and I referred to the inflationary effect which a reduction of taxation would have. That point appears to have escaped observation, but I will say that the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno), in this matter, quite obviously had a very correct appreciation of the position. He quite obviously appreciates the fact that taxation is one of our weapons in our fight against inflation; I welcome his statement in that regard. Further, I would like to quote just one sentence from the “London Times”—

It went on to suggest that perhaps other Chancellors of the Exchequer might follow the example set in that regard in the Union of South Africa. Let me come back to this question of the encouragement of industry, the question of how the Budget stands in relation to it. Is this Budget really a negative Budget in that regard? What does the Budget contain? In the first place, it contains clear evidence of willingness to co-operate with commerce and industry in the consideration of the taxation problem. In the second place there is a definite indication that some of our taxes imposed during war-time will go. In the third place, there is the statement that the revision of our pre-war system of taxation is also being considered. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) made rather an odd statement when he complained that we are giving consideration to a return to the pre-war system of taxation. It is just the opposite. What I said we were considering was a modification of the pre-war system. Finally, this Budget contains a specific proposal put forward definitely and in terms, as a gesture, as an indication of the trend of our policy, namely, our proposal in regard to relief in respect of plant and machinery purchased for post-war industrial development. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Williams) was perfectly correct in saying industry on the whole was satisfied and accepted the assurance of the Minister in regard to the question of taxation.

That is not what your press says.

The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) said that we were not going far enough in these concessions; we are not going as far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone in Great Britain. He has taken steps, now, not last year, in allowing not 15 per cent. in respect of plant and equipment but 20 per cent. He is introducing a concession in respect of buildings as well. He is extending that, I think, to farmers, and the hon. member for Fauresmith would like us also to extend it to farmers. He seemed to forget that we exempt farmers from taxation in respect of capital expenditure up to 30 per cent. of their gross income. I do not believe that is done in Great Britain ….

Why only 30 per cent.? It should be 100 per cent.

Only 30 per cent.! Oliver Twist asking for more— although the hon. member does not look like Oliver Twist. Let us think for a moment of the position of industry in South Africa as compared with industry in the United Kingdom. How many of our industries in South Africa have had their buildings blasted to atoms by enemy action? How many of our industries in South Africa have had to convert entirely from peace-time to war-time production and will have to re-convert entirely? Have our industries in South Africa been debarred from all new capital issues for non-war production as they have been in Great Britain? Has our non-war industrial production been cut drastically as it has been in Great Britain, or has it increased substantially? Have our industries paid 100 per cent. excess duty as they have done in Great Britain? Mr. Speaker, our industrialists in South Africa relatively have lived in clover while in the United Kingdom they have had to pass through the direst difficulties. There has been no sympathy from our hon. friends opposite with the United Kingdom in those dire difficulties, but now they speak with envy of the concessions given to them overseas to help them recover from those difficulties. I have been asked to announce a general industrial policy for the Government. That is a matter for my colleague, the Minister of Economic Development, who has dealt with the point. I am merely concerned with the financial background of industrial policy. In that connection I want to say that we certainly have the very greatest possible ground for satisfaction as to our position in relation to the post-war policy. Broadly, I accept the dictum of the hon. member for George in this regard. He said this, the country which will most readily pass over into a sound peace economy will be the country best able to withstand the storms of the post-war period. Perfectly correct. South Africa does hot need to fear that test. There will be very few other countries so well placed to withstand those storms, as far as the financial position is concerned, as South Africa is. I have already referred to the fact that we have gold reserves amounting to £180,000,000. I have referred to the strong position of the commercial bank. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) was at great pains to show that I was wrong in saying that £270,000,000 bank deposits would all be available for financing industrial development and would meet our needs. I never said that. I quite agree with him; it will not all be available; it will not completely meet our needs. A great deal more will be required to meet our needs. As far as meeting our needs is concerned, I made it clear in my Budget speech that we would need and we would welcome foreign investment. There my hon. friend disagrees with me. I said that quite clearly. I do not see how we are going to increase our national income and finance social security unless we get foreign investment. That is by the way. I come back to what I was saying about the strength of our position in relation to the post-war period. I think one can best express that in terms of comparative figures. The hon. member for Fauresmith was disturbed because the national income of the United Kingdom during the war has increased by a larger percentage than ours. The reason, of course, is that their war expenditure, their expenditure out of borrowed money, has been far greater than ours. That is why their national income has increased by more than ours. The figures we should take are comparative figures, comparative figures which will enable us to judge the relative capacities of the various countries to withstand the post-war financial storms to which my hon. friend referred. I have taken out figures as to the relation of public debt to national income. I think the hon. member for George also took out some, but he did not go far enough. The figure I am giving is that of the relation of the total public debt of the country to the total national income of the country. What was the position in 1939? In the United States the percentage was 70 per cent., South Africa 71 per cent., Canada 100 per cent., United Kingdom 170 per cent. What was the position at the end of the last financial year? The United Kingdom figure has gone up from 170 per cent. to 246 per cent. Its public debt is two-and-half times its national income; that shows something of the price that country has paid. In the United States the percentage has increased from 70 per cent to 129 per cent.; in Canada it has gone up from 100 per cent. to 125 per cent.; in South Africa it has merely gone up from 71 per cent. to 83 per cent.

Who do you blame for that?

I am not blaming anybody Why should I? I am not even blaming the Opposition for this—so long as they do not blame me! What is the cause of the strength of our position as revealed by our figures? I think I can claim that some measure of credit does come to us for the success of our system of war finance. Here I would like to give some figures as to the percentage of borrowing in relation to all expenditure, not only war expenditure, the total expenditure in the various countries; in other words, to what extent have these countries in time of war financed their expenditure by way of borrowing? I will give first the figures in 1939-’40, the year before the war, and the first year of war in some countries: U.S.A. 33¾ per cent.; United Kingdom 43 per cent.; Canada 39.8 per cent.; and our figure was 19.3 per cent., a very sound position.

Is that the total borrowing?

The percentage of total borrowing in relation to total expenditure. I will give the maximum percentages during the period since then in each of these countries: In U.S.A. it rose from 331 to 75; in the United Kingdom it went up from 43 to 64½; in Canada it went up from 39.8 to 51.7 per cent. In South Africa our highest figure was 37.6 per cent. Now I shall come to figures for the last available year, 1943-’44, because in most cases the figure has come down in 1943-’44. The United States in that year borrowed 60 per cent. of its total expenditure; the United Kingdom borrowed 47.8 per cent. of its total expenditure; Canada borrowed 51.7 per cent. of its total expenditure, and South Africa 25.6 per cent.

Hear, hear.

The hon. member for George said that the Government is powerless to deal with the problems of the future because of the money it has wasted on the war. If that is true of us, of what country could not that be said with greater force than of us. No wonder an overseas commentator has remarked that this Budget is chiefly remarkable for its reminders of the immensely strong financial position which South Africa has built up during the war. But my hon. friends are afraid of the future. Of course they have made their usual attempts to paint a gloomy picture. They have painted as gloomy a picture as they could. The hon. member for George has played the role of Cassandra so often that we hardly noticed it when he resumed it again. But on this occasion the hon. member for Fauresmith became almost tearful as he beheld the dark background of an almost hopeless future, and his picture was one of almost unmitigated woe. He was as mournful as any farmer’s representative has ever been in this House. He must forgive us if we do not take him too seriously in that. We know that it is part of his job to attempt to paint such a picture. What worried the hon. member for Fauresmith and also the hon. member for George more than anything else, and was indeed almost the only solid ground they could produce for their disturbance of mind was that our nett investment was falling. That is so. Prof. Frankel has said so; his figures indicate a drop in nett investment. I wonder if these hon. gentlemen really expected our nett investment to rise during war time; I wonder if they really expected that? When we are increasing our expenditure on war purposes at the present rate, could they have expected our nett investmént not to fall? If our war expenditure had been less, of course our nett investment would have been more. But what they are doing when they talk about the decline in our nett investment is really to complain about our war expenditure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking, when the House adjourned, about the statement made by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) in regard to the decline of our nett investment as a justification for their pessimism, and I pointed out that in referring to the decline in our nett investment, they were merely in effect complaining about the high level of expenditure on our war effort. Apart from that I ask the question whether, in a time like the present, the decline of the nett investment is necessarily a bad thing. Is it a cause for disturbance? They have quoted Professor Frankel. I have here with me a letter from Professor Frankel which I shall be glad to show hon. members opposite. On this point I will merely quote the following passage—

Who said that?

Professor Frankel, the authority who my friends over there have quoted. The hon. member for Fauresmith went on to say how a Budget should be constructed. He would commence with the figure of the national income: And here let me say a short word about the complaint he made, which was echoed, I think, by the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) and also by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno), namely, that the available figures for our national income are not as up to date as they are in the United Kingdom. That is correct. May I say, however, that the national income figures, the estimates for 1943-’44 have reached me since the debate began, and I shall be very glad to give anybody interested the opportunity of seeing the figures and the accompanying statement. But let me say that I have a good deal of sympathy with the desire of hon. members to have the figures available sooner. I have discussed the matter with Professor Frankel, the compiler of the figures, and he has explained his difficulty. In the. United Kingdom the figures are based mainly on the income received; that is, they use the income tax statistics, and 65 per cent. of the national income is subject to income tax. They have already gone a long way when they have those basic figures. For the rest they base their estimate on the wage figures calculated on the basis of the average wage paid to various classes and, of course, they have a much more complete system of registration of employment than we have Moreover, in our case not 65 per cent. of the national income is subject to income tax, but only 35 per cent. Because of those differencés we cannot follow the same procedure as that in the United Kingdom, and in arriving at an estimate of our national income we therefore have to base our figures on the nett product of each industry, arid these figures take a much longer time to obtain. That is the reason for the delay, which I join hon. members in regretting. The hon. member for Fauresmith, as I say, went on to tell us how one should make a Budget. The member for Cape Western, I gather, would follow pretty much the same procedure as the hon. member for Fauresmith, but I think they will arrive at rather different results. I think the hon. member for Cape Western would produce a socialist, or a near-socialist Budget, and the hon. member for Fauresmith would certainly produce a capitalist Budget. The hon. member for Fauresmith would commence by taking the national income figure and then he would set aside the largest part for consumption; then he would set aside a further part for investment, and that would leave him with a fraction available for taxation, a fixed fraction, certainly not more than 10 per cent. It should never exceed more than 10 per cent. of the national income. That is all very nice and easy, and then, perhaps along comes a war, or you have to provide for social services, or the Exchequer has to assist to maintain employment, and then the Budget-maker, if he acts like the hon. member for Fauresmith, would say: “No, I cannot go above my fixed figure; I cannot find the money”. I am sometimes criticised on the grounds of being too academic, because many years ago I was for a few years a university professor. Let me assure the hon. member for Berea and others like him that while I have a great respect still for academic text-book writers, I have learned in thin years of war that one needs more than the injunctions of academic text-book writers to construct a Budget. Perhaps some day the hon. member for Fauresmith may construct a Budget on the lines he proposes. I am not a prophet, and I do not say he will; but I prophesy to this extent, that if he does construct a Budget, he will find all kinds of practical difficulties in the way of the fulfilment of his theoretical views. I admit that in the last few years we have not constructed our Budgets on the theoretical lines indicated by the hon. member. When money had to be found to enable South Africa to carry on its war effort, we found it; and we were not deterred by theoretical injunctions. When money has to be found to meet the social needs of the country, we will not be deterred either. Now I pass on to another matter, dealt with by the hon. members opposite in their attempts to paint a gloomy picture of our financial position. I refer to the question of inflation. The hon. members opposite talked about the increase in the cost of living. The hon. member for George, in one of his typical rhetorical phrases, said: “Ons staan wankelend op die afgrond van inflasie.” The hon. member for Fauresmith spoke of the inflation spiral. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) said there is no need to talk about inflation, it is with us.

It is here.

I am not going to argue with the members opposite; I am quite content to refer merely to the speech made at the last meeting of our Reserve Bank by Mr. Postmus, who has presided with distinction for more than 13 years over that great institution, and whose impending retirement everyone will regret. In that speech Mr. Postmus referred, as the hon. member did, to the increased prices in South Africa. But he went on to say—

So much for the hon. member for George and the hon. member for Ceres. Then Mr. Postmus went on to speak about the inflation spiral in other countries and went on—

But it is not happening in South Africa! So much for the hon. member for Faure-smith. Possibly the hon. members for George and Ceres and Fauresmith are better judges of the situation than the Governor of the Reserve Bank. For my part I am prepared to set rather more store by his views than I do by theirs. Of course I do not deny that pricës have risen in South Africa, I do not deny they have risen more than in other countries like Canada. I do not deny they have risen about as much as they have risen in Great Britain, although there you would have expected a greater increase than in South Africa because there has been a much greater proprotionate increase in purchasing power. There are various reasons for that; let me mention some of them. One was the 1941-’42 drought which played a big part in raising the price level in South Africa. We never got over that. Secondly, in South Africa the prices for primary products have, for the most part, leaving out of account subsidies, increased more than in other countries. The third factor is that wages in South Africa, especially the wages of unskilled labour in the towns, where wages were certainly very low before, have increased more than in other countries, as, for instance, Canada. A further reason is that we have made less use of subsidies in South Africa than they have in Great Britain, regarding them as less suitable for our circumstances. Another reason is that our system of control, despite all that has been said about it, has been much less rigid in South Africa than it might have been with a population more homogeneous and more unanimously in support of the war effort. The final reason is that our taxation has remained relatively low. These are all reasons for the relatively high increase in the cost of living figures in South Africa. In connection with the last point I would refer to a figure quoted by the hon. member for Sunnyside, a very significant figure, the figure of the number of income taxpayers in the United Kingdom. There are 13,000,000 income taxpayers in the United Kingdom out of a population of 47½ millions; that means that there is one taxpayer to every 3½ men, women and children; two persons out of seven pay income tax. In South Africa we have 162,000 income taxpayers out of a European population—leave the others out—of 2,190,000, which means that there is one income taxpayer to every 13½ Europeans in the Union. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) was perfectly correct in saying that if the Opposition had been more prepared to submit to the controls and the taxation of Great Britain, to do without things here as they have done without things there—food and clothing and the amenities of life—they might have been heard to better advantage in comparing South Africa with the United Kingdom in the matter of the cost of living. Heavy taxation is undoubtedly a most effective way of controlling inflation, of checking an increase in prices, and especially taxation at the lower and middle levels. It is so easy to say: “Tax the rich more, relieve the burden on those who are not rich.” The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) has said it, the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) has said it, but whatever may be said for the policy of taxing the rich more heavily it is not very effective as an anti-inflationary policy. It certainly is not that. As the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris) has quite rightly pointed out relatively to other countries we do tax the rich more heavily than we tax the less wealthy in South Africa. Not only does our taxation of incomes start at a much higher notch than it does in other countries, and that is the main explanation for the difference between the United Kingdom and ourselves in respect of the number of taxpayers, but while with us the £20,000 a year man pays 80 per cent. of what he pays in other parts of the British Commonwealth, the £1,000 a year man in South Africa only pays 30 per cent. of what he pays in other parts of the British Commonwealth, while the £300 a year man only pays 15 per cent. of what he pays elsewhere. Moreover, and here I disagree with the otherwise excellent speech of the hon. member for Troyeville, there are limits beyond which with a tax structure under our economic system, one goes at one’s peril. The hon. member talks of ceiling. I think the hon. member for Fauresmith was quite right in what he implied in his remarks, that the tax system should not in normal times be so high as to restrict savings and the building up of the national income. One other point in regard to the increased cost of living. The hon. member for Cape Western suggested that the cost of living figures which we use as the basis of allowances are inaccurate, and he based that on the fact that the cost of living increase for the lower income group, as shown by the Witwatersrand Bus Commission, has gone up more than the index figure. That does not prove that the cost of living index figure was inaccurate.

