The day before yesterday when I discussed the estimates, I dealt with the feeding of school children and adults. It is obvious that I should emphasise that point, but I need not go into the matter any further. I would, however, like to bring to the notice of the Minister of Finance, although it is a provincial concern, that one of the large problems in the Transvaal is the question of school buildings. When one travels through the Transvaal, and I suppose it is the same in the other provinces, one comes to villages where the children have to go to school in buildings and rooms which are in a very bad state of repair. At some places use is still being made of tents. The time is more than overdue that these matters should also be dealt with in the Budget. I do not wish to dwell upon this point. I want to go on and say something about hospitalisation. We hear rumours of free hospitalisation, but I think we should give consideration to the rural areas where free hospitalisation will be a very difficult matter. Then there is another point which we should consider, namely, the state of affairs in regard to certain matters, such as offences, assaults and thefts, which have been raised in this House. These are matters for the police, and I think that we should give due consideration to the police, because in my opinion the police do not receive a square deal at all. We should get a better police force—not better men— but the men should be treated better. The men who are today in the police force are looked down upon by many people. They receive a very meagre salary.

They are not looked down upon.

I know what is going on. When the police come to a house many people send a servant to the door and tell them that everything is all right, and that they can go on their way, instead of offering these policemen a cup of coffee and asking them to sit down for a moment. Often a policeman comes on his bicycle and there are people who do not invite him to a cup of coffee. But when these people need the police, the latter are expected to do as they are told, and if they do not do so they are decried as bad policemen. The police force should be made more attractive so that we may get a good class of boys to enter the force. At the moment the police force is not attractive at all. Besides the police force we have our defence force, and I should like to see our defence force being maintained for the country; we want a large defence force. We know what the great man of Great Britain, Mr. Winston Churchill, said. He said that he did not know what was going to happen, and that the people should tell him what they wanted. The position here is exactly the same. We do not know what is going to happen, and the people should tell us what they want. We do not again want to be saddled with a lot of bush-carts when difficulties arise. The soldier of South Africa has made a name for himself and we should build up an efficient army.

At the time it was your Minister who introduced the bush-carts.

I do not take any notice of the remarks of hon. members over there because they are not interested in these matters.

Now I would like to say something about the old age pensions and war veteran pensions, and I hope that the Minister of Finance will give his attention to this matter. I think it is unfair to apply a means test. Why should old people when they receive a grant or a pension and perhaps have received a little bit too much because they did not know the regulations or have not read their book, be compelled to refund the money when they have received a little more than they should have had. Sometimes this places them in an impossible position. If one gets an old age pension and especially if you get a war veteran’s pension, you should receive a grant every year, even if it had to be done by way of a bonus. We should give an old man or an old woman a bonus from January to January every year. Especially as far as the war veterans are concerned we carry a heavy responsibility. I make bold to say if it had not been for the war veterans we might not have enjoyed the right of sitting here. But there people are subjected to a searching means test, a very careful investigation is made and the small pension is cut so finely that the people in many cases are living in desperate circumstances. They did all in their power to bring our country and people where we are today. They should receive their rightful share. There is another matter which I should like to touch upon, and that is the native question. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he will supply the Minister of Native Affairs with the necessary means to give effect to our segregation legislation. The native representatives do not represent the actual natives. I am sorry I have to say that. There are many people who profess to represent the natives, but who do not do so. Listening to their speeches one is inclined to think that they do more harm than good. The native is not that type. He does not want to be elevated above the white man. I know what I am talking about. What do the representatives of the natives ask? They do not ask that the natives should be developed, but that they should receive farms and equal treatment, and they preach a doctrine that no difference should be made on account of colour. That is not what the natives want. The European is the guardian of the natives and we should exercise our gúardianship. How should we do that? By creating facilities for them. We should not allow small piccanins to run along the roads and alongside the trains to beg because they are hungry. I therefore hope that the Minister for Finance will provide the Department of Native Affairs with the necessary funds to carry out the segregation policy and to uplift the native. The natives in the Transvaal are employed in many capacities; you find natives working on the roads, on farms, on the mines, in shops, and everywhere. They receive their rightful share. Finally I want to raise another point and that is that I should like to ask the Minister of Finance what is the position in regard to the spiritual life of the people of South Africa. Is it not regrettable that last year about this time, we here in Cape Town still paused for two or three minutes in order to pray? What has become of that now? I should like to issue a warning. The Almighty is not to be trifled with and we shall still reap the fruits of what is happening in our country. Is it right that we should only turn our faces to the Almighty when we are in trouble and to forget Him when the trouble has passed? I do not think that is right. If the church or the parsons are not what they should be, it is not an excuse for us.

But we have just moved the proposal that we should attend the day of thanksgiving.

Perhaps the hon. member will attend. We understand that if no rain falls within the next few days in certain areas the wheat crop will be a total loss. If the Almighty closes his treasurehouse, we shall perish. What steps does the Minister consider to take in regard to our spiritual life? There is no humiliation among our people. I make bold to say that if we humiliate ourselves, things will improve. A milestone was reached on the 9th January when the Prime Minister called the people together for a day of prayer. The people gathered in large numbers. That was a good beginning, but we left it at that. The Almighty is not to be trifled with. We have nature and culture and all kinds of “tures”, but the spiritual needs are neglected. We want to improve on nature, but the spiritual needs of the people are neglected. One day we will reap the bitter fruits of this neglect.