I did not mean that.

The hon. member created that impression. I am sure he could not have meant that. The cost of living figure is, of course, an average figure, and I think it has long been realised that for the lowest income group the cost of living has gone up more than the average figure. That is why though the cost of living index figure shows an increase of 28 per cent. we are paying the lowest income groups in State employ not 28 more than they got, but 52 per cent. more than they got, for that very reason. We have therefore recognised that as far as our own interpretation of the cost of living figures is concerned. I think it is natural to pass on to say something about our public debt and borrowing policy. Borrowing has been one of the main weapons in the campaign against inflation, both in so far as it drains off the increasing pressure of purchasing power, and in so far as it has enabled us reduce our external debt, which the hon. member for Vasco and the hon. member for Cape Western rightly emphasised as one of our chief financial achievements. Borrowing is not necessarily always inflationary, as the hon. member for Cape Western seemed to imply. He probably did not mean to imply that, but his remarks bore that interpretation. Borrowing is not always inflationary, though I agree that taxation is a better anti-inflationary instrument than borrowing. I accept too that borrowing should only be out of savings, though that ideal has not been completely possible of attainment in the difficult period through which we have passed. I agree also with the hon. member for Cape Western that internal borrowing is much sounder than external borrowing. But I think that we should be careful in accepting the hon. member’s dictum that internal borrowing within the country does not burden the community, but merely re-adjusts burdens. That is quite true as far as it goes. It certainly does not increase the burden on the community as a whole, but of course it does have an effect on taxation. It does have its effect on taxation policy. It does necessitate increasing the burden of taxation, and in view of what I have said before, I think it is clear that excessive internal borrowing may affect policy and hamper progress. But while I do not agree with my hon. friend on that particular point, I was glad to see that in relation to the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) and the hon. member for Fordsburg, he took the sounder line in this regard about our present policy. His policy would be to borrow less and tax more. Their policy is to borrow more and spend more. The policy of this Budget, of course, has been to try and keep down borrowing. We have to that extent gone part of the way with the hon. member for Cape Western. The hon. member for South Rand indicated that his policy was different by drawing attention to the fact that in the apportionment of defence expenditure we have come down from the 50-50 basis to a 55-45 basis; in other words, that we are now placing more than half our defence expenditure against revenue, and less than half against loan account, and the hon. member asked: “What about the £4,500,000 you saved on loan account in that way; could you not have saved that on revenue account instead and then have had £4,500,000 to spend on other than defence services?” I gave the reasons for that in the Budget speech. One was that we shall now be required to spend much more out of loan moneys on non-war services—housing and demobilisation—than we spent before, and therefore we should spend less on defence services on loan account if we can possibly do so. The other reason was that, as the war ends there will be an increased demand by the public, especially by commerce and industry for money that might otherwise be lent to the State, and we have to take into account what effect it will have if there is less money available for us to borrow. So I cannot agree with the hon. member for South Rand that we have madé a mistake in reducing the burden of defence expenditure on our loan account. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) in this connection delivered himself of the dictum, that what is financially successful in war is also financially successful in peace. If that is taken to mean that in peace time the Government should spend as much and borrow as much as it does in war time I am afraid I cannot entirely agree with my hon. friend. State expenditure on a high scale does tend to put money into circulation, and to that extent provides plenty, but to the extent to which it necessitates unduly high taxation and unduly heavy borrowing, it may impede the attainment of those very same objects through the stimulation of private enterprise, and while we maintain the private enterprise system, I do not think we can quite accept the views of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) in that regard. To come back to the hon. member for South Rand and the hon. member for Fordsburg. They asked a question which has possibly occurred to other members: Why, seeing we borrowed £15,000,000 lately at 2 per cent. can we not go on borrowing money at 2 per cent.; can we not satisfy all our financial needs by borrowing at 2 per cent.? The point I think my hon. friends overlook is this,, that the rate of interest on Government borrowing hangs together with the term of the loan. A shortterm loan you can always raise at a lower rate of interest; for a long-term loan you have to pay a higher rate of interest. I do not think it needs much imagination to realise that, having regard to the post-war period, we must avoid the danger of finding ourselves faced with the necessity for repayment of too large sums of money five or six or seven years hence. It is to our interest to spread the period of repayment of the loans we are raising now. It would be very bad financial policy, therefore, if we borrowed too much short-term money; and that is the answer to my hon. friend. To come back to my hon. friends of the Opposition. The hon. member for George is particularly disturbed about the increase of our public debt, and we know how that fact is dwelt on ad nauseam on public platforms outside. Of course this war has cost us, and is costing us, a lot of money. It is not however costing us too much to pay for South Africa’s freedom, and for the enhancement of its status and prestige in the world outside. But in view of this question of the increase of our national debt, let us remember certain points. One point to remember is while our internal debt has increased, our external debt has been almost completely wiped out. That is a very important point.

We still owe the money.

Yes, we owe it, we owe it to our own people, and to that extent we are independent. I am sure my hon. friend welcomes that.

It remains a debt.

Of course it remains a debt, but the money you pay as interest on it does not go out of the country. The second point is, as I have already indicated this morning, that our proportion of borrowing in the financing of this war is a very low proportion in comparison with that of other countries. The third point I want to make it this, and this should surely not be overlooked. We are constantly being told that the public debt has been increased by such and such a figure, say £250,000,000, and that is all war debt. It may be all debt incurred during the period of the war, but it is not all war debt.

It is not productive debt.

A good deal of it is productive. Take the figure at 31st March, 1940—before that we virtually borrowed nothing for the war—our public debt was then £291,500,000. The corresponding figure at the end of this month, the 31st March, will be £532,000,000, an increase of £240,000,000 during that period. During the five-year period we will, however, have spent on loan account on normal capital services, representing almost entirely the creation of new assets, an amount of about £70,000,000. Against that £240,000,000 you must set that £70,000,000 assets, and in addition in respest of some at least of the expenditure on defence, we shall have permanent assets in the form of buildings and factories and other things of permanent value. So I would suggest to my hon. friends opposite that they should be on their guard when they make use of these figures in regard to the increase of our public debt. I cannot leave this point without referring to one other point made by the hon. member for George in this connection. This Government, he said, does not pay its debts. Only a Nationalist Government pays its debts. What ground was there for that extraordinary statement? The ground is this; my predecessor, the Minister of Finance, Mr. Havenga, introduced this present sinking fund law in 1926. Despite the increase in the public debt we have not increased the proportion payable in terms of that law for sinking fund payments. Actually we are paying more into the sinking fund than we were paying when the war began, but not because of any change in the terms of the law. That is correct. The Nationalist Government did introduce the sinking fund law in 1926; but that sinking fund did not reduce our debt in the time of the Nationalist Government any more than it is reducing the debt today. One would have thought from his speech that our debt was smaller when the Nationalist Government came to an end, than in 1926. Nothing of the kind! In 1926 the national debt, less sinking fund, was £205,000,000. In 1933 the national debt, less sinking fund, was £248,000,000. The sinking fund was up by £9,000,000, but the national debt went up by £43,000,000. The mere fact of having a sinking fund does not decrease your debt if you go on borrowing all the time, as a developing country like South Africa does, and as a Nationalist Government does, and as any other government does. A sinking fund did not necessarily mean a reduction in debt, and that is the reason why in relation to a country like South Africa I am not a great believer in a sinking fund, because you go on borrowing to a greater extent than you pay off the sinking fund, and you in effect borrow the very money you pay into the sinking fund. If we had, as my hon. friend suggests, increased our sinking fund contributions, the nett result would merely have been we would have had to borrow more during the war for these contributions, and the more you borrow the greater is the danger of the rate of interest going up against you. The best is to stop borrowing; but if we were to stop borrowing altogether for the development of this country, my hon. friends opposite would be the first to complain. The Nationalist Government did not stop borrowing. The hon. member for George, in this respect also made an ineffective point, and his more discreet colleagues happily did not follow him. I want to pass on to deal with points raised in regard to the expenditure side of the Budget. First there are one or two points of a more formal nature. The hon. member for George took strong exception to the fact that the estimates of expenditure were amended by sheets which I laid on the Table on Budget day. In doing so he made a remark which showed the confusion in his mind, and I think it is only necessary to point to that confusion to answer the criticism implied in what he said. He said the “begroting” must be regarded as repre-seating the definite and considered policy of the Government for the next twelve months, and therefore we have no right to alter it. If by “begroting” he meant the Budget speech, I agree with him. The Budget speech does represent the Government’s policy. But the word “begroting” also means the estimates of expenditure which are laid on the Table some time before the Budget, and that does not represent the Government’s considered policy. No, it is in the Budget speech that the Government’s considered policy is disclosed. We have no right in relation to such important matters as the provincial settlement indirectly to disclose that policy in the estimates of expenditure which we lay on the Table. We chose the right way of doing so in introducing it in the Budget speech. If we had done it in the other way my hon. friend would also have criticised us, and with more reason. Then he has referred to the form of our defence estimates. He wants more detail. A part of his amendment refers to the form of the defence estimates. We have adopted our present form during the war. The war is not yet over and the time has not come to make a change. I wonder whether there is any other belligerent country that presents its defence estimates in the detail the hon. member desires. Other countries may have separate estimates for army, navy and air. But it would not take us very far in the direction my hon. friend desires if we provided that. My hon. friends are, of course, very devoted adherents of the example set in Great Britain. The practice there is that no details of expenditure are given with the army estimates, which are merely put up in token sums of’ £100 each for fifteen subheads, and the army receives its money from votes of credit introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer from time to time, no details being given; the same applies to the navy and the air. My hon. friend referred to the War Expenses Account and said I had given a promise to provide annual information as to that account. I think that promise has been given affect to in the facts and figures, in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General. Any information I can give over and above this report would be superfluous. If he wants more information he can obtain it through the Public Accounts Committee, of which he is a member, and by way of question and answer in the House. Here you have a statement by the Controller and Auditor-General which gives the position of the War Expenses Account at the end of the last financial year and a full report on it. I cannot say what the position will be at the end of the present financial year. March is a clearing up month, and a great deal is done in the way of payment and receipt of moneys in relation to other countries, and it is impossible to tell my hon. friend more than he already knows in this connection. Those are formal points in regard to our estimates of our expenditure. Let me come to one or two points of more substance. The hon. member for George was very emphatic on the point that we should have reduced our defence expenditure to a greater extent, and used the money for other services such as housing, health schemes and land conservation. As far as his plea for spending less on defence is concerned, that is of course in line with the Opposition attitude throughout the war. They are against our war effort. They want not less to be spent, but nothing to be spent. The country has declared itself in support of the war policy and against them, and as for the actual sum provided in the estimates, I have given cogent reasons why it should not be reduced. Amongst other things that may be mentioned in connection with the expenditure that will have to be incurred is the expenditure on our returning ex-volunteers. No attempt has been made to weaken those arguments of mine, and I do not propose to say anything further on that point. But the other side of my hon. friend’s contention was we are spending too little on nondefence expenditure of a social or development character. The hon. member for Berea associated himself with that, though of course he did not press for decreased expenditure on defence, and other hon. members made similar points. Let me say this in relation to expenditure on other than defence services. In the first place, the Budget does actually provide for a considerable increase in expenditure on non-defence services. I would refer hon. members to the careful analysis made by the hon. member for Zululand in this regard. And I would point out also that if we also take into account the additional amount we are giving the provinces, available for expenditure on such matters as education and health, this revenue Budget provides for more than £4,500,000 additional expenditure on services of this nature. To that I would merely add that the Treasury has provided the departments dealing with services of this kind with the full amount they can reasonably expect to spend in the year that lies ahead of us. To those hon. members who, like the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) think that we should have gone further with social security, I would only refer to the paragraph in the White Paper which indicated the priorities in this regard; and to the hon. member for Berea, who said that the Budget is a disappointment because it does not provide alternative expenditure to war expenditure, I would point out his facts are wrong. We show in this Budget, that is revenue and loan, a reduction on defence expenditure of £18,750,000, but our other expenditure will be increased by an amount of £22,000,000. The hon. member wants work-creating expenditure in lieu of defence expenditure. He is getting it. He is getting it in his revenue estimates. He is getting a great deal more of it in the loan estimates. I do not think the hon. member has much ground for that particular criticism. May I refer to one relatively small point, though important in itself, raised by the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen). He talked of expenditure on malaria in the Transvaal. He may have created the impression that the Government has neglected this particular matter, and possibly that impression may be strengthened by the fact that there is no globular amount for expenditure on anti-malaria measures on the public health vote. Actually the provision is scattered through that vote. The Minister of Public Health made a statement some time ago which made it clear that we are not neglecting malaria; in the Transvaal and Natal the measures being undertaken entail the provision on the estimates and the supplementary estimates of an amount of £50,000; £15,000 for Natal and £35,000 for the Transvaal; which is fairly close to the target which the hon. member for Middelburg has set. Then the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) made a speech as he has done in previous years, in which he referred with alarm to our expenditure in connection with native affairs. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) dealt faithfully with the hon. member for Boshof, and I hardly need add anything to what she said. Nor will I review the figures he quoted. I do not think he quite appreciated the significance. He certainly did not put them to the House in such a way as to carry much meaning with them. But I want to refer to one point. He specified certain items of expenditure for the benefit of the natives, and again and again he said: “The white man pays”. One item, I think, was the amount provided out of the Gold Realisation Account for increased native wages. That brings the fallacy of his argument into bold relief. How much of the money that goes to the Gold Realisation Account would have been there if we had not had natives working on the gold mines to produce the gold? What indeed, but for that would the present position of the gold mining industry, which is still the mainstay of the country, be? To say that the white man alone pays for native services financed out of the national income (which is largely produced as a result of the labour of the natives) is obviously ridiculous.

Hear, hear.

The only good feature of the hon. member’s speech was this. His speech came next after the speech of the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) in which he declared the policy of his party in regard to native questions. He spoke comfortably about segregation. The hon. member for Boshof revealed that certainly for himself and probably for most of the members sitting on the opposite benches, segregation is merely a mumbo-jumbo word which camouflages the policy of repression of keeping the natives down.

Nonsense.

Finally under this head I want to say a word about our proposals concerning the provinces. It was one of the most important parts of the Budget speech and yet it attracted little attention. It is of importance in so far as this increased Provincial subsidy will be of great value in the extension of social services. In that respect the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) put the case for the Cape Province in general, and in respect of compulsory education for coloureds in particular, and the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) pleaded in a somewhat similar manner. May I put it to the hon. member for Cape Flats that no case, however good, benefits through an argumentum ad hominem! The hon. member’s complaint was that I had not provided a special subsidy for coloured education. For the rest he quoted the Administrator of the Cape Province as saying that the Cape had come off rather badly and that indeed, in some respects, a grave injustice had been done. Of course the whole basis of the new financial arrangement with the Provinces is that we want to get away from special subsidies with conditions attached so far as the Provinces are concerned. Obviously there are two schools of thought in regard to the Provinces. There are those who want to see their present measure of independence maintained; there are those who want the Government to take over the responsibility for Provincial services, for coloured education and what not, and of course special subsidies are a step in that direction, but in that direction lies the early end of the provincial system. The Government has decided not to follow that road. If we are criticised because we have not granted to the Provinces conditional subsidies to do this or that, then our critics should realise that their attitude would simply imply the doom of the provincial system. It is true that we have not granted the special subsidy asked for by the member for Cape Flats, but it is well to remember two things, firstly that under the new arrangement, the Cape Province will be more than £800,000 better off than it would have been on the old basis. I said the four Provinces collectively will benefit to the extent of £1,800,000. The Cape gets more than £800,000 of that. Obviously I cannot agree with the Administrator of the Cape when he says that the Cape has come off rather badly. The further point I want to make is that we have provided for the Cape a special subsidy of £150,000 with no special condition attached to it, but in recognition, as was specifically stated, of its problems of coloured education, and no Government has ever done that. My answer to the hon. member for Cape Flats will also serve largely as a reply to the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll). He wants a central health policy to be laid down for the Provinces. The path the Government has elected to follow is not the path of compulsion but of co-operation. We attach no conditions to our provincial subsidies in regard to health or education. Nor do we claim that the subsidies to the Provinces will be enough to enable them to provide free hospital services without their raising funds themselves. That is why I said in my Budget speech that we are considering the question of giving them additional taxing powers. Naturally services of that nature must be paid in part by the taxpayers of the body supplying such services.