I think the Minister of Finance was well justified in drawing the attention of the country to the very satisfactory way, financially, in which South Africa came out of the war. Indeed, if one looks round at the condition of other countries, the financial position of our small country, relatively, is extremely satisfactory. It is so satisfactory that one is called upon to examine the considerations which have led to this very desirable result. It is not that our war effort was slack. The effort we made was a great one indeed, and the output of manpower and materials was so striking as to be out of all proportion to what one might have expected it to be. How is it that we came out of this war financially strong, with a strong currency position, and with a potential future output which gives fair promise of getting something like universal employment in future? I think the answer is obvious. It is because our economy was based on mining, and fortunately for us it was mainly based on gold mining, the output of which product was very necessary indeed for the continuation of the war. We were in the fortunate position of having as our staple industry the output of gold which was essential to the carrying on of the war. That prosperity has been relatively so great, that one almost feels inclined to say that perhaps we have almost profiteered out of the war, but of course that is not so. It is due to the accident that war conditions required carrying on of our staple industry. The importance of that staple industry is an important feature of the Budget speech of the Minister of Finance. He said that he was proposing for certain purposes, although not for all purposes, to take the price of gold at 172s. 6d. If one looks at the price of other commodities, I think we will come to this conclusion, curious perhaps to some, but accepted by others, that of all commodities gold has proved to be the most stable in the way of maintaining its real value. It is not that gold has doubled its value. It is not that gold buys more than it did before. Our gold buys relatively the same as it could have bought before the war, that is the light in which we have come to consider our future financial relations, the relative stability of gold, notwithstanding that the world is generally speaking off the gold standard. Well, the importance of this industry is the main theme, one of the most important features of the Minister’s statement, and I am very glad to find that the report of the inter-departmental committee on gold mining taxation has been accepted by ‘the Government. No one could have read that report carefully without having been impressed with the great erudition and perspicacity of all the members of that committee, and I think our gratitude goes out specially to the Secretary for Finance and the Government Mining Engineer for that report. I said before that I understood that in general the Government has accepted the terms of that report, but in reading more carefully in Hansard the report of the Minister’s speech, I am not confident that I am correct in that conclusion. I hope I am, but I am not quite confident, because the Minister, in tabulating the points on which he said the Government agreed to that report, omitted one of them, which I think is of paramount importance, and I am now in doubt as to whether the Minister’s statement is intended to cover this point or not. He has agreed with the conclusion of the committee, and the Government has accepted it as regards the fundamental importance of the industry and the fundamental importance of extracting all the possible low-grade ore, and that the taxation policy of the Government was going to be adjusted on that basis. That is a very far-reaching conclusion, and I welcome it wholeheartedly, and I hope those who have read the report carefully will agree with this conclusion. But in the tabulation of the recommendations which the Minister has accepted, I do not find reference to the first thing in the committee’s report, which is this, that it should be a permanent feature of the fiscal policy that the full value of the product is to be paid to the mines. Now, in the Hansard report of the Minister’s speech, in column 2665, I do not find any reference to this, and I am not quite confident as to whether the failure to specify this is a mental reservation on the Minister’s part or not, and I hope he will make that quite definite when he replies to this debate. It is a matter of very great importance that the industry should receive the full value of its product in order incidentally that those engaged in the carrying on of industry should have an opportunity of netting their just share in the product. I refer to the industry as comprising all those who are engaged in winning gold from the bowels of the earth. It is of fundamental importance that the industry should receive a maximum amount which can be gained from the product. The Minister has not stated whether he accepts this or not. In the past there has been a good deal of capital annexations of portions of this product in one form or another, one of the most recent being through the annexation of the gold realisation charges, so-called, where there were really no such charges. That was a capital levy. Now the Committee has recommended very strongly indeed that that should not be the position, and I agree, and I hope everyone else agrees, that the committee is right in saying that the utmost of what is realised from the gold should go to the industry. Will the Minister make that clear? The matter becomes more important when one considers that this pegging of the price to 172s. 6d. is not necessarily the price at which gold can be sold. Under the international arrangement arrived at by the United Nations where the purchase of gold by one nation from another is limited to the declared currency valuation of a particular nation, an exception is made, and rightly made, I think, in the marketing of newly mined gold. That is a provision of first class importance for the Union, and we know that during the war years, there has been a small but active black market in gold. There was a small and active market for the re-sale of gold in Bombay, where the price of gold has been almost double 172s. 6d. I mention that for the purpose of indicating that this principle of obtaining for the industry the full amount produced by the gold which is realised is of first class importance, and it may mean that it has at its disposal considerably larger funds for fresh investment and other betterment propositions. I hope the Minister will make that clear, and that he will be able to say quite categorically that so far as the present Government is concerned, he accepts this recommendation of the Committee. I welcome in general the conclusions of the committee, and I welcome very much its acceptance, so far as it goes— I hope it is whole-hearted—the acceptance of their proposal, but I am not quite sure that I can endorse some of the reasons which have led to some of these proposals, and I think before we pledge ourselves to do so, some of them require further investigation. The primary proposition, as I understand it, is that the tax on gold should be consolidated into one whole and that incidental and additional measures for inflicting further costs on the extraction of gold should be swept away and that the special war levy should be made up to the required extent by the application of a new formula. I have not been able to work out or to obtain from anyone figures to show the incidence of this formula, but I have heard no criticism of it up to the present, and I have no reason to doubt that the formula, as far as it goes, is a sound one. But I do hope that the remission in taxes which is included in this Budget is a forecast of better things still to come. I hope that we are not going to have taxation pegged at this level. Indeed it is because of the existence of these broad principles and the promise which their application gives to the furtherance of the extraction of this valuable product, that I welcome the terms of the report. The standard at which the taxation is to be applied or fixed is of course of prime importance, and it is true that there are two things to consider. One is that you have to see that the taxation secures to the Treasury a sufficient amount, having regard to the general needs of the country. Secondly, you have to see that there is no obstruction of inducement to invest in fresh undertakings or to give an adequate reward to those who are engaged in mining gold. Arguing along these lines, the committee came to the conclusion that it is right and proper that a higher rate of taxation should be imposed on gold than on any other industry. At first this appears to be a rather startling proposition, but they apparently deal with that, and give their reasons, the main reason being that gold is a wasting asset. When you mine gold you take away so much of the national wealth, and therefore a larger proportion of it should go to Treasury to replace the loss of national assets. I gather that the Minister of Finance has accepted that proposition and that reasoning. I think it was implicit from his speech that he did so. But I find it difficult to accept that, very difficult indeed, and I propose to give my reasons for that. Is it true that the gold which is down in the bowels of the earth is an asset? Is it properly called an asset when it is down there? Does it not only become an asset when it has been won, when it is placed in the position where it can be used? You can hardly class a thing as an asset, or as a group of assets, until it has been brought into being. But the possession of something which may lead to the production of an asset, is hardly in itself an asset, and it seems to me that it is a fallacy to say that the gold which is in the bowels of the earth, which may be an asset or not, which may escape the notice of all the people prospecting for it, is still a national asset. It is not an asset until it is placed in a position where it can be sold. Then only is it an asset and then only can you say that this asset forms part of the wealth of the country, and surely the people who are engaged in winning that asset are not the people who are depriving you of the asset. They are making the asset. They are not wasting the asset. They are creating the assets of the country in the form in which they can be used by the country. The asset can then be converted into dams or buildings or anything else. I think that is the fallacy underlying that fundamental assumption. Further I say this, that they are not creating a wasting asset. The gold, when it is won, is a commodity which is least liable to waste. It is not a wasting asset at all. You can only say that the asset is wasting if it is spent without proper exchange value. And who are the people who spend it? Not the winners of the gold, but the gold mining companies. They do not spend it, but when it comes into the hands of the bank of the Government, or of private individuals, and is sent out of the country, then it is spent. But if you are justified in using the word “wasting” there, with which I do not agree, the people who are wasting it are the people who are spending it after it is won. Therefore there is no reason for saying that this is one of those assets which are taking away so much of the wealth of the country. The gold mines are creating the wealth of the nation. I think this reasoning is unsound, but I agree with this broader proposition, and I am sorry that the committee did not base their recommendation on this position, that after all when you are taxing one commodity or another commodity, or the peoples who produce one commodity or another commodity, when you are taxing those individuals you have to have your eyes fixed on the relative advantages and disadvantages. In dealing with this wasting asset they have been hunting round for a reason and they have put up a bad one when by a simple statement they could have said: When you come to taxation you must take it where it is most convenient and to the extent the country demands. My own criticism is, if this argument about a wasting asset is to be accepted—if all I can say is uncalled for and unsound—then this argument ought to be applied to a good many other commodities. Certainly it should be applied to all mining properties. There is no essential difference between gold and diamonds and coal and tungsten and the rest of it, none whatever. But the committee apparently have come to the conclusion that it could not be that this principle of theirs of taxing a commodity because it is a wasting asset could not be applied to the other commodities for very obvious reasons. I rather doubt that, too. I know of ho reason why, when you are winning diamonds from the bowels of the earth, of which there are presumably a limited quantity only, just as strictly limited as the quantity of gold, why you should not apply the principle of taxation because it is a wasting asset …

We do tax diamonds more heavily.

… but the application of the wasting asset principle has not been applied to that. Without making a definite statement of my own opinion, for what it is worth, I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that he examines very carefully the question of diamonds to see whether the State is getting a sufficient share from that particular source. I hope that the diamond position will be very carefully considered not only by the Department of Finance but by the Department of Mines. I was hoping to have the privilege of producing a fresh Bill amending the Diamond Control Act under which the marketing of diamonds is done. The terms of the present Act are completely out of date, and some provisions are never enforced simply because the Act is out of touch in many respects with the position. I hope that suitable amendments may be made to the Act in future so that we may say that the State not only has an adequate voice, but gets what might be called a proper share of the proceeds of diamonds, however and wherever they are won.

Nationalise the industry.

There are considerable reasons why they should not be done, but what I was suggesting is getting as near to deriving the maximum amount we can from that source. The diamond market at the present time …

… is booming.

Yes, that is the expression, and the quantity of stones the world has absorbed in the last few years is out of all proportion to anything ever absorbed before. Nobody can tell how long it will continue, but when it does prevail the application of a formula such as has been applied to the taxation of gold—I see no reason why at the moment the principle should not be applied to diamonds also.

Coal also is one of our very valuable assets, and if the term “wasting asset” is to be used in reference to diamonds and gold it can be used to much greater effect in regard to coal, and the rationalisation of the coal industry of South Africa is a matter which I think demands very very close attention. This would supply an additional source of taxable wealth and might relieve the impulse, possibly the very strong impulse of necessity, of taxing gold to a very high level at the present time. I believe the resources of gold in South Africa are very considerable indeed, and although the Witwatersrand has turned out vast sums up to the present time it is still capable of turning out very considerable sums, and the untapped sources of other parts of South Africa give promise, or hope at any rate, of greatly increased output on top of that. Therefore one comes again to the position that the acceptance of sound principles for the taxation of this all important product and other mining products is outstanding; and I hope again that the Minister will accept, without any qualification at all, the proposition that under no circumstances shall there be any arrangement whereby the producers of these assets are deprived of getting the full value of the product that they have produced.

When one is considering alternative sources of revenue I wish to refer to another matter which was touched upon by the Minister of Finance in his speech. He spoke of the property sales tax, and he is proposing now to modify that very considerably. I welcome the modifications as a reduction of what is wrong, but I would say quite clearly and definitely this tax is contrary to public policy, is bad in principle, and has not resulted in what I presume was the object of that tax when it was imposed. It is a tax on the sale of land during a certain restricted period, and the object, I understand, was to prevent speculation in land whereby inflated values might be incurred. The actual imposition of this tax has had directly the opposite effect. It has first had the effect of limiting the amount of land available and therefore acting as a restriction on the building of houses, and it has encouraged people who hold land just to hold that land for a rise, to hold it for speculation purposes, and others who have been able to sell have increased the price they would be willing to sell at by the amount of tax they have had to pay, in order that they might not lose on the deal.

The tax is often dodged.

Others have deliberately tried and in many cases have succeeded in dodging the object of the tax the Minister had in mind. The Minister gave as one of the reasons for the imposition of this tax that there was no general land tax. Why is there no general land tax? The imposition—as I have had occasion to say in this House not once but many times—the imposition of a general land tax is desirable to an outstanding degree and would provide an additional source of revenue and at the same time it would be a direct incentive to use that land to the best purpose, and to use it at once. And if we can only get landowners who have land suitable for building and have the command of capital to release that land for building, the situation would be eased. There is plenty of capital and currency at the present time; that is very largely the result of the policy of the Government in increasing the amount of currency out of all proportion to the amount of consumable goods available for purchase, and the opportunity to get capital is outstanding. But the fact that the landowner is entitled to sit with his land and do nothing with it is a direct hindrance and is one of the main factors responsible for this block in housing accommodation which is an outstanding menace to the well-being of our people.

Would you apply it generally?

Certainly, right away through. I am obliged to my hon. friend for reminding me that perhaps a special word is desirable in regard to agricultural land, because we are faced at the present time with a shortage of food. We have a shortage of meat, a shortage of grain, a shortage of all agricultural products and our country is quite capable of producing all that is required. But a large quantity of our land is for one reason or another not producing its maximum amount. There are many propositions which might be taken up and which might be developed, but which at the present time are not taken up and not developed, but it is rather held for a rise and to get a higher price for the land without spending money on its development, than with a view to developing that land at once. The effect of a general tax on the unimproved value of agricultural land would make it relatively unpayable for a landowner to hold land and to keep land which he is not using for producing the foodstuffs, or maintaining the stock the country so much requires at present. I think I might even apply the wasting asset argument or philosophy to those people who are holding up land in this way. The Prime Minister and others never cease to point out the injury, perhaps permanent injury, being done to the country by soil erosion. If these landowners who are not using the land properly and who are allowing valuable soil to be eroded, wasting one of the nation’s assets, if they are permitted to do this, compare their case with the miner who goes underground and creates wealth, and it must be agreed they are in the outer darkness. It should be incidental to the ownership of land—and I hope the Minister of Finance will bear it in mind—that the proper use of that land should be an obligation, a servitude on that land, whether it is land fit for housing or land fit for agriculture; there should be an obligation on using that land. The best way and the simplest way of doing it is the imposition of a tax on the unimproved value of the land right away through. This would mean another source of revenue to the Minister of Finance. He is beset, as every Minister of Finance is beset, with all sorts of demands for expenditure, and at the same time with all sorts of demands for the reduction of taxation. That is the fate of every Minister of Finance. This is an alternative source of income which not only replenishes the Treasury, but actually tends to create further wealth in the country and to meet some of the outstanding demands that are being made at the present time. It would facilitate the feeding of the population. It would facilitate the development of dur assets and be a very considerable factor indeed in meeting those conditions of universal employment we all wish to see brought about. Therefore, while I congratulate the Minister of Finance on the very satisfactory and sound financial conditions of the country, I draw attention to those shortcomings which I think should be rectified in the future to the easement of his difficulties and the very great advantage of the country at large.

Mr. Speaker, I think the opportunity which this debate presents should not be allowed to pass without bringing under discussion a matter which is undoubtedly of the utmost actual importance. I refer to the position in the international sphere as it exists at the moment. For a period of six years the debates in this House, especially on the occasion of the Budget, have been over-shadowed by the war position. The war is now over, and it now transpires that all hope that with the cessation of hostilities this over-shadowing of everything by the war will be a matter of the past, has proved to be idle. The international position is so serious and has reached such a critical stage today that we can only conclude that the war atmosphere continues to over-shadow everything. I say that particularly in view of the fairly serious reports which have just come over the radio. There is no question today which occupies the attention of the nations of the world as well as our attention in South Africa, to a greater extent than this question. There is concern, and deep concern, notwithstanding all the measures which have been adopted of late in the international sphere, in regard to the future of the world, and also in regard to our future in South Africa. Last year on a similar occasion I availed myself of the opportunity to air my views in connection with the results of the conference which was held between the Big Three at Yalta. In the light of the events which have taken place since then, one realises how necessary it was at that time and how serious the position is, as revealed by the results of Yalta. But if it was necessary at that time it is certainly no less necessary today, in view of the prevailing position, that we in this House should devote our serious attention to this matter. I want to confine myself principally this afternoon—and that will be my opening point—to the extremely important speech which was made a few days ago at Fulton in the United States by Mr. Churchill. That speech can justly be described as a sensational speech. To a certain extent that speech was shocking. Some years ago the Prime Minister made a speech in London which was described as an explosive speech, a speech which can be described as a dynamic speech. But the speech which was made a few days ago by Mr. Churchill in comparison with the Prime Minister’s speech, can only be described as an atomic bomb. If that speech is based on facts and if they are justifiable facts, I think we can say that it is nothing less than the curtain-raiser to a new and further act in the great political world drama or, as I fear today, a world tragedy. We certainly cannot ignore that speech of Mr. Churchill’s. We must take into account the fact that he was one of the Big Three who were largely responsible for the establishment of peace and the terms on which it would be based, but he also assisted in laying the foundations for the perpetuation of peace in the world. It is he who made this speech. Mr. Churchill participated in all the big, important conferences which were held in this connection at Teheran, Cairo, Potsdam and probably a few other places which I need not mention at the moment. He is co responsible for those decisions which largely gave rise to the events which followed, and I do not think he in any way denies his co-responsibility. He is in a position today where he no longer bears the responsibility for the government of England. He is now in a position, by virtue of his experience and knowledge of both internal and external affairs, to give the world the fruit of that experience. He is in a position today where he is able to judge the situation of the world more impartially and more independently than formerly. He is a person who is realistically inclined, one who sees the realities of the situation, and we cannot describe this speech other than a speech which faces the facts, which frankly speaks to the world and which is realistic in the true sense of the word. I now come to the contents of Mr. Churchill’s speech. In his speech he sets out certain facts and he arrives at certain conclusions. As far as possible I want to give the contents of his speech in his own words and not in my words. For that reason I propose to let Mr. Churchill speak personally by extracting quotations from his speech. The first quotation is the following. Reviewing the international position which exists today he says—