We do not want differential treatment of the Provinces.

Does the hon. member mean that we should not grant the Cape the special subsidy of £150,000? It must not be forgotten that under the new basis, provincial subsidies are based on expenditure on such services provided by the Provinces, and that 50 per cent. of the cost will be borne by the Union Government. I come now finally to the comments which have been made in this debate on the taxation proposals which are contained in the Budget. There is one point in connection with taxation, or rather tax evasion, which however calls for a passing reference. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) made some exaggerated statements about the extent of tax evasion. He suggested as a remedy that we should call in the issues of bank notes. I referred to that a year ago. I presume that he does not mean that we should call in all our bank notes but only the notes of higher denominations. Our bank note issues of £5 and upwards in value are however comparatively small, almost farcically small in comparison to the amount of tax evasion which the hon. member for Fordsburg says is taking place. But it must not be over-looked that if we were to call in the comparatively small issue of £5 notes, having regard to the fact that this is a farflung country, we would have to give notice that we are doing so, and I cannot see how the black knights would not be able to distribute these notes during the period of notice. I cannot see how this remedy of the hon. member would cure the disease. We are dealing with the disease along other lines, not without a considerable measure of success. Before I deal with the taxes in respect of which changes are proposed, I want once more to say something about a tax which we are not prepared to change at this stage. That is the Excess Profits Duty. There are still people who believe that it is easily possible to do without it while the war lasts; only a little juggling with the income tax and the loss will be made good. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Friend) gave expression to that view as held by others. I think the hon. member is too sensible to hold that view himself, the view being that by stiffening the income tax, we would get sufficient income to enable us to do away with the E.P.D. Of course it is only necessary to remember that the E.P.D. and the Trades Special Levy bring in over £20,250,000 and the Income Tax, normal and super, £17,500,000, to realise that it would be necessary to more than double the existing normal and super tax to achieve this result. There are others who are not so naïve like the hon. member for Fordsburg who seems to think that it is possible to considerably reduce the E.P.D. tax and to get the same amount from income tax without hitting the small man. I can only say that if anybody comes along who contends that you must reduce the tax burden in order to stimulate enterprise, and at the same time accepts the Government’s war policy and does not criticise our war expenditure, there is an onus on him to say: How are you going to find the money, except at the expense of the small taxpayer. That is an onus which has not been discharged. There are two difficulties in particular about the Excess Profits Duty which have been raised. First the hon. member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman) and the hon. member for Rondebosch raised the position of the ex-volunteer professional man. They are concerned with the question of his pre-war standard when he comes back to practise. The fact is, of course, that in accordance with the 1940 Act, such a person must start as a beginner with the minimum pre-war standard. Of course in general there is a good reason for that. I think it is natural that a taxpayer whose operations have been interrupted should start again as a beginner, but we have found that however sound that may be in general, it is necessary to make exceptions. I have in mind the first case which was brought to my notice of a medical man whose practice was not interrupted as a result of enlistment, but who went to qualify as a specialist. He lost his pre-war standard. There was a variety of cases of that kind which came along. There was also the case of the ex-volunteer professional man and of the ex-volunteer businessman. It soon became quite clear to us that all those cases could not be dealt with in the same way. There is a good deal of variety, and machinery had to be devised for dealing with all these cases on their merits. We created that machinery in Act No. 46 of 1941, and we set up the Revenue Advisory Committee, and one of its functions is to re-adjust pre-war standards where an interruption has taken place. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing infra dig about this procedure. It does not mean an appeal to the Special Court; it is not a question of asking for charity as an act of grace; it is merely a question of making use of the machinery provided. All the person has to do is to ask the Receiver of Revenue to have his case put before the Revenue Advisory Committee. I have not yet heard of a case of an ex-volunteer professional man who falls in this category, who has been turned down. When such a case comes along it will be time for us to consider whether the provisions of the 1941 Act answer the purpose or whether a change is necessary. Then a word about the excess profits duty and the farmer, and here I come up against another common fallacy which seemed to underlie the remarks of the hon. members for Prieska (Mr. A. C. du Toit), Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) and Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers). The hon. member for Prieska, for instance, spoke of the man who has to sell his stock and is ruined by the excess profits duty tax as a result. The view still seems to prevail that if a farmer has not more than the minimum pre-war standard of £1,500, then if in any one year his taxable income is more than £1,500, he is liable for excess profits duty on the excess. That is the impression, but of course that is wrong. Let me take the simple case of the farmer who has the minimum pre-war standard of £1,500 and for three years had a taxable income of £1,000; then in the fourth year he sells his stock or whatever it may be, and his taxable income is more than £1,500. If it is £2,000 in the fourth year, he pays no excess profits duty, if it is £2,500 he pays no excess profits duty, if it is £3,000 he pays no excess profits duty; if it is £3,500, he pays E.P.D. not on £2,000 as the difference between £3,500 and £1,500, but on £500. You see that farmer has in effect in every one of the first three years to his credit as far as the E.P.D. is concerned, the £500 difference between his £1,500 minimum standard and the £1,000 of his income and he carries those amounts forward and in the fourth year he adds this credit to his minimum pre-war standard of £1,500.

And if his income was £1,500 in the first three years?

I said £1,000.

But suppose it was £1,500?

That is the misconception. People do not realise that these credits are carried forward.

What is the position if his income was £1,500?

Then he has nothing to carry forward; I am dealing with a case such as my hon. friend here dealt with. Now the fixed property profits tax. The hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) would like to see it abolished. The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) would also like to see it abolished, or at least an extension of the concession I have proposed in regard to it. Before abolition is considered something more will have to be said in favour of abolition than has been said in this debate. This tax contributes £¾ million to the Treasury. The evidence I adduced in my Budget speech certainly serves to show that it has not stimulated inflation of land prices. The opposite is the case. The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) referred to a memorandum supplied by the Institute of Estate Agents which set out to prove that this tax has raised the level of prices. Unfortunately for my hon. friend and the Institute of Estate Agents that memorandum tried to prove too much. It showed that because of the tax the level of land prices was raised in 1940, but the tax was only imposed in 1942. I think that is typical of some of the criticism to which this tax has been subjected. There is a very pertinent question to be put in regard to the abolition of this tax, and it is this. Will the abolition of this tax at this stage bring down the price to the purchaser, or increase the profits of the seller? I have no hesitation in saying that it will have little effect on the price level to the purchaser, but it will increase the profits of the seller. If the sellers are content with a reasonable profit my proposal will bring on the market land at a lower price and it will do more to bring down land prices than the abolition of the tax. I feel the real trouble is that the rate of profit the seller wants is not reasonable. As to the suggestion of the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) that the scope of the concessions should be extended, I want to say that any suggestion of that kind should be considered in the light of the extension of facilities for evasion which will be consequential thereon. The next point I wish to refer to is the 15 per cent. allowance on plant and machinery in order to encourage the installation of new machinery and plant for post-war industrial development. That is of course over and above the 10 per cent. wear-and-tear allowance. The hon. member for Fauresmith states that we should have gone further. I want to remind the House that we have had discussions with the representatives of commerce and industry with regard to the taxing system, and these discussions are still proceeding. They will no doubt raise other points of this nature. In the meantime we have merely indicated in the Budget our very obvious and stimulating concession which we have decided to make; and that I think suggests the trend. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris) has asked whether this concession will apply to farmers. The purpose of the concession is to stimulate production, and I am prepared to consider the matter sympathetically from that point of view. The hon. member for Zululand was less fortunate in regard to the tax on beer. I do not think he quite understands the purpose of the proposal when he says that the manufacturers will be enabled to sell beer of a lower specific gravity, whilst still paying the same tax. That is what the present tax allows, and we are trying to change it. The hon. member for Zululand may rest assured that under this proposal he will not be forced to drink poorer quality beer bearing the same taxation as beer of a better quality, and I trust that the Treasury in future will get full value for the beer the hon. member for Zululand drinks. Finally, Mr. Speaker, a word about the proposal in regard to the Personal and Savings Fund Levy. What is the financial effect of that proposal? I explained in the Budget Speech that we would be £1,000,000 down on the Levy and £180,000 up on the tax, and the hon. member for George jumped at that and said that it was an additional tax on the man with an income under £300. We saw how he got entangled with the report of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. The hon. member for fauresmith was a little bit more careful. He said the £180,000 would come mainly out of the pockets of the group between £250 and £400. The amendment of the Opposition calls on the Government to renounce its intention of increasing the taxation borne by the lower income groups. Of course, the Opposition is quite wrong if it thinks that more than a small proportion of this amount of £180,000 will come out of the pocket of the man who does not pay income tax. As I have said, £160,000 will come from the income tax payers, and of course that excludes all married men with an income of £420 and at least one child. The remaining £20,000 will come from the non-income tax payers. In rushing to their conclusions my friends opposite failed to calculate the effect of the abatement of £1 per child in relation to the tax. Let me tell them what the effect of this proposal will be. Everyone who pays income tax, or who does not pay income tax, will pay less in levy, £2 or £2 10s., as a result of this proposal. For the rest there are some, mainly income tax payers, who will pay more tax although the additional amount in tax will be less than the saving in levy. All the others will pay less in tax also. On the assumption that on the present basic levy certificates can be presented for payment after six months, the effect of the proposal is that the single man, as a taxpayer, will pay 17s. 6d. more in tax; the married man with no children with an income of between £250 and £300 will pay 14s. more, and if his income is more than £300 he will pay 17s. 6d. more in tax. The married man with one child will pay 3s. 2d. or 8s. 6d. more in tax, as the case may be, but all these people will save a good deal more than this extra amount in the amount of the levy they will have to pay. But the married man with more than one child will, in addition to relief in connection with the levy, also pay less in tax. I do not think there is very much left of the Opposition demand for the renunciation of the Government’s intention to increase the burden of taxation on the lower income groups. I have now dealt with the debate within the debate; somewhat laboriously, I suppose that was inevitable. But I hope I have done so faithfully. I must now leave it to the House to say whether the criticisms to which I have replied have made any impression on the structure of the Budget, and whether there is any substance whatever in the amendment of the Opposition. Of course, I have no doubt what the verdict of the House will be. But, Mr. Speaker, what is of much more importance is this, that I believe this Budget has shown to the country and the world, the strength of South Africa’s financial position. It has made it clear that we can face in good trim and good heart the task which lies ahead of us, and I believe that in years to come when we look back on the financial history of this difficult six years’ war period, we shall be able to find in it renewed cause for confidence in South Africa’s strength and power of achievement.

Mr. Speaker, as is usual at the end of a Budget debate, the Minister of Railways, now the Minister of Transport, finds himself in a position that there is very little to reply to. There was a time when the Railway Budget and the Main Budget ran each other neck and neck. There was a little more than a million or two between the totals of the two Budgets. Today I am afraid the Minister of Transport is left very much in the position of a poor relation. Owing to the great amount of war expenditure he is now left a very poor second. In these circumstances it is perhaps inevitable that there is very little said about the Railways. On the other hand we may assume that you hear very little criticism of the Railways these days because there is little to criticise, and of course, from my point of view, the less said the less I have to say. The Opposition did raise one or two matters of Railway finances. But, as in the debate on the main Budget, it showed that they did not know what they were talking about. When they had a good point they either did not know how Railway finances are administered, or they did not know the full facts. I want to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood). He wanted to know whether I was going to keep the promise in regard to the workshops at Bloemfontein. I want to tell him that a promise made by the Minister of Transport is a promise that will be fulfilled. If I am accused of not carrying out my promises, and of bad faith, let them not go to too far for fear that perhaps I shall try to live down to the reputation the hon. member is trying to give me.

The people of De Aar don’t believe in your promises.

The hon. member has complained that I have not made the provision which is necessary for the Renewals Fund. I must say that remark astonished me when he made it, but in order that I may make the position quite clear to the House, I want to give one or two details. I will adopt the procedure of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and do nothing more than tell the House what the facts are in regard to the Renewals Fund and leave it to the House to judge the value of the financial criticism of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District). Now I would like to say that when I took over the Railway Administration as its Minister in 1939, I found a balance standing to the credit of the Renewals Fund of £2,782,000, a sum of money totally inadequate for the functions of that fund. Having regard to that, I decided in 1942-’43 to make a special appropriation of £1,300,000 towards that fund, and I decided to change the basis on which contributions were made to that fund. In those days we contributed 60 per cent. of depreciation charges on all our assets as a contribution to the renewals fund, that is to say, we wrote off all our assets according to the usual procedure and we took 60 per cent. of that money and we put it into renewals. Owing to the fact that the renewals fund was in an unsatisfactory position, I said that in future we would not take 60 per cent. but 100 per cent. of these depreciation charges and that we would pay that into the renewals fund, so that far from starving the renewals fund, far from not putting anything into it, in 1942-’43 I had already taken steps to see that that fund was fed more liberally. What is the result of that? When I took administrative charge of the railways, the total in that fund was approximately £2,750,000. Today it stands at £15,500,000, and I am contributing nothing to renewals! This year’s figures are not available since it is not the end of the year, but last year the contribution made to the renewals fund was £3,750,000 in one year, which was more than the whole of the fund when I took over, and I can promise the hon. member and the House that the contribution this year will not be less than that amount. I ask the House in view of these rather startling figures what is the worth of criticism that accuses me of starving the renewals fund? The hon. member also told me that I was not reducing what he termed the branch-line capital. I would like to explain that we have no branch-line capital as distinct from other capital. We have capital which governs all our assets. According to the hon. member I have apparently also failed to write off capital. But here again, for the six years previous to my taking office, the total capital written off by my predecessors was £2,921,000. For the following six years, since I have had charge of the finances of the railways, the total is £3,500,000, so that even on that ground the hon. member is essentially barking up the wrong tree. He referred to work that has been done in the railway workshops and in this he was joined by the hon. member for Albert-Colesherg. (Mr. Boltman). He complained that we had made boilers for deverminising purposes. Of course, the fact that we can make boilers for deverminising purposes without in any way affecting truck repairs did not enter into their calculation, but let me say this. These deverminising boilers were required urgently by the Department of Public Health to try to stop the spread of the typhus outbreak, and if it meant holding up all the trucks we were making, I should still have been prepared to come to the rescue of the Health Department when they had so serious a problem to face.

Hear hear.

Then there was the question of the brake-blocks for Kenya. Several speakers spoke about the so-called iniquity of our making, I believe, three hundred thousand brake-blocks for Kenya. I would like to point out that our specialised plant for the making of brakeblocks makes brake-blocks at such a rate that the number supplied to Kenya was a mere trifle, the kind of thing that we could turn out in a relatively short space of time.

If it is so trifling why do you mention it.