A shadow has fallen over Europe. He regards the whole position pessimistically. Not only does he regard it pessimistically but he views it with a certain amount of fear. The second quotation reads—

What does it mean other than that he at least visualises the possibility that not only Europe but a great portion of the world will again sink down to a state of barbarism? The third passage I want to quote contains a warning. He says briefly and forcefully—

In other words, there is no time to lose if we want to save the situation. The fourth quotation reads—

In other words, the Allies had a war aim. They wanted to call into being certain conditions in Europe. That war aim, in his opinion, has not been fulfilled. The very opposite position exists today. The next quotation from his speech proves that—

That refers to the greatest portion of Europe—

What did he mean by this? He wanted to suggest that Europe, with the exception of Greece has been sacrificed to Russian domination—those parts of Europe more towards Central Europe and towards the East. The true democratic feelings and rights of the populations cannot be exercised. There is Russian domination. The next quotation reads—

In other words, the Russian domination which in fact exists today is not stable but it is a changing and developing condition, one which is developing in the wrong direction. In other words, in his opinion, it is nothing but a cancerous condition. The next quotation is the following—

It is there already, but it is still in its infancy—

Communist parties and propaganda and fifth columnists in the various countries and in various parts of the world constituting a danger and a threat to Christian civilisation! Does that not remind you of a similar language that was used not so long ago in connection with Hitler’s action and the aims of Germany? It is exactly the same thing, the same danger, the same warning, and conducted in the same language. I am again quoting from his speech—

Unlimited expansion of her power and doctrines. What does that mean otherwise than that, according to Mr. Churchill’s views, Russia is inspired with an ambition to dominate the world; and in his opinion that means nothing less than the endangerment of the world. I still want to quote this—

In other words, after the first world war the people of the world felt that there was a possibility or a probability that the war had been waged so as to rule out wars in future. That is not how he feels now. After the first world war it was said: A new day has dawned for the world. The same thing was said not so long ago, and in this House, in regard to the conditions that were created at the end of this last world war. According to his views that is no longer to be regarded as a new day that has dawned for the world, but just the reverse. It is the setting of the sun on the western horizon and night is falling. Now Mr. Churchill comes to certain conclusions and in the first place he warns against the continuation of what he calls the policy of appeasement. He says that what is required is the settlement of differences. He says that the longer that is delayed the more difficult the position will become and the greater the danger. In other words, according to him the time is past for soft talk, and the time has now come for action; and therefore he comes to this further conclusion, viz. that the atomic secret should remain a secret with those who now possess it or think that they possess it. It should not even be handed over to the international organisation which has been established, viz., the United Nations Organisation. What he really means is that the secret of the atomic bomb should not be handed over to Russia; and why not? Simply because he does not trust Russia with it. If the atomic bomb is regarded as the most important and the deadliest weapon in the hands of any people today, the most important weapon in modern warfare, he is of the opinion that Russia should, as regards that, remain unarmed because she cannot be trusted. And then he comes to the further conclusion that, as a result, Britain and America should now draw closer to each other, in military matters especially, but also in other directions; something closer than what is usually called a military alliance should be formed. Common use should be made of all the naval and air bases of both countries throughout the world; all those military resources should be pooled; they should have the same weapons; they should have the same training; there should be an exchange of officers and of military knowledge, secrets and plans. And then he also arrives at the conclusion that, although it may not be practicable at present, a common citizenship should eventually be established between America and Britain; in other words, the conclusion he arrives at is that in any case to a large extent the estates of America and of Britain should now be merged. It is obvious that in that case the senior—and by far the senior —partner must necessarily be America. He does not deny that. In that partnership Britain will be the junior partner. The implication of this speech and of these remarks by Mr. Churchill are so obvious that it is not necessary to elucidate them further; they speak for themselves. But just to remind you again, I want to say that from this appears, in the first place, the despair felt in regard to the efficiency of the machinery which has been created for the maintenance of world peace. Mr. Churchill does not believe in San Francisco. He does not believe that what has been done there is an effective guarantee for world peace; not even peace for any length of time. He is of the opinion, as we have been in this House, that the fact that there is a Security Council; the fact that world peace for the future is based, as the Prime Minister has assured us time and again, on the desirability, or rather the possibility and the probability which at times he regarded as a certainty, that the Great Powers will not quarrel among themselves; that the Great Powers will stand together in a bond of unity. According to Mr. Churchill, that is most certainly being realised today, and I think that if he were to express an opinion on that matter, to which considerable attention has been devoted in this House, viz., the veto reserved to those Great Powers on matters affecting world peace—if he were to express his views more specifically in regard to that today—he will be bound to say that within this short space of time experience has already taught that such an arrangement is fatal. Russia has already made use of it. The implication of this expression of opinion of his is, moreover, that he admits Europe is being dominated by communistic Russia, and that Russia is unswervingly aiming at that domination. And that domination of Europe, as he describes it, is already far advanced. It all amounts to this: In the first place, that instead of having: that unity among the peoples of the world, and especially among the Great Powers, as has been represented and hoped for, the world is today actually divided into two hostile groups; and he adds that war—and that in the near future even—is not excluded today, and he therefore says: Look out, there is little time left. The further conclusion he arrives at is this: That the machinery which has been created for the maintenance of world peace is collapsing; that you cannot rely upon it. That is why, in addition to that—and he might have added instead of that—machinery other than the Security Council and the United Nations Organisation should be created, and a military alliance of the English-speaking part of the world established.

What is the point you are driving at?

He goes on to say that the estates of these two should to a large extent be merged. There should be one common navy and air force and, if found to be possible, eventually also a common citizenship. He admits that Britain would be the junior partner in that merger. America would be the dominant Power, which will practically amount to America taking over Britain’s estate for the sake of Britain’s safety and of world peace. I would like to say a few words in regard to these facts and the conclusions arrived at by Mr. Churchill, more especially from the point of view of how it will affect us. It is really an important matter as far as we in South Africa are concerned. Just before doing so, I would like to tell the Prime Minister that where we are here discussing matters of the utmost importance and gravity, I cannot but recall our discussion last year on the Yalta agreement which was announced a few days earlier, and on the reaction to what I told the Prime Minister here in that connection. My attitude at the time—and I tried as far as possible to state it objectively and to base it on facts—was that the Yalta agreement was nothing else than a Russian victory, a Russian victory in diplomacy; and I based it upon the fact that the Atlantic Charter which had previously been constituted as the basis of world peace for all time, had been set aside, and that the Yalta agreement was substituted for it and had superseded the Atlantic Charter in two very important respects, making it a scrap of paper. The first was that, for the duration of war, territory occupied by some Power or other would, on the cessation of hostilities, be regarded as non-existent—or let me rather put it this way, that any annexation of territory by any of the belligerent Powers would not be acknowledged after the war; the whole position would be considered de novo by the nations jointly. That was set aside. The Yalta agreement approved the annexation of part of Poland by Russia. It approved by implication the annexation by Russia of the three small Baltic States. There may have been others, but I am just mentioning these. It was laid down in the Atlantic Charter as a basic principle that if you want world peace you should not compel any nation or an important part of any nation to stand under domination under which it has no desire to be. In other words, they should have the right of self-determination. At the Yalta agreement the stamp of approval was put on the partitioning of Germany and the removal from Germany of what undoubtedly belonged to Germany; people who did not want to stand under Poland; and without ascertaining the wishes of the people it was simply approved that they should be annexed to Poland. Hence the Atlantic Charter was simply set aside in many important respects. That is what I emphasised, and I say that the setting aside of the Atlantic Charter was not in the interests of America or in the interests of Britain; it was purely and simply in the interests of Russia and in deference to Russia’s demands. But there is another matter I emphasised and it is necessary to do so again. It is this: It was obvious at the time that the one thing on which Russia was insisting—and it was also considered at Yalta—was that in the event of a victory over Germany she should be utterly destroyed, that she should be partitioned to the utmost extent but that in any case she should practically be destroyed as a State of any consequence. Why was that insisted on? Why was that demand put forward by Russia and why did she insist on it? Because she knew that in the last resort Germany was the bulwark against the flood of communism which would otherwise engulf Europe, and if she were to leave Germany a semblance of national existence; if she were to leave the future Germany some degree of power, that she would always be up against the possibility of that bulwark being restored with the assistance of the Western Powers, i.e. of America and Britain. Your enemy today may tomorrow become a necessary ally in a fresh struggle which may flare up, and that was why she insisted: Tread Germany underfoot and destroy her; destroy her as a bulwark against the flood of communism. Unfortunately the Yalta agreement was a concession to Russia on the point and we know what has resulted. We know what the position is today. As I said, I stated these matters as objectively as possible in dealing with the Yalta agreement last year, as I am today stating the position. What was the Prime Minister’s reaction at the time? I had scarcely resumed my seat when he stood up and reprimanded me, describing everything I had said as nothing more than the airing of my own narrowminded, petty, insignificant vote-snatching opinion, and that I was exploiting the serious international position for my own party purposes. This is a summary of his whole speech. Moreover, he contrasted his own opinion on the Yalta agreement with mine. That was what it amounted to. I want you to compare it with what Mr. Churchill says today. This is what he said about the Yalta agreement—

Contrast his opinion on the position last year—I hope he saw that as clearly and in the same light as I did — compare those speeches of his with the views expressed by Mr. Churchill today, and arrive at your own conclusions. I just want to ask this: Was that sort of talk on the world situation the Prime Minister’s views or is it perhaps the position today? If those were really his views, I would say that, in spite of his reputation of having a prophetic gift to be able to see into the future, he was greatly mistaken.

Just as much as you were mistaken and have always been mistaken.

And not only was he mistaken, but if that had not been his actual opinion, I ask: Is he deceiving himself and is he deceiving the people? [Time extended.] I just want to say that where we are again discussing these matters today in the light of the opinion of a man who can speak with authority and for whom the Prime Minister has the greatest regard, viz. Mr. Churchill, I hope that, if he reacts to what has been said here, he will do so in another spirit and in other language than that which he expressed last year. All I can say in regard to the facts mentioned by Mr. Churchill in regard to the situation, is that they were announced throughout the world by wireless and telegraph. There is not a country in the world where his words did not resound, and as far as I can judge the facts have nowhere seriously been disputed. Even the British Government was asked whether they repudiate the facts referred to by Mr. Churchill, and even his conclusions. The Prime Minister was not prepared to do so. A motion is being brought up in the House of Commons in connection with Mr. Churchill’s speech, asking for a repudiation of Mr. Churchill’s statement. I think I can predict that one of two things will happen. Either the British Government will have to reply: No, they are not prepared to repudiate him; the facts are serious, they may say he has exaggerated somewhat but in any case the facts are serious; or otherwise, if they have to repudiate him, they would be repudiating their own Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Bevin. Who has spoken in more fervent and serious tones on this situation and against Russia than Mr. Bevin? But who will today still doubt the facts? Day after day we see newspaper reports of increasing differences among the great powers. They have gone so far as to lay charges against one another at the Security Council. Russia has charged Britain with retaining troops in Greece; she has brought charges against Britain on the score of Indonesia. Britain and America on the other hand are charging Russia with her action in Iran and her actions in Manchuria, where she is practically charged with theft. We find that the veto has already been exercised. In other words, Russia is making use of the powerful position in which she has been placed and is opposing the solution of major questions. We find that whereas the Western powers are openly announcing their acts of omission and commission to the world— newspaper correspondents from everywhere have freedom of movement and can publish conditions over there—a thick curtain hangs over Russian territory. We cannot find out what is happening behind that curtain for the simple reason that those who can impart the information are kept out of that territory. Russia is today, as Mr. Churchill has said, actually dominating a great part of Eastern and Central Europe. The Balkan peninsula, with the exception of Greece, is today under her dominion and influence. In other words, her sphere of influence borders directly on the Adriatic Sea. In Central Europe you can demarcate the boundary along the western side of Hungary and Czechoslovakia. All the territories are today under Russian influence and power. But is it altogether untrue what Mr. Churchill has said, viz. that communist parties are being encouraged by Russia in the various countries of the world? Is it altogether untrue that communist parties are largely doing the work of fifth columnists? Is it altogether untrue that Russia is directly and indirectly interfering in the affairs of other countries? Britain and America are not interfering in Spain, although they do not agree with the Franco Government; they fought shy of direct interference. Russia is not fighting shy of direct interference. We know of her actions in Palestine, we know of her actions in China, we know of her actions in Egypt and we know especially of her actions in Russian occupied territory in Germany. Not only that, but we know how she has infiltrated her power in the rest of Germany which is occupied by the Western powers and how she is endeavouring to amalgamate the communistic and semi-communistic powers there into one force. We know about the pressure she is exerting on Turkey. But the matter has now assumed a more serious complex. An agreement was arrived at in regard to the withdrawal, six months after the cessation of hostilities, of the occupation forces from Iran. A solemn undertaking was given by the three powers in regard to Iran. The other powers have withdrawn their troops. Hitherto Russia has refused, and the report I mentioned a moment ago, which came over the wireless and which is causing concern, is that Russian armed forces are being sent to Teheran. We do not know of their whereabouts, but I believe in any case that such a report was broadcast a few hours ago. They are in Iran and the Russian occupation forces are not simply there for the preservation of law and order. It is quite obvious that there is something more behind it. If there is one region in the world which is of strategic importance and which, more than any other region, may become the focal point of a fresh war on account of a conflict of interests between the great powers, it is Iran. Iran has her oilfields; Iran will open the way for Russia, if she can get her hands on it, to the Persian Gulf, to the Middle East, which largely influences the situation in the Mediterranean Sea. If she were to establish herself there it would not only mean that she would dominate a great part of Europe and Asia, but it would also mean that the European continent, which is susceptible to Communistic propaganda, would to a great extent be open to Russia. That is the situation. Now we know that. We have also seen of late that Russia does not flinch from espionage on a large scale. We know what has happened in Canada and the United States, and what causes most concern is that during the last few days we have been hearing that the Red Army is to be kept on strength and is to be further strengthened. We have heard that America also takes the view that, for the time being, she is not going to abandon what practically amounts to conscription; and we may say the same holds good for Britain today. Is that what the Right Hon. the Prime Minister meant? Did he anticipate all these things when he returned from San Francisco and said at Ottawa: “I advise the countries of the world (he meant part of the world) to keep their weapons shiny.” That is the existing state of affairs, and I do not think there can be any doubt in regard to the facts. I am not so much raising these issues with a view to discussing the situation in Europe or the world situation, as that I am primarily concerned with our own South Africa. Mr. Churchill has devised an alternative for the machinery which he himself created and which, according to him, is on the point of collapsing. That alternative is that a military alliance should be formed, presumably on a permanent basis, between America and Britain. They should have a joint estate; they should strengthen that part of the world as a bulwark against the other part of the world where you have Russian dominion and influence. What Britain and Russia are going to do in connection with the matter is their own affair; I want to make no comment on that.