It is absolutely trifling in relation to our output of brake-blocks, which is very big. And I would suggest that it would be very bad policy for this country to refuse to help a neighbouring country out of a difficulty in war-time when we could so easily meet its requirements. I have never said that we were short of brake-blocks. Because we are short in some workshops, because we are overloaded in some workshops, it does not mean that we are short in the brake-block making plant. It is a special plant. To generalise like that about the railways will always lead hon. members opposite astray. We have no shortage of brake-blocks. We have never had a shortage of brake-blocks throughout this war. Regarding the central workshops which the hon. member suggested we should establish at Bloemfontein, I would like to make it quite clear to him that the recent Workshops Commission does not recommend the establishment of central workshops in Bloemfontein, but recommends the dispersion of these shops throughout different parts of the country as being more beneficial to the country as a whole. Then in regard to the question of electrification, I gathered that the hon. member would like to see electric railways radiating from all parts of Bloemfontein. Well we have great and small works in contemplation. We are working on plans now for electrification in verious parts, and I can only ask the hon. member to contain himself in patience, because some day electrification will even reach Bloemfontein. The hon. member referred to foremen who were on a 60-hour week. I would like to remind the hon. member that quite recently we had the Hours of Duty Committee, which he knows about, and on which the men, the foremen amongst others, were represented, and I adopted 100 per cent. the recommendations of that committee in respect of hours of duty. What the hon. member did not tell this House was this, that in the last 12 months I have very substantially reduced the number of foremen who worked more than eight hours a day. The actual stations where foremen worked a 60 hour week, were reduced by me in the last 12 months by one-half. We reduced the numbers from 611 to 358. Furthermore, we increased the number of stations where the foremen worked 48 hours a week from 165 to 470, and I think it would have been more becoming on the part of the hon. member if instead of accusing me of working people for 60 hours, he had at least enlightened the House on these facts. He quoted 12s. 8d. per day—and that is another illustration of how out of date the hon. member is—he quoted 12s. 8d. as the wage for foremen. There is no such wage on the railways. The hon. member is out of date by at least six months. That rate of pay should now read 14s. 6d. per day plus free quarters making it equal to 16s. 11d. per day. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg alleged that I was waking out of my war-sleep. I do not think that is an appropriate remark to make so far as the South African Railways are concerned. They have not been asleep during this war—very far from it. The hon. member has been asleep, but I am glad to say that there are signs that even hon. members opposite are waking up to the fact that there is a war on and that they have been adopting the wrong attitude in regard to the war. The hon. member is very pessimistic about the future of the railways. He disagrees with many other members on his own side. He sees no hope for anything. The passenger traffic is going to fall away, goods traffic is going to fall away, and he wants to know what preparation I am making for this. Let me say once more, as I have said before, that nothing will bring about a depression more quickly than talk of that description. Crying wolf at every turn is not the way to keep the country out of difficulties. Fortunately no one takes any serious notice of the hon. member’s economic views, so that probably no harm will be done. Regarding the case of the railworkers at Burghersdorp I explained to the hon. member, who put this as something against me, that the five casuals to whom he referred could not be appointed for medical or other reasons on a permanent basis and that they would continue to be employed as casuals. I hope that in the light of that explanation the hon. member will agree that I am perfectly right when I say that in regard to the European railworkers, I cannot get them in the numbers I require today.

But you say you cannot employ them ….

I cannot employ them as regulars. I can continue to employ them as casuals.

That is not the point.

Because of their medical category or for some other reason I cannot employ them as regulars.

If I did not approach you, they would have been on the street.

The hon. member makes that assertion, but I have the gravest doubts about it. Now I come to the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper). He took quite a different view to the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg about the future. He foresees great development The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg says we go ahead too fast, but the hon. member for Vredefort says we are going ahead too slowly. It reminds me of the saying that those behind cried forward and those in front cried back. The hon. member for Vredefort says that we must build more lines and that we must develop more road motor services. He criticised my policy in regard to the building of railway lines, and as there seems to be some little misunderstanding about that, I think I should briefly explain the position to the House. Our policy with regard to new railway lines is that we are not going to build new railway lines until we are quite satisfied that there is traffic for them to carry. We are in the future—and that is what is important for the hon. member to remember since he so affectionately remembers the days of old when they built branch lines everywhere. But in those days we did not have roads and in those days we did not have road motor transport. Now we have both these things— and the whole policy must be revised in the light of that. I am also told that as a result of this war road transport methods have been increased very much in efficiency, and much more can be handled on the roads. I think this House will agree that in the future we must develop in this country, first of all, by means of road motor services. When those have developed traffic to the point that it will pay to bring railway lines into those areas, then we shall build railway lines. I ask this House to remember what has already been done in the way of road motor transportation. We are today running 17,000 miles of transport as against only 13,000 miles of rail transport. Look at districts like Kuruman, Vryburg and Montagu-Robertson, where great motor services are doing great work in the handling of traffic in those areas. That is the policy we will follow, and the success of these particular installations I have just mentioned, I think fully justified us in taking that line. Road motor services are more flexible. You can speed them up; you can bring more vehicles into the area concerned when the season is on and take them away in the off-season and employ them elsewhere. Seventeen thousand miles of road motor services are supplying the country’s transport needs today. Does the hon. member suggest that we should have laid down 17,000 miles of branch lines?

You know I would not suggest a thing like that.

The hon. member did not suggest it, but he accused us of not carrying on with the policy that was adopted in the old days, the policy of building branch lines. In the light of what I have just said, I think the hon. member will agree that it is the wrong policy. But I am prepared to build branch lines if there is sufficient traffic in the area to justify it. The hon. member for Vredefort also alleged that my railway planning was in the various areas represented by members who sat on this side of the House. I have planned in some areas which cover members on the other side of the House, and I can only conclude from that that their hearts are on this side of the House. Does the hon. member give us credit for people who sit on that side of the House, members like the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals), the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman), the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) and several other members on that side of the House?

Even the member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren).

And even the hon. member for Swellendam. Those members should be sitting on this side of the House, because some of my railway plans cover their areas. No, it is not true. But if it were true—and I would be glad to think it is true—what would it prove? It would prove nothing less than that all the enterprising, progressive and go-ahead parts of the country which require an increase of transport facilities, chose members who support this side of the House. I would like to tell the hon. member that the Railways have in fact, recently purchased quite a large number of vehicles from the Defence Department. We have already purchased from Defence 692 vehicles in the last few months, mostly heavy duty types. In addition arrangements are being made with the Controller of Motor Vehicles to acquire a further 640 vehicles, and we are also ignoring 150 chassis. I am sure my farming friends whom I have so often, much to my regret, had to turn down whey they wanted more transport facilities will be very pleased to hear these figures. I hope as a result of that I will be able to carry out in fact what I would so much have liked to do in the past, and that is to give them the transport they really need. The hon. member for Vredefort once more fulminated about the promotions as between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking officers. I have already told the House that I am not concerned with the language of any officer on the Railways. I am not concerned with his home language. In promoting our officers, whether Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking, we promote them entirely on their merits. But I think what the hon. member is concerned about is the promotion of a relatively small number of senior officials in the Railway service, senior officials who seem to think that by continually bringing their cases before Parliament they stand a better chance of having such merits as they have recognised. Let me tell the hon. member that it is a dangerous principle to drag politics into promotions.

Hear, hear.

It is a very dangerous thing to do, because I may one day accept your challenge.

Why not accept it now?

If you are going to bring politics into the question of promotion, then one day I will bring politics into promotion.

What about Marshall Clark?

In addition to having the home language of the officer on all our records, we would then have “what party in the State do you subscribe to?” that is what hon. members would like. It is not a question of Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking officers they are concerned about; it is not so much their home language; all they want to know when I promote an officer is whether he puts behind his name “a member of the H.P.”

What is H.P.? Is it horse power or hold post?

I would like to say in regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley) that we are doing all we can today by way of enquiry and by way of action to ensure that the greatest use that is possible shall be made not only of our graving docks but of all the facilities in our docks in the post-war period. I can assure the hon. member that with regard to any contract, mail contracts or freight contracts, all these points will be borne in mind. We want our harbours used; we want ships registering in our ports; we want our South African nationals to get jobs on ships when they want them; we want to do anything in every way we can to put South Africa effectively on the sea. In the meantime only the Opposition is at sea.

Jobs for pals?

I would also like to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hopf). He again raised the question of staff liaison officers, and I would like to tell him that I have a good deal of sympathy with his idea, but it has been a little difficult to work this scheme into our railway arrangements. There are staff investigators now at work and they are doing very much the type of work that the hon. member has in mind, and I believe recently there have been much improved results; but I can assure the hon. member that this matter is under constant investigation and examination by myself and under discussion with the Consultative Committee. There is a real difficulty in the way of treating reemployed pensioners as other than casuals. I am sure the hon. member will realise, if he thinks what is involved in that, that there would be very serious implications in regard to the casuals if we carried out that idea. I am at present examining a scheme for giving sick pay to all casuals, and this would in fact, include re-employed pensioners. I am also wholly with the hon. member in his desire to see that Pretoria is well treated. I think Pretoria has been too much of a side line in the past, and having regard to the fact that I want to build a big railway hotel in Pretoria, I want to make sure of the fact that I get my hotel filled. We will do what we can to put Pretoria properly on the Railway map. In regard to the suburban coach from the Durban line, that is not an easy matter in the present position, but I would like to tell the House that the whole question of the design of our Railway coaching stock is being investigated. I want to see the Durban-Rand service run in daylight by coaching stock of the Pullman type, doing away with all the waste of space that is incurred by carrying sleeping accommodation on that relatively short journey. In future it is essential if we are to retain passenger traffic that we shall have speedier and more comfortable trains. We shall have to put into them more passengers than we put into them at present, and these are the things we must aim at if we are going to have cheap and comfortable travel, and if we want to be able to compete with all other forms of transport that we have to face. I would like to tell the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) that I am looking into the question of extending the limits of pensioners so far as the Railways are concerned. He will appreciate, however, that this is a matter that must be done in conjunction with the Treasury. I noted the reference of the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) to a minimum wage of 10s. per day. Here again I think the hon. member has not been quite fair in the statement of his facts. The fact is that during the last twelve months the number of European servants getting less than 10s. a day has been reduced from 28.000 to 11,500.

Have you dismissed the others?

They have been reduced from 28,000 to 11,500. The total European staff in the same time has risen from 78,000 to 83,000.

Is that on account of the cost of living allowance? Is that why there are fewer servants getting less than 10s. a day?

No, that is the substantive salary, outside the cost of living allowance. The hon. Member asked what about the others. I want to ask the hon. member whether boy messengers, apprentices, telephone girls and a large number of our junior appointments are to be paid 10s. a day? Is that what the hon. member means? I would like the hon. member, when the opportunity arises, te tell this House whether he intends that I should pay all those people 10s. a day. Merely because I have a residue of approximately 11,000 people who are getting less than 10s. a day, they are making capital out of it. The hon. member also raised the question of cur policy in regard to new lines, but I have already dealt with that. He accused me, however, of not answering his question and he put two questions to me. I will answer him. He asked me whether I was going to build a line from Klerksdorp to Vereeniging and whether I was going to build a line from Mafeking to Lichtenburg. I will give him my answer and the answer is no! He also raised the question of the damage to milk cans. This question of damage to milk cans is a perennial affair. But I was recently at Kuruman and I saw what was now being done by the Railways in carrying cream by road motor vehicles with glass-lined tanks, an entirely successful experiment. There cream is taken at Kuruman for a distance of I think, 65 miles, to Vryburg, and in that journey the temperature of the milk goes up only two degrees. I hope the time is not far distant when we shall have glass-lined tanks for the conveyance of milk and be able to get rid of this clumsy way of having milk conveyed in heavy cans ….

What sort of tanks?

…. glass-lined tanks. It seems to me that is the best line to work on to cure this trouble. The hon. member for Harri-smith (Mr. E. R. Strauss) raised the question of the Sick Fund and asked the Minister to interfere in its affairs. But I would like to impress upon the hon. member this fact that the Sick Fund is a self-governing body. I think it would be very unwise for the Minister to interfere with it. In any case, I cannot dictate to doctors how they are going to treat their patients or where they are going to treat their patients. It is obviously not a matter for the Minister, but for talking to the Sick Fund doctors themselves and trying to persuade them to follow a different procedure. I as Minister would certainly hesitate to interfere with the procedure. I am sorry that the claims of the Harrismith Hospital are possibly being overlooked, and I will ask the Staff Associations concerned to give me their views on the point too. As I say, I should be very reluctant to interfere.

I referred to the Sick Fund Board, not to the doctors.

That is the same thing. The Sick Fund is a self-governing body. They have their own board.

But the Administration has the controlling say.

The Administration’s members are, I think, equal in number to the others. But I have no control over the Sick Fund. The staff themselves contribute much the largest portion of the fund. The Administration contributes very little. I personally have no control.

Do you agree with me that these people are not properly treated.

I have no knowledge as to whether or not they are being properly treated. But I must leave that to the medical men. I think that concludes the questions I have to answer. I would emphasise just once more in conclusion that this Budget, as so many other budgets, has proved once more how sound the financial position of the Railways is. I would like however, to impress this upon the House, that this sound position is not due to fortuitous circumstances or to lucky chance. It is due to the fact that for years now the finances of the Railway Administration had been well and wisely handled and have been built up with an eye to the future, and to the large and varied responsibilities which our South African Railways will have to carry in the post-war period.

Question put: That all the words after “That,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—89:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christopher. R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf. F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—35:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Malan, D, F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Original motion put and agreed to.

House to resolve itself into Committee now.

House in Committee:

The Committee has to consider the Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from Railway and Harbour Funds, during the year ending 31st March, 1946.

The Committee proceeded to consider the Estimates of Expenditure from the Revenue Funds.

On Vote No. 1.—“His Excellency the Governor-General,” £21,500.

I think that the position that exists at present in regard to the Governor-General renders it necessary that we should be furnished with further information and that it is also a position that calls for criticism in this respect. There is no Governor-General. The appointment has been vacant now I think for two years or more. At the moment there is an Acting Governor-General, and the question that arises is whether it is the intention of the Prime Minister or the Government hot to fill the post, or whether there is any good reason that can be advanced for the neglect to do so. The filling of the post has absolutely no connection with the war, and to leave the office of Governor-General vacant for fully two years, and we do not know how much longer it will be, is quite unparalleled. Unless the Prime Minister has a reason, a very good reason, why this is the case, I think this ommission on his part should meet with the disapproval of the House and of the Country. Here I would like to recall certain questions that I put to him in connection with the appointment of the Governor-General, questions to which the Prime Minister gave a reply last year. The first question that I then put was whether, if it was decided to have a permanent appointment of Governor-General, the new procedure that arose in connection with the previous Governor-General would be followed, namely, to appoint a Governor-General from inside the Union, and whether the policy of getting someone from England to act as Governor-General had been finally broken. The Prime Minister said last year that the Governor-General who would be appointed would be someone from South Africa, and in reply to a further question that I put he said he would be a Union citizen. Well and good. The further question that I put was whether the Governor-General would be bilingual, becouse it is evident that in a bilingual country like South Africa the head of the State should be conversant with both official languages, as is required from the lowest official in the State. The Prime Minister replied to that, “Yes, that will be the case.” Now I should like to know from the Prime Minister whether he still abides by those answers. I asked the further question whether the next Governor-General, if he was appointed from South Africa, should have to go and receive a British title, as happened in a previous instance, in spite of the fact that this Parliament requested the King—and the resolution was never withdrawn—that His Majesty should not grant any further honours to South Africans. In the case of the previous Governor-General an exception was made. The question is why that exception was made. It was definitely in conflict with the resolution of Parliament and no sophistry as was previously resorted to can alter the fact that the action taken in this respect was in conflict with the resolution of Parliament. Now I should like to ask a further question, and that is whether the appointment of the previous Governor-General from the Cabinet constitutes a precedent that will be followed in the future. To do this is something unprecedented. To follow this course necessarily implies dragging the Governor-General and the office of Governor-General into the politics of the country to a large extent, while the head of the State is expected to be above party politics. I am casting no reflections on the late Governor-General. We all knew him in this House and we knew that if anyone had to be taken from this House or the Cabinet there was no one better temperamentally fitted for the office than he. He was an honourable man and always acted honourably. Consequently I make no reflection but the principle is wrong. I ask now whether this is regarded by thé Government as a precedent. A situation may arise such as occurred at the outbreak of the war when the Governor-General would have to make a most important decision. Again I ascribe no motives to the previous Governor-General. If he acted wrongly he did not do so out of party political motives. But what he did was that he acted in conflict with the definite advice of the Prime Minister of the country so far as the dissolution of Parliament was concerned. Unconstitutional action was taken on an extremely important matter and no self-governing country in the British Commonwealth should have tolerated anything of the sort. If in England th? King set aside the advice of the Prime Minister of England on such an important matter as the dissolution of Parliament, I say with my knowledge of British politics that he would not remain king a day longer. But here in South Africa this was done and put up with. The then Prime Minister, Gen. Hertzog, took up the attitude of asking his followers to kindly refrain from making any observation on that and from making any attacks. Only on that account was nothing done, but the conviction was there and is there today that it was an unconstitutional action.

What was unconstitutional?

That the advice of the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament was set aside by the head of the State. However pure and honourable the motives may have been, it was an unconstitutional act, and it can very easily happen under such circumstances that if he comes from the Cabinet in which the Prime Minister sits today, Which followed a definite war policy against neutrality, because he is sitting in the Cabinet, it can very easily happen that the act will be interpreted by the people as an act springing from party political motives. [Time limit.]

As far as concerns the first point, namely the permanent filling of the position of Governor-General, I explained the position last year when the same question was put to me, and I then stated that it did not then appear to be possible to make a permanent appointment in the office. The present officer administering the Government agreed to remain for the duration of the war in an acting position without accepting the permanent appointment.

But that is no reason.

That is the only reason that I can give and to me it is adequate.

It is no reason.

Why was he asked to remain for the duration of the war? Why was the appointment not filled?

That is the position. He accepted the office in an acting capacity for the duration of the war. That was the understanding and it will remain at that until the end of the war.

Until the next candidate is free to fill the post.

In regard to the other question that was put by the hon. member last year, my reply was that if I was there and I had to advise His Majesty, that is the advice I should give him—and what I said last year still holds. There has been no change. My personal undertaking is that if I had to advise His Majesty, that would be my advice. There has been no change in the position. Now a further question has been put, namely, whether it is a precedent that the Governor-General will be recommended from the members of the Cabinet. It is no precedent. That was an abnormal step taken under the circumstances at that time, and any future appointment that will be made will be based on the circumstances and facts, and what advice the King may receive I cannot now say.

Are there aspirants in the Cabinet?

Perhaps there are aspiring leaders on the other side of the House. But we on this side have no aspirations. I have not heard of any.

Must the Governor-General have a Malmesbury accent?

That is rank discourtesy.

It is discourteous of you not to answer the questions.

Another point that was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition is that the Governor-General acted unconstitutionally at that time when he did not resolve Parliament on the advice of the then Prime Minister, Gen. Hertzog. That was not unconstitutional. The matter was argued out. There have been books written on the subject, on the question of what the prerogative of the King or of his representative is in such a case. There are precedents in connection with that, and the general opinion is that the King retains his prerogative on that point.

Can you mention a precedent?

In the circumstances I deny that it was in any way unconstitutional. That argument of the Leader of the Opposition is one that he cannot substantiate.

I should like to say this, that the Prime Minister stated that it was discourteous of me to have made the remark that I made.

The Malmesbury accent; that was insulting.

I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he as a great man, thinks that it is courteous to give people who represent their constituents here the answer that he has given to the Leader of the Opposition. May I be permitted to recall what the Prime Minister said: The Leader of the Opposition put a question as to why the position of Governor-General had not been filled, and I challenge any hon. member on the other side to state what the reply of the Prime Minister was to the question. He has not given an answer. He has simply stated that because a person is acting in the post it will remain in that way until the end of the war. It was absolutely no reply.

That was the agreement.

Was he asked then?

With whom was the agreement?

With him, it is a temporary arrangement.

Why?

The King agreed to it.

I understand that in normal circumstances the practice is for the King to accept the advice of the Prime Minister; he is advised by the government of the country. Now I should like to know why the advice has been given that the person should be appointed in an acting capacity. I think that the Prime Minister should, as head of the State in South Africa, take the country into his confidence and say what the reason is. Many of us, and I am one of them, are not anxious to have a Governor-General, but the constitution says that it must be so, and so long as that stands I submit myself to it. But the Prime Minister does not answer the questions that are put to him, and if we then make an observation that he does not like he cannot be annoyed if we draw our own conclusions.

It is not necessary to be boorish.

If the Prime Minister talks of boorishness I want to say that we have the right to maintain that he answered the question put by the Leader of the Opposition in a boorish way. I want to go further. Provision is made here for an entertainment allowance of £4,296. I should like to know whether that money is paid over to the person who is responsible under His Excellency for the expenditure on entertainment and whether it is only paid out as sums are required. I should also like to know whether there were entertainments and social functions in the last year, and if there were no entertainments by the Governor-General we should like to have an explanation of this amount. While we have to accept now that a Governor-General will not be appointed and that the present official will remain in the post, I should like to have this explanation. The Prime Minister is going overseas and we should like to know whether the decision that was taken during the time Gen. Hertzog was in power, that a South African should not receive a British title, is still in force. The Prime Minister has given us the assurance that our Governor-General will be a bilingual South African but we should like to know whether he will have to go and fetch a British title before he is appointed.

May I just reply to the financial point that has been raised in connection with the entertainment allowance. The full amount has not been drawn since the present arrangement has been in force. During the financial year 1943-’44 an amount of £3,250 was drawn.

I have noted with regret during the last few days that the Prime Minister is very touchy when questions are put to him or when remarks are made. I must admit that a great responsibility rests on him and that in the last few days he may be the more touchy on account of the losses he has sustained. But when we have to deal with matters of wide interest which affect the constitutional position in South Africa, it is deeply to be regretted that the Prime Minister, perhaps on account of the feeling of grief, has given answers here which in the future may be regarded as precedents. The Prime Minister will not take it amiss if I, as a younger man, say these things to him. We realise what responsibility rests on him. We on this side have many good grounds to differ from him in regard to the prerogative that the previous head of the state exercised. He has spoken here about volumes that have been written on the subject, but despite those volumes we have good grounds for differing from him. The Parliament of the British Empire in such matters take as an example the procedure in the British Parliament, and I am under the impression that the last occasion when the British King made use of that prerogative was in 1689—about 260 years ago.

I am sorry, but I cannot allow the hon. member to dilate on that question. The hon. member for Piket-berg (Dr. Malan) put a question and that question has been answered. I cannot allow the hon. member to enlarge on it further.

Do you mean that I may not dwell on the constitutional position?

It has nothing to do with this vote.

May I not speak on the appointment of a new Governor-General?

Yes, that will be in order.

Then I should like to add a few remarks. The Prime Minister is shortly going overseas to a world conference, where the future peace will be discussed. We do not know when the war is going to end, but it may be this year, and then the Prime Minister will be prepared to make a recommendation to the King. The Prime Minister states that he is not doing that now because we are in a difficult position today. But now we recall too that the Prime Minister stated that the peace would only be an interlude; a sort of armistice between wars. Bearing that in mind, it is very significant to us at this stage to pay regard to the constitutional position. With that in mind the Prime Minister will not be offended when we emphasise that aspect of the matter.

Mr. Chairman,, I do not wish to question your ruling, but the question occurs to me that if an erroneous interpretation is given here in regard to the office of Governor-General whether this is not the occasion to contradict that wrongful interpretation in this House. I am not referring now to any particular Governor-General but to the governor-generalship. If the Governor-General is entitled to set aside the advice of the Prime Minister, the question arises in what cases may he do this and in what cases may he not, and if no line is drawn as to when he may do it and when he may not do it then what is the position that arises. Then tomorrow and the day after tomorrow there may be a dictator in the office of the Governor-General in South Africa. It is a very serious matter. Accordingly I put this forward, that seeing this concerns the interpretation of the governor-generalship and what may be his powers or not, and seeing that an erroneous explanation has been given here, this is indeed a matter that we may discuss. I think it is high time that this was done.

May I refer the hon. member to the ruling that I gave last year and which was as follows—

This matter has nothing to do with a discussion of one of the items.

One point that occurs to me is in respect of the £3,000 that has just been mentioned by the hon. Minister of Finance, as having been drawn by the Department of the Governor-General for entertainments. If our information is correct the present Acting Governor-General does not entertain. No functions are given by him.

He does entertain.

Then we do not know about it. It would be interesting to know how many entertainments there were for the £3,000. It is state money that is being expended, and one should know how it is being spent.

The Auditor-General passed it.

The hon. member will not know that. I regret that over the floor of the House words were used by the Prime Minister that he does not generally employ and which were peculiar and unexpected.

But personal remarks were made against the Prime Minister.

I will not say that that was done, but it is very peculiar to me that the Prime Minister used that language. Although it is perhaps not my duty as a young man to say that to him.

Not even if the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) makes such objectionable remarks?

Whatever matter the hon. member for Mossel Bay brought up I must honestly say that it did not appear to me that the Prime Minister should have reacted in that way.

Not even if I have been insulted?

I do not understand why the Hon. Prime Minister was so dissatisfied. We know that recently there has been reason for him feeling sensitive, but the Prime Minister must not take umbrage when we mention matters here. The public outside think about these matters and the Prime Minister has laid himself open to criticism and now he should not be sensitive. He should know what the people in the country are saying as a result of the conditions which he himself has created. If he creates a position that is peculiar, if he allows an Acting Governor-General to remain for such a long period, then he must expect the public to begin to think about the matter and to say things. The Prime Minister should realise that great interest is being taken in the Governor-Generalship in the country, and especially on this side of the House, because the Governor-General has furnished proof that he, and he alone, can plunge South Africa into war. We had all respect for the previous Governor-General, but does the Prime Minister not understand that by his conduct he dragged South Africa into the war? It is our contention on this side that if he had not exercised that prerogative and if a General Election had been held we would not have been in the war. That is our attitude, and the hon. the Prime Minister should understand that if the country realises that the Governor-General may involve us in a war his office is one to which the country should attach great importance. For two years the Prime Minister has not appointed a Governor-General and the country has to have an Acting Governor-General. He does not want to take the country into his confidence and say why he is doing this. Other countries have appointed governor-generals, and have not got acting governor-generals. Australia recently had a new one; Southern Rhodesia had a new one, and the Prime Minister cannot simply say that the King and he resolved that the Acting Governor-General should remain. This is not an argument that can be used. This is a sort of Standard III argument, if 1 may say so. We on this side of the House are not children, and accordingly we ask what the reason for it is. The Hon. Prime Minister should rise and tell us what the reason is, whether it is that he cannot get anyone whom he can recommend to the King, and whether there is someone else, who is not yet free; then we would know whether there is a sound reason. He has, however, not given us any reason. The Prime Minister must realise that when he gives no reasons and lets such a peculiar position continue, questions will be put in the country which will be definitely unpleasant to the Prime Minister when he hears them. I am sorry that he has shelved the question of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I hope that the Prime Minister will realise that the country takes an interest in the governor-generalship, because the public realise that the Governor-General has a powerful position in the country, standing superior to the Government. He can do things, as we have had proof in the past, which can plunge South Africa in the position that South Africa would not willingly be in.

The whole discussion, as far as it has gone hitherto, has merely touched the fringe of the subject without anyone wishing to say what he really thinks over the matter. It makes me think of A. C. Visser’s poem—

The position is simply this. While I am speaking about the Governor-General I want to make my own standpoint absolutely clear. It is that the sooner we can discontinue having one the better it will be. To me that is axiomatic, but now that we are saddled with the office of Governor-General and will have that for a time—I hope it will not be for long—we should appoint someone to that post in a proper manner. We have someone now filling that post temporarily and the question that is naturally being asked by the public is who is going to be his successor. If we look at the South Africa Act we will see that the Governor-General has the right to appoint someone to act temporarily when he is temporarily absent from the country, or if he for one reason or the other is temporarily unable to discharge the functions. So little was it imagined that there should be a long period in which there would not be a Governor-General that no provision whatever has been made in the South Africa Act in respect of an acting appointment such as that we now have. The only provision made in Section 9 of the South Africa Act is that in the case of temporary absence someone can be temporarily appointed by the Governor-General. Over and above that it simply says that the Governor-General shall be appointed by the King on the advice of his Ministers in South Africa. But it was never envisaged that for a period of two years or longer we should be without a Governor-General, because the standpoint of the Act is that if for one reason or another we have not a Governor-General a new appointment shall be made in his place as quickly as possible. Accordingly, provision is only made for temporary absence. It cannot be said that two years is temporary, and it may last longer—until the end of the war. The reason given by the Prime Minister now is that he made an agreement with the Acting Governor-General and that this was confirmed by the King, and beyond that he has no argument. The Prime Minister has frequently revealed a tendency to imagine that the ordinary public are simply a lot of chumps. That is not so. The man in the street is beginning to ask questions on the position, and why a departure is being made from the provisions of the Act, or from the spirit of South Africa. There must be a reason for it; Rhodesia has appointed its Governor-General; Australia has appointed its Governor-General; and why not South Africa? Then the public begin putting two and two together, and in politics two and two are not always four but sometimes two and sometimes six. I think that the public are on the right track, and the track on which the public find themselves is that there is really a very good reason held by certain people why an immediate appointment of a Governor-General is not made. The Prime Minister stated as far back as last year that the new Governor-General would be a citizen of the Union and that he would be bilingual. He has confirmed that this year. The old idea was that the obvious person was the Chief Justice of the Union. The present Chief Justice is relatively young, and I do not think that he is a person who is anxious to fill this post. He must be excluded. Who is the person then for whom the post is being kept open, because it is being kept open? The ordinary man in the street says this: he begins to examine the utterances of Cabinet Ministers and of the Prime Minister himself. He remembers that the Prime Minister stated “This is my last shift.” Whether the Prime Minister wants to know it or not, the ordinary man in the street thinks that the post of Governor-General is being held open until he emerges from the war, so that he can obtain, that post. If I were a supporter of the other side of the House I would say that that is his due. But why not be honest about the matter? If it is being held open for anyone on the other side, the obvious person is the Prime Minister. The post is being kept warm for him, so that when his last shift is finished he can rest in that post. If the reins of government — No, I should not say the reins of government, because they will no longer be in power — if he hands over the reins of leadership of the party to one of his less capable colleagues he can go with peace and honour to that post. If I were a member of the party opposite I would support that, because it is his due. But let us know then what the reason is why a Governor-General has not been appointed. That is the reason that the man in the street has for it, and I think that the män in the street is absolutely correct in what he thinks in connection with this matter.

If the man in the street has never been wrong, he is wrong now. Let me tell my hon. friend that he and the man in the street and the man.

In the moon.

Yes, and the man in the moon, are absolutely wide of the mark. There is nothing of that sort. The position is that we are passing through a completely abnormal time, and it is not possible to fill the post during this period.

Why not?

In this abnormal period it is very difficult to fill such a post in South Africa, and that is why I arranged with the present officer administering the Government, and the King approved of it, that he should remain till after the war, and that is what will happen.

Why has Australia appointed a Governor-General then?

Australia took someone from the Royal House, and the position there is entirely different to what it is in South Africa. The position is more difficult here amongst us. It is impossible for me to go into the details. I have only risen to say that the idea that is ascribed to the man in the street that the appointment is being kept open for me — well, my hon. friend and the man in the street are very wide of the mark indeed.

I think that the solution in connection with the Governor-Generalship is a very satisfactory solution. It is a reasonable way out that has been found for the duration of the war, and it carries with it general approval. Some hon. members now want to allege that the previous Governor-General acted unconstitutionally when he did not accept the advice of the then Prime Minister. I cannot agree with that. As it appears to me, the position is simply this. I read the Act in this way, that so long as there is anyone in Parliament who has been elected by the people, and who is willing to form a government, the Governor-General has the constitutional right to ask such a person to form a government.