But according to an announcement which has been made, the Prime Minister is shortly going overseas to attend a few very important conferences; perhaps very soon. I understand he is to attend the Peace Conference which is to be held in Paris in connection with the drafting of the peace treaty with Italy. I suppose he is going there because part of Africa is also involved, viz. the Italian colonies. That is one conference he is to attend. I believe he also intends attending the conference of the United Nations Organisation, though that may be later in the year. A meeting of the Security Council will shortly be convened in America. He will not attend that because he is not a member but he is going to attend a meeting of the new League of Nations, and I understand he is going there especially in connection with South-West Africa. But before those important conferences are to be held he will attend an Imperial Conference in London. Now I only want to say this in view of what Mr. Churchill has said; and not only in view of what he has said but also in view of what other British statesmen, and especially Lord Halifax, said on the occasion of his famous visit to Canada, viz. that the question of a closer affiliation between Britain and the various Dominions will be discussed. At first the idea was simply a closer affiliation as regards economic affairs. That in itself is a very important and serious matter. Lord Halifax has remarked that Britain has become exhausted. If no effective assistance is given to Britain she will become a second or third rate power and her only salvation is the British Empire, the Dominions; they should adjust their economic affairs in such a manner as to carry Britain on their backs, so to speak. Canada was opposed to it at the time. At the Imperial Conference which was held at the time, inter alia to discuss this question, Mackenzie King secured a victory. He would not agree to it and the matter was left there. But I assume the matter will again be raised at the coming Imperial Conference. But this matter is now going further and in view of what Mr. Churchill has said and in view of the world situation, we can accept that it will again be discussed at the Imperial Conference. The military ties between the Dominions and Britain, between South Africa and the British Empire, have to be strengthened. Military bonds have to be forged. In other words, we are to be tied down to a future war which is being contemplated and we now know what is being contemplated. We are to cast in our lot and again take part in a war. As regards that I just want to observe that Mr. Churchill says: “Look out, there is not much time left”. He says we have to reckon with that possibility. A large section of the public already want to know what the position is going to be in the event of a war. The question is quite legitimate. All I can say in regard to the matter is that should a war break out, as Mr. Churchill seems to think, between the Western powers and Russia, between the ideologies of the West and those of Russia, should that struggle come, it will be different from the one which has ended. The last one was a war in which a section of the people in our country were National-Socialistic in their convictions. They constituted a small section. I explained how my own Party in the early stage looked upon the matter and formulated its policy in regard to it. It does not agree with National-Socialism, but if this war against Russia were to come, what would the position be then? The position would be that the Europeans, with a few exceptions, will feel and think the same way in regard to that matter. Their sympathies will be with the Western powers; of that I have no doubt. But we have a large non-European population in this country and they are susceptible and exposed to Communistic propaganda as never before, and to a large extent they are already openly Communists, and Russia is not keeping her hands from South Africa as far as that is concerned, that much is obvious. It is clear from statements in Pravda and other Russian newspapers that they have cast eyes on South Africa and the non-European population, and Russia is representing herself as the champion of the non-Europeans. She is therefore obviously interfering in the matter. She is trying to win over their sympathies and to act as their champion and the situation will then be this: That we should bear in mind that our troubles will not be overseas but in South Africa and not a single South African soldier could be spared to take part in the struggle overseas, for the simple reason that our task, our work and our danger lie here. I therefore want to conclude with these remarks for the time being: South Africa should see to her own defences; we cannot allow our defences to crumble; we should look to our own defence. And I say further that we should render Communistic propaganda harmless as far as possible, not simply by taking active steps against it but also by looking after the interests of the poor man and by seeing that the colour problem is properly and satisfactorily solved.

It is very seldom, to my recollection never before, that we have heard the Hon. Leader of the Opposition get up in this House and quote as his prophet Mr. Winston Churchill. Is this a new alliance— Malan and Churchill? Not so long ago the alliance was with Adolf Hitler. Mr. Churchill is speaking today as one who was defeated in the last election. He speaks as a Tory who speaks for a vanishing world. The hon. member has with great publicity and a good deal of pomposity, read to us Mr. Churchill’s speech. The Prime Minister at the time told him that he was talking a good deal of nonsense. The hon. member should read the American newspapers, the New York “Times”, the “Tribune” and others, and he will find that they take exactly the opposite line from that taken by Churchill. The Prime Minister of England said that Mr. Churchill said that he had not submitted his speech to the British Government; he had not shown it to Lord Halifax, but Mr. Attlee did not even know whether Lord Halifax had read it, and he made it abundantly clear to the world that Mr. Churchill spoke for himself, and only three days ago a large group of members in the House of Commons tabled a motion censuring Mr. Churchill for this very speech with which the hon. member is trying to frighten South Africa and the House. I listened closely to the hon. member, but he did not say one thing new that has not been said in this House by the Nationalists for the last three years, and now they are using Churchill, one of the descendants of Marlborough, one of the descendants of the greatest imperialistic family. The Opposition takes him as an authority. Churchill and Malan! He has fought Churchill for many years. Do the Nationalists take South Africa as a lot of fools? Do they really believe that the country is going to believe the speech which the hon. member just made? Then they come to Communism. The hon. member made the statement that there was an enormous amount of Communism, and that the greater portion of the native population were Communists. It is untrue. I have gone into this question of Communism amongst the natives. It is true that in Johannesburg there are native Communists led by Fischer, whose father is a Nationalist; Potgieter, whose father is a Nationalist; Boshoff, whose father is a Nationalist, and Joey Fourie, whose mother is a Nationalist. We know there is a certain amount of Communism amongst natives there, and we know that at the last election the Nationalists assisted the Communists, and I understand that the Nationalists are going to fight for the Communists at Castle, in a vain endeavour to keep out Mr. Bloomberg. ’ Then they talk about Communists. Does the hon. member think that the speech he made does any good to South Africa? Does he believe that continually pointing his finger at Russia will do this country any good? Why does he not leave the matter in the hands of a more experienced statesman like the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister who is going to the Imperial Conference, to the Peace Conference and to UNO, and leave it to him to make a diplomatic deal and to make friends with Russia? But instead of that the leader of the alternative Government never misses a single opportunity of getting up in Parliament and saying something to rouse the ire of Russia, and when the trouble does come between Russia and South Africa, if it ever does come, where will the hon. member be? Will he again be writing a book like he did during the Anglo-Boer War, and will the Nationalists again declare their neutrality? I leave that hon. member there. I want to deal with the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). He, in very bitter and almost malignant sentences, made the statement in his speech that the Prime Minister of this country was never so happy as when there was a war on. I may say on behalf of this Party—and this is about the only point on which I can speak on behalf of the party—that we take the greatest exception to remarks of that kind being made about the Prime Minister. What right has the hon. member for George to make a statement like that? The hon. member for George was not a Free Stater before the English war. The Prime Minister fought for three years to try to save the Free State, when my hon. friend and his family were standing guard in the Cape Columns on the side of the English. The Prime Minister had to leave his wife in a concentration camp. Was he happy then, and was he happy during World War No. 1 when as a middle-aged man he had to take the field to drive the Germans away from the boundary of Northern Rhodesia? Do you think any decent man was happy in the last war? If it had not been for the Prime Minister in the last war, we probably would have lost the Middle East. Surely the time has come to stop making statements like that. Surely the time has come for us to join hands and stand up together to face any trouble which may come. To say that Field-Marshal Smuts, the great statesman and soldier, South Africa’s Roman Senator, is only happy when there is a war on, is to make us look with contempt at the speaker. The hon. member was just trying to raise a cheap cheer.

What is the attack of the hon. member for George on the Budget? He says it was a Hoggenheimer Budget. I first heard that word when Boonzaaier brought it out in a picture 32 years ago. Since that time the Nationalists have used the word, rolling it round their mouths like an old Hottentot rolls a piece of tobacco round his tongue. It is extraordinary that if this is such a Hoggenheimer Budget the market in Johannesburg has gone down.

As a result of the bad news from Europe.

Where is the bad news from Europe? There is no bad news from Europe. I will deal with that in a moment. But that is a cheap phrase, a Hoggenheimer Budget. If the hon. member were to study figures and understand them, and if he goes into the question of what the Minister of Finance has done in this country, he will see that South Africa has never been in such a strong financial position as today. This country has struck its tents and is on the march, but my friends opposite do not recognise it. I remember that the hon. member got up not many years ago and prophesied that just after the war we would have a most terrible depression. Does this look like a Budget of depression?

Legally and officially we are still in a state of war.

We know the war is still on legally. We know control has not been lifted from petrol. But we also know this country has never had more money, and the only thing lacking in South Africa today is not money, but manpower. If he were in business, the hon. member for George would find he could not get suitable men today. Despite the fact that our boys have come back, we are still in our factories and businesses short of manpower, and we shall be without enough manpower for a long time to come. People are trekking from the country to the towns for the employment that is offering There is no unemployment today. This remarkable position was achieved by us during the war, notwithstanding the internal disturbances made by our hon. friends on the other side. The hon. member must remember he was in the Ossewabrandwag, he was a general in it, and a great man as a general ….

That is news to me.

Perhaps he was a corporal. He and his friends were generals in the Ossewabrandwag; and referring to the period they were in the Ossewabandwag — they only got out recently — the commandant-general, Van Rensburg, said: “We who were in the O.B. in the bad days throughout the war were able to keep in this country a large number of soldiers who would have fought against Hitler. That is a thing he and his party must not forget. But notwithstanding these internal disturbances and the loss of many of our men, the country emerged from the war in a better position than it was ever in before. I do not want to go in detail through my hon. friend’s Budget speech, because year after year I sit here and see the Minister of Finance making a chopping-block of the hon. member, making mincemeat out of him; and, believe me, although the Minister has been sick, it will be a case of mincemeat again. So I leave the hon. member to the tender mercies of the Minister of Finance, and I can assure him he is in for a bad time on account of the schoolboy criticism he put up of this remarkable Budget.

He said so little this time that there is little to make mincemeat of.

There was a lot of voice and not much else. I nearly quoted the old Latin tag: Vox et praeterea nihil.

Another hon. member opposite said the Minister of Finance had not touched on agriculture. He is a cattle farmer, a good cattle farmer, and he is a Free Stater, so he must be a good chap. But arguments such as he has raised about agriculture have been heard here for the last 30 years; and if he looked into it he would see that agriculture has been dealt with in the Budget probably better than ever before. Millions have been voted for agriculture, millions in our loan vote alone, and hundreds of thousands of pounds have been allotted for soldiers and settlers. The arguments of the hon. member on the Budget suggest that he is something like the ox on his farm in the exercise of his mental faculties.

Now I come to the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). What did he say about the Budget? In his ponderous legal way he piled Ossa on Pelion and rolled leaf-crowned Olympus on Ossa. What was the end of his speech? That the Government had not taken a penny off beer and 2d. off cigarettes. And those are the three financial experts on the other side. It took the hon. member 25 minutes to say that. These are the gentlemen who think they will form the alternative government. He said if South Africa had remained neutral South Africa would today have remained a richer country than she is, and he quoted Ireland and Portugal. Ireland is a poorer country today than she was before the war, that is morally. She may have a little more money because England spent money in Ireland during the war, but money is not everything. The Irish people do not stand so high in the eyes of the world today as they stood before the war. It is a pity because they are a great people. But would Ireland have been neutral if she had not been under the protection of the British guns? And if Hitler had occupied England how long would Ireland have been neutral? Ireland sent tens of thousands of men to the British regiments, particularly into the Irish Guards, while a large number of Irishmen went over to assist in other ways, and she supplied England with food. But Ireland was only neutral because Great Britain and America looked after her, not because Hitler was going to respect her neutrality. As for Portugal, if our boys had not gone into Abyssinia and cleared out the Italians how long do you think it would have taken Mussolini to get into Portuguese East Africa? We are the people who protected the neutrality of Portugal, our boys who are lying in the desert protected Portuguese East Africa. Denmark was neutral, Holland was neutral, Norway was neutral; what happened to them? They were eaten up by the beast; and if South Africa had been neutral how would we have looked the world in the face now? Rumania, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia were all neutral. What is left of them? They were all eaten up and ruined. Poor little Holland, one of the greatest people in the world, the salt of* the earth, were ruined, their women raped, their children starved, because they were neutral. My friends over there quoted Churchill. Do they remember Churchill’s speech when he appealed to these people long before the war and when he said that each one of them thought the crocodile would get them last. The crocodile got them all. Could we have kept our ports neutral? Supposing the United States said: We are sending men to the East and we want to use your ports. What would our friends have done about it? They might have said no, but the United States would have said: We are going to do it. Where would our neutrality have been? As the years roll by and the story goes down the corridors of history we will thank God that our leader, the Dominion Party, the Labour Party and this party hoisted the banner high and said: We will not be neutral. That is why today the Prime Minister can go over to these great conferences and stand with the people of the world, look the whole world in the face and say: We, a small nation at the foot of the great Black African Continent, held Africa for Western civilisation and kept open the gateway between East and West, and we can look the world in the face. Can our friends do so? No, they are shamefaced. Do you think if the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) were to become Prime Minister tomorrow and go overseas he would be accepted by the world? He would be boycotted, they would not speak to him. Even the coloured men there would not speak to him. That is the feeling today, there is a division in this world; there is a division of the men who stood for Christianity and Western civilisation and the men who did not. The hon. member for George knows full well that if they had their chance over again many of his friends would have voted against neutrality. So they should not throw their weight about in connection with neutrality. We are proud we did not have neutrality. Our children will be proud we did not have neutrality, and their descendants will be proud we did not have neutrality, but that we joined hands with the other members of the Commonwealth in order to break down the tyranny of Hitlerism.

Finally, I just want to say this to my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance. I want to say a word about Pandora’s Box. Who was Pandora? Pandora, as far as I know, was the first woman and Jupiter gave her a box which she was to present to her husband Epimetheus when they married. He was ordered not to open the box, but he disobeyed and opened it and when he did so all the evils that man is heir to flew out and spread over the world, all the things that have afflicted mankind. All that remained in the box was Hope. Hence Pandora’s Box is used to describe a gift which though it looks valuable is a snare. I never thought, though Homer did, that my hon. friend would nod on this matter of Pandora’s Box. This is certainly not Pandora’s Box. It is a first-class Budget. It is a Budget that is going to make a lot of people side with the Government. It is a Budget which will relieve the lower income taxpayer. It is a Budget that will help the common man. So why Pandora’s Box? I would like my hon. friend, as a wedding present, to have a box like Pandora’s.

It will probably be rather difficult to bring the House back to the realities and the difficulties facing South Africa, after the oration on foreign affairs we have had, but I feel obliged to do so, and I therefore wish to move the following further amendment to the Budget—

We have heard from the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) that the welfare of South Africa as a whole centres entirely round the gold mining industry of South Africa. We heard from the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) that there is plenty of gold in South Africa which can be turned into money, and which will enable the industry to carry any burden which may in future be imposed upon it. I want to point out that the miners’ phthisis sufferer, and also his wife and children, are in such a precarious position today that it amounts to this, that when the miners’ phthisis sufferer is ultimately certified as having contracted miners’ phthisis, he is practically condemned to death. If we read in the papers of a person being condemned to death we receive a shock. We think: How terrible that a person should die on the gallows. But have we ever thought for a moment about the thousands of our fellow-beings in South Africa who receive this death sentence on the day that the doctor says: “Man, you are suffering from miners’ phthisis”? Can this House form any idea of what goes on in the mind of that man when he hears this sentence being passed? On an average, 280 per annum of these people who produce the riches which are the pivot around which the whole of South Africa commercially and otherwise hinges have to listen to this sentence being pronounced on their own lives. The suffering of, their wives, the suffering of their children, the lack of food, the lack of housing and decent clothes—all this is included in the sentence passed on them. What concessions are made to them, and what concessions are made to their dependants, after they have sacrificed their lives in order to produce riches for South Africa? I will tell you. There are members here who do not know it, and for their sakes I will give the facts here. The pension to which a mineworker suffering from miners’ phthisis is entitled is calculated as follows: £12 3s. 4d. per month for himself and £2 8s. 8d. per month for his wife. If this man dies, then the pension payable to his wife is calculated as follows: the pension to which the deceased mineworker’s wife and children under 16 years of age are entitled is double the amount to which she was entitled before the mineworker’s death. The amount payable to her during the life of the mineworker was £2 8s. 8d. She therefore gets £4 17s. 4d. On that the widow of the mineworker has to live. Is there anyone in this House who would not turn in his grave if his widow had to live on £4 17s. 4d. per month after his death? I ask you: Is there anyone here in this House or in the Cabinet who would be satisfied if his widow had to receive such treatment from a liberal, large and wealthy industry such as the gold mining industry? Today is, I understand, the birthday of the Minister of Finance.