I have already ruled that the hon. member cannot discuss that matter.

May I not discuss the constitutional position?

I have already ruled that that matter cannot be discussed on this Vote. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) wanted to discuss it, and I ruled that he was not permitted to do so.

I am sorry, but I did not hear your ruling.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on the appointment of the Governor-General. We are quite satisfied with the Officer Administering the Government and we are prepared to accept him, but when the time comes to appoint his successor, I think the best interests of South Africa will be served if the King is allowed unfettered discretion in the appointment of the next Governor-General. I feel, and I think the country as a whole feels, that there is no man connected with politics in South Africa to take that impartial position. I feel I am voicing the sentiments of a large section of the people of the country when I say this, and I repeat that I think His Majesty should be allowed an unfettered discretion in the appointment of the Governor-General.

I should like to know from the Prime Minister what are the constitutional reasons why at the moment and for a considerable period he has allowed the officer administering the Government to remain in an acting capacity. The South Africa Act make provision for the appointment of the Governor-General. In terms of the Act provision can be made for someone who can act in the temporary absence of the Governor-General. But I can find no provision in the South Africa Act for this post which is now being filled by the officer administering the Government. I should like consequently to know what are the constitutional reasons for this temporary appointment.

It must be under the Emergency Regulations, of course.

If it is under the emergency regulations, I should like to know which. The position under the South Africa Act is that provision has not been made for such a person to act. In Section 9 it is laid down that a Governor-General shall be appointed, and in Section 11 provision is made for a substitute during his temporary absence. But in this case we have had no temporary absence of the Governor-General in South Africa. In these circumstances I should like to know whether legal opinion has been taken, whether the validity of the post has been established, and if so on what authority, on what grounds does the appointment rest.

It rests on the basis of temporary absence. This interpretation of “temporary absence” has frequently been applied in cases where the occupant of the post has died and someone has been temporarily appointed. There is no definition of what is “temporary”. There is no time limit. In the special circumstances of today, during the war, the word “temporary” has been stretched on account of the difficulty of the circumstances. That is the basis on which the appointment rests.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 2.—“Senate”, £48,750,

What, I would like to know, falls under G, “Joint Parliamentary Gardens, including Parking Attendant”. I would like to discuss something which falls under the first portion, under the Parliamentary gardens. I must raise this under this vote, for I cannot bring this matter under discussion under the vote “House of Assembly”. The building in which we are accommodated is a building which was built very long ago, some 60 years ago. Around the original building, there were many gardens. The portion in which we now sit and where most of our proceedings take place used to comprise gardens. At that time the building only came as far as the passage which is now on this side of the dining room, and there was plenty of room for expansion. It was not foreseen that Union would later come about and that it would be necessary to extend the House of Assembly considerably. It was thought that the site was big enough. Since Union, it has become necessary to build on large sections, the section in which we are now and other sections, for very soon it was realised that the building was too small. From time to time enlargements have been effected. During the period which I have been in Parliament, on two occasions storeys have been built on without obviating the lack of room accommodation, and the position is that we have practically reached the maximum in these parts as far as extensions are concerned, while it is necessary to build on extra rooms and to extend. The position has become very difficult. I think all hon. members will agree that the facilities afforded to members of Parliament leave much more to be desired as far as rooms are concerned. Large numbers of members are crowded togethér in small, warm, uncomfortable rooms where they have to work. Many members come here in the mornings and have to go and sit in the Assembly Hall itself to write their letters. They have no place which is private, where they can leave their papers; continually people come to see members over important matters, at least important to the people themselves, and there is no place in the whole House of Assembly where one can take a private person to converse with him over a private matter.

Will the hon. member say what this has to do with the Parliamentary gardens.

I want, to see certain gardens annexed to the Parliamentary grounds. I am coming to that. Everything I have said is leading up to that. The second matter is the absolute ineffeciency of our library. The library of the House of Assembly is one which everybody can be proud of. It is a beautiful library. But the whole manner in which our library is organised, is antiquated, almost mediaeval. No library which is built today, would be built in this way. It is inefficient. In the first place it is impossible to arrange the books in a proper manner in the library. The books ought to be arranged so that everyone can see them. Here you have the position that three-quarters of the books can only be reached with a ladder. Many of the members, especially some of the senators, are quite unable to get near the books.

The hon. member cannot go into that.

I will naturally bow to your ruling, but first of all, I would just like to indicate the necessity of enlarging the Parliamentary grounds.

The hon. member must now come to the point.

I am coming to the point. I am not trying to be funny. It is a serious matter. Let me just put my case. A new library is necessary and ground is needed for it.

That has nothing to do with the maintenance of the gardens.

Let us discuss the position a little. It is the only place where we can discuss it. The point I want to raise is that Parliament must acquire additional ground and this ground we must obtain from the gardens alongside. I know that it is difficult to work this matter in anywhere, but if you lay down that ruling, it becomes impossible for us, other than by way of a substantive motion, to have a discussion on the expansion of the grounds. For that reason I want to point out that we need more grounds.

The hon. member can raise this matter before the Committee on Internal Arrangements.

But the matter belongs here in the House of Assembly. Let me come to the point then. Alongside we have the Governor-General’s residence. I am sorry that I am not allowed to discuss the question of the library and that I may not point out the danger of fire, for according to your ruling, I would be out of order. But we must have a new library.

There is a committee for the Parliamentary Library.

But it is a committee which has to report to this House. It is not the committee’s library, but Parliament’s library. Use your own intelligence, Mr. Chairman, and no one else’s, then you will agree with me. The point I want to come to is that here alongside we have the Governor’s residence which in the old days formed part of the Government grounds, and on a portion of the grounds stands the House of Assembly. When you have a Governor-General, the position is difficult, for if the House of Assembly needs grounds for expansion, the House of Assembly has no voice in the matter. Then it is difficult to do anything about it. But now there is a hiatus. We are without a Governor-General. One will have to be appointed again. Now is the time to annex the grounds of the Governor’s residence to those of the House of Assembly. Other provision is made for the Governor-General. It is not necessary for him to have two residences in the Cape Peninsula. One is enough. The other one he has, outside at Rondebosch, is situated in much better surroundings, both as regards nature, and climate. Now is the time to annex the area of the Governor’s residence to the House of Assembly. If we do this, in the first place we will have the grounds necessary for the extension of the House of Assembly. You will have room to build a proper library, you will have space for the parking of members’ motor cars, in connection with which an impossible position exists at the moment, and you will be in a position to improve the House of Assembly from an architectural point of view. The time is ripe for doing this, so that when a new Governor-General comes, it will not be necessary to ask his leave. He will be appointed and find things in that position. I appeal to the Government very earnestly to extend our grounds and to make use of this opportunity.

I would like to raise a point which, I think, will meet with the approval of the public and all hon. members in this House. I think they will agree with it, and I do not know why, but nobody seems to want to raise it. I am speaking how of the House as a whole. It has not been raised, or it is considered as unpractical. The hon. Prime Minister, who participated in the compilation of the constitution of South Africa, will, I hope, correct me if I am wrong, but I think the Senate was composed in order to examine hasty legislation of this House and improve on it, where necessary, and then to send it back to this House.

What is the hon. member discussing now?

The Senate.

Which item?

Salaries paid to members of the Senate.

Is the hon. member discussing the allowances made to senators?

Yes, and I would like to draw attention to something of a serious nature. It is my intention to bring under discussion the respect which this Parliament enjoys with the public outside. As far as the Senate is concerned ….

The hon. member may not cast any reflection on senators.

Oh no, it is not my intention to cast any reflection on them.

The hon. member is discussing the, work which the Senate does.

No, the work they do not do, which they omit to do. I will just deal shortly with the point I want to make. The Senate was intended to be a non-political body, a body which would not consider legislation on political lines. If I am wrong, I will be seated immediately, but I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Senate is no longer the body which it was intended to be when it was formed.

The hon. member may not discuss that.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 3.—“House of Assembly”, £155,700,

I think the Minister knows already what I am going to ask for, but this year I am pleading for it with more urgency than before; it is in connection with “Hansard”. I see here that an amount of £18,000 is asked for. The “Hansard” staff do their best to report the proceedings to the best of their ability, and to furnish a reliable report of all the discussions in this House. They are the most important discussions which take place in the country. The first point I want to make is that “Hansard” is satisfactorily taken down and printed at a cost of £18,000, and for the great masses of people in South Africa, it remains practically a closed book. That is my first point. Now the Minister will ask how I propose to bring about a change. In previous years I have asked that, in the first place, we should be in South Africa what they do in Australia, where “Hansard” is available at 2d. per week, that means that it would cost a person approximately 4s. to 5s. per Sitting. Then we would be in a position to acquaint everyone in the country who is anxious to know how State matters are discussed, with the discussions in this House, which, after all, is the platform of the land, and also to acquaint them with the opinions of the different members and the different parties. You will agree that, in spite of the reports which appear in the newspapers, they are only an unsatisfactory rendering, they are not even a scanty reproduction of what really takes place here. A few copies of “Hansard” are distributed among the various parties, in proportion to their strength, but for a moment, to use an expression of the Prime Minister, they have nothing more than a nuisance value, for “Hansard” remains a closed book to the people of South Africa. Now I want to say, in the first place, that it should be available to the public at the rate current in Australia. While today we have the enormous expense of having it printed and keeping a staff of competent people to do work of a high standard, let us make use of “Hansard” to enlighten the nation, so that they will know what is going on. The second question I wish to put, and which I have not asked before, is one which, I hope, the hon. Minister will acknowledge to be reasonable, and it is to supply to each government school throughout the Union of South Africa for each 25 pupils, English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking, at least one copy of “Hansard”. It will serve to educate the nation.

In the school library?

Naturally, it will go into the school library. Then the schools will also have the satisfaction of knowing that what they read in connection with the discussions and explanations here, is at least first-hand. Important constitutional matters are discussed here, as well as legislation and important motions, and they will be able to see the advantages and disadvantages in connection with certain proposals. In this manner a very sound judgment will be passed on the Parliament of South Africa. The hon. Minister knows what the position is today and how the nation is unacquainted with the different conceptions on various public matters. Today it is a closed book to the schools of South Africa and to the nation. If this is done, we will also find that the members and the parties on the different sides will be more careful in expressing their views, more accurate in their discussions and more precise in explaining their viewpoints. But because it is practically a closed book to the nation, members do not worry overmuch about the way in which they expound their views. The House of Assembly is the platform of the country and if we were to have such a system, nobody would be able to distort facts. The people of South Africa would as a result become better acquainted with the different viewpoints of the parties. On this occasion I wish to make this appeal to the Government more emphatically than before.

I should like to touch on two points under A “Salaries, Wages and Allowances” and B “Allowances to Members”. The first is in reference to the payment of sessional messengers. Hon. members who have come here again this year for the Session found that there was an entirely new staff of Parliamentary messengers. I want, in the first place, to say that they deserve praise for the manner in which they have done their work, but if you are going to change the staff every year it will be extremely difficult för new men to get to know members and to become conversant with the whole procedure. I feel that in a great organisation like the public service it should be possible to make arrangements where under the lads and the men who are engaged for the purpose are given not merely temporary employment but that when the House is not in Session they may be taken into service for other purposes. I think that in view of the fact that in the near future we shall be talking about social security, we all want to get away from the idea of temporary work. I do not know whether it falls under the Prime Minister, but I hope that the Prime Minister or the Minister under whom the subject falls, will go into it to ascertain what arrangements can be made. Then in regard to the question of salaries and wages, the sum of £3,500 is voted here for sessional clerks and messengers. I hope that when I say that according to my opinion it shows disrespect towards members of this House, I shall not ….

May I point out to the hon. member that this has nothing to do with the Minister. This is a matter that the hon. member should discuss with the Clerk of the House or Mr. Speaker.

With whom?

With the Clerk of the House or Mr. Speaker. It does not fall under the Minister but under the Speaker.

Why is it under this vote then?

The money has to be voted.

May I then ask further whether in your opinion it is right and according to democratic principles if money is voted no one is responsible for the vote? We cannot hold an official responsible. Can we? I shall be glad if the Clerk of the House can reply perhaps.

May I point out to the hon. member that this is a domestic matter.

I do not want to be obstinate but under the constitution according to the Act of Union there must be someone responsible if money is being voted.

I am sorry, but the hon. member cannot deal with this.

If my constituents outside ask me why it is I did not discuss this matter, how am I going to answer them?

I am sorry, but I have given my ruling.

Good. I hope that we shall have an opportunity later to talk about it.

On a point of order, is it your ruling that under this vote we cannot discuss the wages that are paid to our messengers, and that we must go to the Clerk of the House to get particulars? Why then should we vote for this? We have to vote this amount, and we must of course be entitled to information.

This is a matter on which a decision was given by Mr. Speaker.

It does not appear reasonable to me. We should be able to get the information.

The hon. member can go to the Internal Arrangements Committee.

If you give that ruling then it is virtually impossible for the House to talk about the voting of large sums of money. Here we have to deal with an amount of £150,000.

The hon. member may talk about it, but it seems to me to be just a waste of time. It falls under Mr. Speaker and under the Standing Orders Committee, not under a Minister. Let me point out that the Minister himself cannot reply to the discussion.

That may be, but now we are getting the same position that we had a little while ago in respect of certain other bodies for which money was voted, such as the Iron and Steel Corporation, the Electricity Supply Commission and the Broadcasting Corporation. We also tried to have a discussion then, but no one apparently was responsible. Now we have again the principle that the House must vote money while the members have hot the right to say how they think the money should be expended. We do not want to pass criticism, but where money is voted we should have the right to say whether it is being expended in the best manner, or that there is a better manner in which to spend it.

The hon. member can propose a reduction of the item.

Then I should have to propose a reduction with the object of making it larger.

I do not know whether I understood the matter aright, but we do not want to have an unnecessary debate. We want to have a procedure here to bring matters up for discussion without any unnecessary waste of time. I understand that the position is that we have a Committee of Internal Arrangements of which Mr. Speaker is chairman, who goes into these matters. Whenever a matter of this nature is broached and has to be discussed the correct procedure is to bring the matter before the committee and the Committee for Internal Arrangements presents a report to this House, and the report can be discussed here. Then we have the report before us and something specific to deal with, a subject that you can dispose of in this House. At present we can do nothing, it is only a matter for discussion. I think that the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) should submit the few points that he has touched on to the Internal Arrangements Committee, of which Mr. Speaker is chairman. He can then give his evidence, and a report can be brought forward and on that we can then deal with the matter. But as it has been brought up now nothing can happen. It is merely a question if discussion, and it seems to me just a loss of time.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, as a member of this House, I do not want to give away my privileges as a member by agreeing to what the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister says.

Order, order! Is the hon. member speaking to a point of order?

I am, definitely. I do not want to give up my privileges and rights by accepting what the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has asked my colleague to do. We are responsible for voting £3,000 or £4,000, and it is for us to say whether the amount shall be paid or not. We are not going outside the House to a Committee to ask whether we shall do it or not. If we are not permitted to discuss this, we shall have to move the reduction of the Speaker’s vote and ge† Mr. Speaker in to rule on it. Otherwise we shall be giving up all our rights and priviléges. I should like you, Sir, to rule that we are in order in discussing the amount in the vote. I warn the House not to allow this point to go through. Hon. members have a right to speak on this as on every vote. I ask you to call in the Speaker to give us a definite ruling on this point, and I move to do so.

Will the hon. member submit his point to me in writing?

I am not a lawyer, but I shall do so.

I must say that I am very glad that this’ point has been dealt with today, because we would very much like to know where we stand. The second aspect that I want to deal with is under B. of this Vote, the allowances to members of Parliament. One often hears about the pleasant life of the member of Parliament and the Senator. I feel that the public of South Africa are perhaps not fully informed regarding the real functions, the real work of members of Parliament, and I feel that they do not always realise that there is sacrifice connected with it. A considerable number of years ago I had the pleasure of listening to an address given by the hon. the Minister of Finance at a Dingaan’s Day celebration, and he spoke about gratitude and the lack of appreciation. I could not understand that speech of his as well as I can now. There is sometimes even reference in the press to members with high salaries, free passes, etc. I do not think there is a single member who has not made a big sacrifice in order to represent the public in this House, and we would like to express the hope that that measure of disrespect, as it were, towards members in this country will discontinue, and as a young member I make bold to say public life in South Africa stands on a very high level. It compares very well with all the other democratic lands, and there is no reason why this House and the Senate should be spoken of with disparagement. But there is another aspect of the matter that I want to touch on, and that is an aspect that is a little more delicate. I feel that members while they receive their allowances, while expenditure is involved by the State in that connection, are entitled to greater responsibility in the administration and in the government of the country. It does not admit of doubt that when the House adjourns — it is the case in all democratic countries not only in South Africa but also in England and America — in England they have endeavoured to fill the gap by the appointment of more secretaries, but this will not help either. The new conditions that would meet us demand that we as members of Parliament should take a more direct share in the actual government of the country. As soon as this Parliament adjourns the government of the country is in the hands of the State officials and Government officials.

But you are satisfied with them.

I feel that the time is now opportune when more use should be made of the knowledge that individual members possess, and this can only be done by means of the committee system, whereunder every Cabinet Minister has under him a committee of members. Then members will be able to give the country their full value, and members will have an opportunity of knowing what is going on and there will be far and away less danger of bureaucracy in the country. That is the position. Unfortunately I cannot go deeply into that aspect of the matter this afternoon. As you know, there is a motion on the Order Paper which prevents one from going into that. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) desires to move that the Speaker’s ruling be asked on a point of order, namely, whether a member may in Committee of Supply speak on the salaries paid to messengers of the House. I want to point out to the hon. member that my ruling was not that members could not speak on these particular items. Members are free to speak on these items, but I pointed out to the Committee that the Minister of Finance is not responsible for this particular Vote, so that, although members may speak on and debate these items, there would be no answer forthcoming from the Minister of Finance. It was also pointed out by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that there is a Committee in existence to which questions such as these can be referred, a committee which is presided over by Mr. Speaker, and I think I am right in saying that it would be more courteous if Mr. Speaker were consulted. I regret therefore I cannot put the motion of the hon. member for Hospital as it does not meet the point.

On a point of order, how is the House going to reach Mr. Speaker? How is this Committee going to reach that other outside committee? Do we send our request through the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, do we send it through the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, or how do we proceed?

Any hon. member of this House has the right to go to Mr. Speaker or raise the matter through the Clerk of the House.

As soon as I get outside the Chamber of this House, I am not a member of the House. My rights are here in front of you Mr. Chairman. Those are my rights, and there must be some funnel for me to get in touch with some one in this House. Someone must be responsible. Who is responsible?

Mr. Speaker is responsible.

Then Mr. Speaker must be brought into the Chair so that we can talk to him, otherwise what are we to do? How do we reach Mr. Speaker? We have moved Mr. Speaker out of the Chair.

I have informed the hon. member that he can go direct to Mr. Speaker himself.

No, the moment ….

I am sorry, I have given my ruling in this matter.

Then I move—

May I point out to the hon. member that there is nothing before thé Committee on which Mr. Speaker can give a ruling.

But, Sir, you must accept my motion to report progress and ask for leave to sit again.

I am sorry I cannot accept the motion as proposed. I can accept a motion that this Committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

But I want us to sit again, so that we can get a ruling from the Speaker.

May I point out that the matter is entirely in the hands of the Chairman.

I do not want to quarrel with you Mr. Chairman about this. I want to fight for the rights of members of Parliament.

I have tried to point out to the hon. member that his rights have not been infringed in any way.

And I say that my rights have been infringed. I want to talk on it. I want to know how far my talk is going. Is it left in the air, or how does it help? I must have an answer. I think we must report progress and get some definite ruling on this, otherwise we are going to tie up the House very badly.

A bit louder please.

I said we have to fight for our rights here tonight. Where do we go to? Who are we? We are a body that means nothing; they say that we must go out of the House to see Mr. Speaker. As soon as we get out of the House, we are nothing; we are just ordinary men in the lobby; but here we are members of Parliament with certain definite rights and we must fight for those rights. We want to know who is responsible for that money. We want to know how this money is going to be spent and who is responsible for the spending of it, and I ask you Mr. Chairman, an old Parliamentarian, well-versed in these things, one who protects the rights of the members and has done so ever since he has been in the House to assist me and to assist the House. May must have given a ruling on this before now. I said to my fellow members that if you give up those rights, you give up one of your biggest rights, and that is the control of the money which is voted in this House. If we must abandon those rights, everything that our forefathers fought for in Holland and in England disappears into thin air. I move—

I think we ought to have some opportunity of considering this matter, because it seems to me that as far as the officials of the House are concerned, the position at the present moment is not not quite satisfactory. I have been a member of one of the committees referred to. I am still a member of the Internal Arrangements Committee; it has not been called together yet this Session. The chairman thinks we can raise the matter there. But members who are on the committee with me will remember that when we tried to bring up a question of the condition of the work of certain lowly paid officials of the House, of working men who are working here, we were told that we had to bring it before the Speaker. I am a member of the committee and I raised the matter before the committee, and I was told, although the Speaker was sitting in the Chair, as our Chairman, that I could not raise the matter before the committee and that it must be raised personally by seeing Mr. Speaker. That means that members of Parliament ate really deprived of doing anything, if they wish to do it, to try and get better conditions for the lower paid officials of this House. That is the position at present, so it is no good being under the impression that we can bring it before the committee because if we do bring it before the committee, even where the Speaker is in the Chair of that committee, we cannot raise it before the committee, but we must raise it before Mr. Speaker in his own room.

I hope the hon. member is not reflecting on Mr. Speaker.

I am not reflecting on anyone. I am telling you, Sir, that that is the interpretation of the ruling given by Mr. Speaker. Surely I am entitled to tell the House, seeing you have just told the House that all you have to do is to go to the committee. I say you cannot do so. I want the House to realise that if you cannot bring it up here and you cannot bring it up before the committee, then we are left without a remedy and Parliament must find a remedy. It is the duty of Parliament to find a remedy because we are supposed to have control of all expenditure. I do not remember any ruling such as you have referred to, but I do remember that the Labour Party very often brought up the question of the conditions of the messengers and other officials under this vote. As far as I know they were never ruled out of order. I also know that from Session to Session we have debated Hansard, which is one of the items in this vote. This is the first time I can recollect that a member has been debarred from discussing it. I have been in this House for many years, although I have not been present at every debate, and I do not remember that anyone has been debarred. It is quite true, as the Chairman said, that there is no Minister in charge, but as far as I can see there is no reason why the House should not debate the matter. There is no Minister who deals with this. It is a domestic matter, but that only means that you cannot get an answer. There is no reason, however, why the House should not debate it, and I think this thing will be very much better clarified when the Speaker is in the Chair, because one would like to know what the position of a member of the House is when he is a member of the committee which deals With the internal arrangement of the House and therefore, theoretically is supposed to deal with the officials who work in the House. If it is a fact that by ruling or otherwise we have been told that we have nothing to do with the officials, that the only one who can deal with officials is the Speaker, then I say that Parliament is being deprived of a very important right, and that is the control of expenditure, and I think that matter should be clarified and put beyond all possible doubt.

Although I may not have understood your statement correctly, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see any grounds for the statement by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) that he is being deprived of a right. I did not understand you, Mr. Chairman, to say that members are debarred from discussing the matter which was raised under the vote. There is no question of taking away a right from members. But what you have, in effect, told us and I think that is correct, is that the tradition has been over a very long period, a tradition which has stood the test of time, that the domestic affairs of Parliament are dealt with through domestic committees, through its Internal Arrangements Committee, through its committee on Standing Rules and Orders, and that the better way of approaching these matters would be through these committees over which the Speaker presides. Those committees can be approached by any hon. member. Mr. Speaker can be approached by any hon. member. If the hon. member is dissatisfied with the way in which the committee works, he can raise it as a substantive matter in the House when the House is sitting as a House, but not at this stage when the House is sitting as a committee. The correct way of dealing with domestic matters is by approaching Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker is responsible for this vote.

Which Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker of this House.

How do we get hold of him?

I think the hon. member knows how to get to him. My hon. friend is a member outside this House too. He has access to Mr. Speaker, and the correct way of dealing with the matter is along those lines. That does not mean that hon. members have no right to discuss the matter here, but a better way and the correct way in accordance with our traditions is to approach these matters through the domestic machinery of this House.

I think there is really a defect in our Standing Rules and Orders in regard to this matter. When the House has standing committees or other committees appointed to deal with one specific matter or another, there is only an opportunity to refer to that committee any subject that comes under discussion in the House. The matter is mentioned in the House, and then the House, as a House, refers the matter to the committee. But these are standing committees that have to deal with a matter of this sort and you cannot propose, while the matter is under discussion in this House, that it should be referred to that committee. Consequently I think there is a gap, and I think the best way out of the difficulty would be if the Prime Minister would undertake to bring this matter before the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders so that the Standing Orders may be fittingly amended in respect of this point.

I am quite prepared to bring up the matter before the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. Let us discuss it there and ascertain the best way to deal with it. I do not see any possibility of bringing up the question for discussion in a proper way; of course, you can have a discussion on the vote in connection with the estimates but such a discussion will lead nowhere. You can move for a reduction in the vote, and no one wants that, it is here a question of an increase ….

We want to increase it.

And that cannot be allowed.

It can be allowed here.

The discussion leads nowhere. You can have a discussion, but it is a futile discussion, and consequently I think it is best to deal with the matter on another occasion and in a different manner, and I am quite prepared to lay it before the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, so that we can discuss the best way to deal with the matter. We find that almost every year we have a discussion here that is fruitless and that accomplishes nothing.

I think, Sir, that there is a great deal to be said for the ideas put forward by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). We as a body may have strong views about the betterment of the position of the underpaid staff of this House. But as the hon. member points out it is impossible for us to move a resolution of a concrete nature expressing the will of the majority of the House on such a matter, and therefore I think we are in a very anomalous position in regard to a matter on which many of us may have very strong views. And I sympathise with those who feel that it would be ineffective for us to go as individuals to Mr. Speaker. We are in a position of sufferance there, whereas in this House we are in a totally different position, and I do think that if it were possible for us to move a concrete resolution on this matter, it would give great satisfaction. At present we are talking here as it were to the unknown God; we do not know who is the responsible person.

May I point out to the hon. member that he cannot move a resolution in this committee.

No, Sir, I am not doing anything so dreadful. I am merely pointing out our position of ineffectiveness. We are made to feel that we are the most helpless creatures, because from time to time we do get anneals from these people, and I think if we could have moved such a resolution, it would have given great satisfaction. I am merely speaking as best I can in favour of the views expressed by the hon. member for Hospital. I think they do him credit, and many of us subscribe to the same views.

I think it is a very important point that has been mentioned here today, because we have heard from the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) that when the position of the messengers was discussed in the first instance the hon. member was prevented from discussing it. Then it was suggested that it should go direct to the Speaker. We have already heard from the hon. member that when he wanted to bring the matter up before the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders he was not permitted to do so. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition has now made a suggestion that the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister has accepted. I think that all this discussion should bear fruit. But I should like to turn to something this afternoon regarding the messengers here in this House. It has happened every year during the last three or four years, that there is a considerable number of new messengers, and every year when we come here when there are new messengers we experience fresh difficulties. The position is that the new messengers do not know the members of Parliament. Some of our constituencies travel 300 or 400 miles to see us and then messengers do not know you. The argument that I want to submit is that the salaries of the messengers are too small.

Order, order! The Committee is now discussing the motion of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) that I now report progress and ask leave to sit again. We must first dispose of that question.

Then I only want to say this, that it is a very good proposal that he has made for the reasons that I have here stated. We did not previously have the right to discuss the salaries of these people, because instructions have been given by the Clerk of the House that the messengers may not approach members of Parliament in order to improve their positions. That is the difficulty. Here is a person who is a dictator in this House. Every person who serves under him is afraid of him. Let me cite an instance to show why it is in order that the motion of the hon. member for Hospital should be accepted. Here for instance is a man, a very good clerk, who has now left here. Because he could obtain a very good post the Clerk of the House told him at the last minute that as a result of the shortage of manpower he could not take this position in Persia that was offered to him. Now I want to say this afternoon in the presence of the Clerk of the House, who is sitting here, that it is an intolerable state of affairs that is going on. He has consequently become a “boss” in this House, and that is why the hon. member for Hospital has at any rate for once done a good thing. I am glad that the Prime Minister is here and that he can know what is going on. I think it is good that the Prime Minister does know. One is not treated in the House of Parliament by the Clerk of the House as a member of Parliament, one is treated as a messenger, and you are sent round in connection with matters that should appear on the Order Paper.

I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. member to dwell on that matter.

I want to say that it does not often occur that I am in agreement with the hon. member for Hospital, but this afternoon he is so much in order that I am in a position to be able to support him, and I hope that this discussion will bear good fruit.

What I would like to have a reassurance upon is whether, if we find some direct access to Mr. Speaker on this matter, he has in himself authority to grant us the redress that we need. I want to know definitely whether, if I or other members make out a case that the messengers or the cleaners or some other body of our servants are underpaid, and if Mr. Speaker is satisfied that this body of servants is underpaid, he has the power in his own person to adjust that matter without coming to Parliament or without going to any other party. It seems to me that you have driven us to that position. We have year after year debated this matter of these establishments. I still am a member of the Internal Arrangements Committee, but we have found no way so far of rectifying the position, which is that in our opinion we are extraordinarily well-served by this body of men and that they are lamentably ill-paid.

That is why all these changes are taking place.

I entirely agree with the hon. member. This year we are short of many attendants who had worked among us so long that they knew everybody, and everybody knew them. Now the case is completely altered. Towards the end of the Session many of these new men, who have meanwhile become excellent servants for us, will come to us individually as their predecessors did and ask whether we can find them some sort of work to do in the recess. We submit that is not merely unfair to the servants concerned, but we also say it is quite unworthy of this Parliament, and derogatory to the dignity of the House. Sir, we have striven with this very thing year after year for eight years, and we have got nowhere. If you now tell me that all I have to do is to convince that kindly individual, Mr. Speaker, of the justice of this request for improved conditions, I will sit down. But nothing less than a firm ruling to this effect will meet the case.

The question is not whether we have the right to go to that special committee. The question that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has mentioned, and in which I agree with him, is that we are asked here to vote money and then we are told that we can go to that committee. But how does it help matters for us to go to the committee when the money has already been voted? That is the difficulty, and accordingly I agree with the motion for the adjournment with a view to obtaining an alteration in the Standing Orders, so that we may have an opportunity to discuss this vote in the same way as any other vote. Suppose, for instance, that we are not satisfied with the translation work— I only take that by way of example—and we want to make some reference to that, how are we going to do it? In the meanwhile we have to vote the salaries here, so it will merely be a case of “locking the stable door.” I earnestly hope that the Prime Minister will act in accordance with the hint given by the Leader of the Opposition, and that it will not only be a question of discussion but that an alteration will be effected. It does not assist to talk about the customs and traditions of years and to do nothing. We are not dealing here with the law of the Medes and Persians. A new standing order will have to be made, so that we may have the opportunity to discuss these matters when we vote the money. As things are going now we are being asked to vote the money blindly, and once the voting has been completed then we may go to this committee. That is wrong and against all principles of the Parliamentary system; I hope that when this subpject is tackled there Will be an absolute revision, and that we shall be granted an opportunity to discuss these matters in this House on this vote.

Mr. Chairman, we are debating the House of Assembly Vote, and the question has arisen in this debate in regard to certain matters affecting the actual staff of the House of Assembly. Now, I understand it has been ruled that members are not allowed to discuss in detail anything in connection with the messengers on the staff of the House of Assembly, and now it has been moved that the House be adjourned to ge† Mr. Speaker’s ruling. Now I would like to ask, in these days when there is so much talk of democracy, are we supposed to be a democratic Parliament, discussing and ruling our own destiny? It appears to me there is no one who can tell members of Parliament what can be done in their own House.

Order, order, order! Is that a reflection on the Chair?

No. [Interruption.]

Order, order! On whom is that reflection cast?

I cast no reflection, Sir. It may be a question of a matter of a slight misunderstanding.

May I point out that we are discussing a motion by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) that I report progress and ask leave to sit again?

I am endeavouring as a member of the Internal Arrangements Committee to deal with this matter, to help the House to bring about a solution of the difficulty we are facing at the moment. We are discussing this not on party lines, but in the interests of the people we are discussing. Now, if a motion is before the House calling for Mr. Speaker’s ruling, Mr. Speaker is the Chairman of the Internal Arrangements Committee, and now, Sir, as such, it is possible, arising from this debate, that we are all very much concerned about certain officials of the House and their grievances which are the cause of this motion being moved. Now, Sir, will it not perhaps clear the atmosphere if the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Finance, told the House that he will convey the feelings of the members of the House to the appropriate committee? I think it may be dealt with on those lines. As we evidently have no one in the House who can say that a case has been put up for these individuals, and it requires an answer, but Mr. Speaker is not in the Chair, and we have no one to deal with it, who will convey these feelings to the appropriate committee through Mr. Speaker, and that will be the end of the matter. All we are concerned about is that the efficiency of this House under the vote we are considering, is not being impaired through that. Various members of the House feel that this is due to the insufficient amount paid to these men. Are we, as members of this House, in charge of our own House? Have we no say in the matter whatever? Can we put forward any recommendations to the appropriate committee, which will be conveyed to Mr. Speaker, and appropriate action taken? That is my case, and I think this case has been made out. It is nothing unusual for the telephone to be laid on one side while these messengers go to call members to the telephone, and what is the result? The messengers do not know one-tenth of the members, and this means, unless he is a local member, he cannot get a telephone communication which comes to him as a member. The member for Hospital feels that, and he has asked tha† Mr. Speaker be called to the Chair and the House be adjourned in order to remedy the difficulty which is in existence at the moment. Now how can we do that? We have said we have no one in charge of the House who can deal with the matter. How can we members of Parliament, elected here and representing the people, fool ourselves that we are the people in charge of the House when we have no say in matters at all? This borders on the ridiculous; we are definitely placed in the position of not knowing in what position any member of Parliament stands. People outside will say: “What is the use of having members of Parliament when we cannot get anything done?” Every member of Parliament has the same responsibility on him, and I think we can say that we can remedy this, or should we just become numbers? That is what it is coming to, and I believe the hon. member for Hospital will be prepared to withdraw his motion if the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Finance, will say that they believe that our messengers are not treated as they ought to be. I, and the majority of us, would be prosecuted if we employed our staff as we employ our messengers today. I believe the case will be met by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister saying that he will refer the matter to the appropriate committee.

I also tender that advice to my hon. friend for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). I have undertaken here— I hope the hon. member for Hospital will attend to what I am saying.

I am sorry, I did not realise that the Hon. the Prime Minister was on his feet.

I have undertaken, in view of this position into which we have drifted here, that this matter be raised with the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, and that the necessary provision be made in our procedure for raising these questions which are being raised here. No Minister is responsible and no vote can be taken in the House to deal with the matter, and we have really, from a Parliamentary point of view, and I think we can take it, from a point of view of action, reached an impasse. I suggest that we follow the suggestion that the hon. member withdraws the motion and we bring this matter before the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, and we devise a rule providing a procedure by which these matters can be raised and properly dealt with.

When the Leader of the House and my Leader was kind enough to take notice of what I have said, and asks me to withdraw, naturally I accede to his request. I feel that we have gone into the matter at length and I now ask the consent of the House to withdraw.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has asked for leave to withdraw his motion; is there any objection?

I object. I should like to know this from the Prime Minister. He says that we should leave it to him to communicate our request to the Committee that deals with this matter. But what is the position of that Committee? Can it just increase wages, and what will it do if the Minister of Finance does not agree to that?

The Committee may make a recommendation to this House.

The Committee can make a recommendation to the House, but the Minister of Finance is not obliged to accept it. That is my understanding of the position. It is stated that the arrangement of these matters falls under the Clerk of the House. He fixes the wages and pays these people, but who gives him the money to do it? The Clerk is not a member of this House; he cannot defend himself here and state why these wages are not higher. He cannot stand up here to protect himself. There can be no doubt about it that the way in which messengers have been dealt with during this Session is a absolute disgrace. Constituents come to us from hundreds of miles away from our constituencies, to consult us. They send in their cards but the messengers cannot find us. Sometimes they bring the cards long after the visitors have left, because they have become tired of waiting. Those people return to the constituencies and state that the member was not in the House, although he may have been here all the time and sitting on a Select Committee. Messengers are asking us the whole day long where this member or that member is whom they are looking for. The reason is simply this, that these people are not paid enough, and consequently we cannot get the right people. Things are so arranged in the post office that it takes you hours to get through; when the call does come through the messengers cannot find you because they do not know you. I waited all this morning for a call which I put through to Robertson, and I only got through at 4 o’clock this afternoon. I could have driven there and back in my car. If the messengers cannot find you you have to wait another day. We simply cannot continue in this way. Our people complain and the messengers cannot find us. I feel this that if I, as a member of Parliament, am not entitled to make a proposal in connection with this expenditure, if I may not propose that an alteration should be made, how can we arrange our affairs here? Now I am told that we must go to the Clerk. I like to see him and I may like him. Some may not wish to see him, but he has always treated me fairly and I like seeing him. But to tell me that I should go to him and that he will present the matter to the Committee, well it does really seem to me that is not an appropriate thing in this House, and that it will not assist us. What can he do if the Government says no? Then those people are still in the same position and we may not discuss this here because these expenses fall under the clerk of the House. Consequently I do not want the mover to withdraw his motion. Let us come to a decision and let us know whether we are going to be masters in this House. I must honestly say that for the last five or six years I have been under the impression that the Prime Minister was responsible for the first three Votes on the Estimates. In the past he has always replied. Now we are suddenly told that we can talk on these things as much as we like, but that is as far as we may go. I cannot move that the wages of these people should be increased because that would mean an increased expenditure. I had always considered that under Parliamentary procedure a Minister has to be responsible for his Votes, even though the expenditure goes through the Clerk and although it falls under that Committee. The Government must of course make a decision on the recommendations and seeing that this is the case we should have a say in this House. This House is the highest authority in the country, and if we cannot order our own affairs, how can we order the affairs of other people? Accordingly I should like us to come to a decision on this point and vote on the matter. If the position is as it has been explained to us today there is a definite defect in our procedure, and that should be rectified. I protest against the fact that things have not been put right, and on that account I object to the motion being withdrawn. The hon. member may wish to withdraw it to preserve the peace, but if he wants to he can vote against his own motion. I feel in any case that we should protest against the state of affairs that we now have here. If this motion is not agreed to I shall later have another motion put forward.

I think the hon. member who has now spoken does not really understand the position. Allow me to explain it briefly, and I think that he will after that agree with me. The hon. member’s Leader rose just now and said that it was clear to him as it is clear to all of us, that we have here to do with a question in relation to which we have no rule to enable us to deal with these matters. We have no rule to be able to dispose of such matters. We can have a discussion here, but that discussion leads to nothing. We can take a decision here, but that brings the matter no further. We can only talk. That is what was done in previous years. We talked, but we got no further. Now the hon. Leader of the Opposition has made the suggestion that there is a defect in our procedure, and that I as Prime Minister should lay it before the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, that the procedure should be established, and that a rule should be drafted as to how these matters can be disposed of so that we may have the necessary discussion here, and so that such discussion can be dealt with. I stated that I was prepared to accept that suggestion.

And also in respect of the other matters that have been mentioned.

Yes, all those questions. We have to deal with the salaries of the officials and the messengers. There is the question of Hansard, and a considerable number of other subjects. We should have a rule, and procedure should be laid down in connection with the matter. I undertook to do that. After that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) was prepared in view of my undertaking to withdraw his motion. Allow the hon. member to do that. Let him withdraw his objection, because his own leader has proposed that we should tackle the matter in that way.

What I cannot understand from the Prime Minister’s remarks is this. How can he say that in the past answers have never been given to questions on this vote.

There has always been a discussion but nothing has been done.

In what way does it assist matters then to have a discussion? This vote runs to £155,000. Last year there was £4,250 for messengers and this year there is £4,500 for 36 messengers. Suppose now that that amount was suddenly increased to £13,000. Does the Prime Minister mean that we cannot ask for an explanation why the increase has occurred? I cannot understand how it can be stated that we cannot get information from anyone. It is stated that the Speaker and the Internal Arrangements Committee is responsible for the disbursement of the money. The Speaker does not pay that out of his own pocket. It comes out of the Treasury. Take Hansard. Supposing we have complaints, and want to put reasonable questions in connection with that. Is there anyone who can give us the information? Does that simply mean that we must vote the money but not ask for any information? That is certainly not the intention. There must be someone. I agree with the Prime Minister that the Leader of the Opposition asked him to bring the matter before the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. But then we heard from the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) that he served on that committee, and that they also simply had to go to Mr. Speaker.

No, that was the Internal Arrangements Committee.

The point is just this, that if we have to see. Mr. Speaker about such things supposing there are ten of us then from 10 o’clock in the morning we have to line up to see the Speaker. That would be an intolerable state of affairs.

That will not be necessary. We shall make an arrangement.

Yes, otherwise it will be a waste of time. This vote comes before the House; if I obtain leave I can speak on it for half an hour, but as matters remain as they are it simply remains there and no alteration will be made.

I would like to appeal to the hon. members opposite to withdraw their opposition. We have asked for a principle for this House to have control over its own financial matters. At present there is no Standing Order on the subject and the Hon. the Prime Minister has promised to bring it before one of the most important committees of the House, which I hope will bring forward a remedy. I would just like to tell the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn) that I am not a member of the Committee of Standing Rules and Orders and I never have been. There were members also of the Internal Arrangements Committee on the other side of the House, and they were also anxious to bring the case of the cleaners of the House under attention and to make suggestions for consideration, and we were ruled out of order and told’ we could only take up the matter with the Speaker in his room. The Prime Minister has now promised to bring this matter before one of the highest committees of the House, and we will then have the control we have not got now, and surely it is not the right thing to go on flogging a dead horse. We want something to give us that control. Mr. Chairman is now asked to report progress and ask for leave to sit again, but that will not give us any right of control. That will not get you anywhere. If you accept the suggestion of the Prime Minister, you have a chance of doing something and the right thing is for us here in Parliament to let the thing go through like that.

Why we are raising objection is because we are afraid that notwithstanding the assurance of the Prime Minister, in replying to the question of the Leader of the Opposition, we will come here again next year and find that we have no right to broach this matter in Parliament. It is surely obvious that these matters must be discussed. I say this emphatically. We must be able to discuss these matters. If money is being voted, then we must be able to discuss these matters. It does not matter which Party is in power, but there is the danger that serious irregularities may crop up if the spending of money cannot be discussed here. We would like, and this is what the Leader of the Opposition had in view, somebody in this House to be responsible for this special item. If we find fault with something, we will not only discuss it here, but we want to see a special Minister responsible therefor. Otherwise all the complaints which we have heard and the suppressed fear of messengers for a certain person cannot be removed. One wants to be able to discuss these matters here. As soon as you do this, you have a safety valve, then suppression cannot take place. But as the position is today, the best of them go away, and those who cannot obtain other work remain here, and we all suffer as a result. The messengers here do good work. We are not against them personally, but owing to the fact that every year new messengers must be appointed, it is impossible for them to do the work efficiently. That is why I want to see them employed on such a basis that year after year they will remain here. They will be acquainted with the procedure and will know the members. Then only will they be able to do their work properly. This is our complaint, and with due deference, I say that the Prime Minister can well make promises, but that if we cannot discuss this item in the House and there is no change for the better, we are not prepared to allow the motion of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) to be withdrawn.

I want to repeat once more that if the Hon. Prime Minister will undertake to ensure that machinery is created to permit of this House giving instructions to the relative committee, then my objection will fall away. I want to see this House triumph over a sort of bureaucratic committee which we have already tolerated for years. The same applies to the point which I raised in connection with “Hansard”. I have received the answer for years in this House that this House has no say in the matter, that no Minister is responsible therefor, and there it remains. I want him to undertake to create machinery to permit of our giving instructions to this committee. Only if he gives this undertaking will I ask hon. members to abandon this debate. I want to break that bureaucratic power. It is bureaucracy in a miniature form, and we have every right to insist on this House having a voice in the matter. For years already one has received the answer when we vote this money that noobody is responsible. In other words it is in the hands of one or two persons to say “yes” or “no”, and I want Parliament to remain supreme and have the right to instruct: Whether you want to do it now, Papa, or not, we insist that it be done. If I obtain this undertaking, I shall be content, but not otherwise.

I shall be glad if I can explain my position. I understand that the motion of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) is no longer before the House.

How can it no longer be before the House?

The question then is if he will withdraw it. I want to be clear. I am one of those unfortunate people who has to do so much fighting for the underdog, the worker, both in the town council and here, and last year I did everything in my power, and suffered insults, trying to find out the position of European workers in this House, and I could gain no information. They are Europeans just like you and I, and we as members of Parliament are entitled to know what is going on in the country. But I cannot obtain the information. That is why I have stood up and asked for information. Unfortunately, the position has developed in which we find ourselves today. The Prime Minister has undertaken to let the matter go before the committee. I think we should be grateful to the Prime Minister for endeavouring to solve the difficulty, but I think we are dealing with an important constitutional point, and perhaps on the one hand it is fortunate that this matter has come up for discussion. I know that the Prime Minister would be the last person to surrender any democratic right of this House to officials, and it is very evident from what has happened here that we are busy surrendering it. If this aspect of the matter is cleared up, my question remains—what is the position of these young men who work here? I want to know whether, as a result of the debate which has taken place this afternoon, the House will be informed of the salaries they earn. That I want to know. I am a little afraid; I have waited a year, and it takes a lot of patience to wait a year, and I would like to know what the position is and will be grateful for the information. I would like to know whether, if we drop this subject, we automatically dismiss the position of the young boys and men who are employed in this House and in the gardens. If they are only here temporarily for a few months and perhaps only earn 10s. per day, and there is no hope of their earning 12s. or 15s., then we cannot leave the matter there. No one knows what they earn. How do they live? What is the position? I must say that I am speaking with lack of information. A lack of discretion has been mentioned here, but I must honestly say that no member of the staff who works in this House, still less one who works in the Senate, or in the gardens, has approached me and said: “Look, I am earning too little.” Not one of them has done so, and I am prepared to make a sworn affidavit to that effect. I am convinced in my heart that they are not remunerated in keeping with their posts, and what is more, and I want to emphasise this, they have no social security.

It is now 6.40 p.m. and in accordance with the Session Order adopted on the 25th January, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), I have to report progress and ask leave to sit again; the motion that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again, lapses.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again. House to resume in Committee on 16th March.