No, it is not.

In any case, I want to remind him of what he learnt at his mother’s knee: it is more blessed to give than to receive. In this connection, it would be a blessed consolation to the country and to the people if the Minister of Finance were to agree to this £11 million, which the country acquired through the efforts of the mineworkers, being handed to the Public Debt Commissioners for investment and the interest thereon be appropriated for additional pension payments to miners’ phthisis sufferers and their dependants. If we take interest at 3 per cent., it means £330,000 per annum. The pensions paid at present amount to £770,000. An increase of almost 50 per cent. could be given to miners’ phthisis pensioners. Who today can subsist on the pensions laid down in this little book? No one. My first speech in this House was in the same strain. I asked, I begged for an improvement in the pensions paid to these people. I did not get it. Today I ask for it once more. I know that there are people who say that I am merely making propaganda in view of the by-election in West Rand. If they say that, I want to ask them whether there was also a by-election in West Rand in 1944? I am only asking this because I feel that my people are going to ruin, and that the widow of the miners’ phthisis sufferer will have to go to the ashheap. I beg once more. I implore this House. I will go on my knees at the feet of the Minister of Finance to beg him for relief. These people do not want to live in luxury, but they are entitled to food, clothing and decent housing, and they are not getting that today. Go to the Witwatersrand today and see where you will find the widows and orphans of the miners’ phthisis sufferers—of the cream of South Africa, who have sacrificed their lives. We find them in the slum areas, in shanties, in garages and in cowsheds —that is where you will find them. I want to appeal to the Minister of Finance. I beg of the Cabinet of this country, I beg of this House: in the name of God wake up, look at the misery in which the people have to live. These people had the same education I had. You also had the same education. You probably had the benefit of a University education which I did not have. You had the same lessons at your mother’s knee that I had. How can you expect South Africa to be blessed; how can you expect to be spared droughts and misery if this is the manner in which you treat a section of the people of South Africa. During the past ten years 30,000 men have given their lives. They contracted miners’ phthisis. I am glad that the Minister of Finance has had the Minister of Mines called, because I will most probably still have a bone to pick with him in regard to this matter. 30,000 men have laid down their lives and their widows and children get £4 17s. 4d. per month! The Minister shakes his head. Yes, 16s. cost of living allowance is added to that—a shame for South Africa. I am not asking that additional taxes should be imposed on the mines at this stage in order that these pensions could be paid. The money is there. The mine workers have produced the money from the bowels of the earth. Give it back to their widows and orphans. I have been asking and pleading and begging and praying for the past three years and I will continue to do so until I leave this House. But I want to remind this House that you are one and all to blame for the existing state of affairs and if you do not do justice to these people, then you cannot sit back and pray and expect a blessing as long as these conditions continue in South Africa. You cannot expect to get that.

I second the amendment. You will notice that the purpose of this amendment is to give immediate relief to the dependants of miners’ phthisis sufferers as well as the miners’ phthisis sufferers themselves, on whose behalf we have been pleading in this House during the last 6 or 8 years in order to obtain relief for them. It appears to us that the proposed Miners’ Phthisis Bill of last year is gradually being shelved again. That is the reason why we now come with an effective suggestion for immediate relief which can be granted to these people. The purpose of this amendment is that these people who have been waiting for so long need not wait still longer until the Miners’ Phthisis Bill, which is supposed to be tabled and which most likely will once more be sent to a Select Committee, and then be shelved, may be dealt with next year. We have reason to expect that this Bill will be shelved, and, as has happened in the past shortly before a general election, that the people will be baited with a small concession. That happened in 1938. You will remember that. In 1938 there also was the idea of a new Bill, and immediately prior to the election a Bill was passed granting an increase of 10 per cent. in the ante-primary and 5 per cent. in the primary stage—in other words a small, bribe. They succeeded then, but we do not want a repetition of 1938. We do not want that. We want immediate relief for the people who have been waiting all these years. Now the Government for the first time has an opportunity to spare a penny for the people who are responsible for the prosperity of an industry which is praised so much. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that year after year mention is made in the estimates of the large sums of money which the State obtains from the mining industry. But never was a penny of those large amounts spared as a contribution to the people who provided the country with millions of pounds. The opportunity is now present and it is in fact a challenge to the Government to admit for the first time that something can be spared from this large income for the people who have provided us with the income, and who today are living in precarious circumstances. The hon. member who moved the amendment did not give us the whole picture. That, however, is not necessary, for we expect that, when the miners’ phthisis legislation comes up for discussion again, we will once more for the umpteenth time have to paint the whole picture of the miners’ phthisis sufferers. It is, however, necessary to point out now that the wife receives. £2 and a few shillings whilst her husband is still alive and that this is merely doubled after his death, when she only receives £4 17s. per month, and the child of such a man after his death only receives £2 4s. and during his life only £1 5s. per month on which to live. When comparing that to military pensions or any other pensions, the House will immediately realise that these people have been completely forgotten in the past. We now submit a concrete proposal to the House, showing how these people can be immediately assisted, until such time as the Government may be persuaded, probably shortly before the election, to introduce a Bill for further relief. To us it is quite obvious that there will be delay and lingering just as there was before the election of 1938, and that then a small increase will be granted to catch the people’s vote as was done in 1938. One hears many expressions of sympathy with the miners’ phthisis sufferers from members of the other side, but they have it in their power to do something for the miners’ phthisis sufferers and to translate their sympathy into deeds. For that reason I wholeheartedly support the amendment of the hon. member, and I hope that the Government will reply to it. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, even though it be late, although not too late, I want to draw attention to the fact that a new Minister of Mines has been appointed. I have nothing whatever to say against his person, but I just want to point out that the Right Hon. the Prime Minister has in fact slighted the mineworkers of the Witwatersrand by such an appointment. You will immediately agree with me, when I draw a comparison. What would the Chambers of Commerce of Cape Town and Johan nesburg do, if, for instance, the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Maré) were appointed Minister of Commerce and Industries? There would be a revolution the very next day. What would happen if the Prime Minister were to appoint the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) as Minister of Commerce and Industries? There would be a terrible revolution the next day. But the mine workers have to be satisfied with any person, whether he knows something about mining and the conditions of the mineworkers or not. That does not worry the Prime Minister in the least. The mineworkers have to be satisfied. Can the Right Hon. the Prime Minister expect the present Minister of Mines to be acquainted with the interests of the mineworkers and to be conversant with all aspects of the mine industry? It is beyond my comprehension that the Prime Minister can expect such a thing. But the miners have to be satisfied with anything they get. Up till now they have always been satisfied with anything they got, but I want to remind the Government that the same Prime Minister was just as deaf to good advice in 1922 and just as consistently tried to trample down the rights of the mineworkers, and that the miners were the people who caused his Government to come to grief. As sure as the sun shines, if this Government does not follow a different policy in regard to the mineworkers, the latter will cause the Government to come to grief as they did in 1922.

You will have to enter into a pact again.

The hon. member should not deceive himself that he is living in a paradise of security as far as his party is concerned. I want to tell him that if the Government does not follow a different policy, then pact or no pact, not only the Nationalists and the Labourites, but also the National-Socialists and the Ossewabrandwag and the Communists will move heaven and earth during the following general election to get rid of the present Government. That is what happened in 1922, and if the present Government does not mend its ways it will fall as certain as it is sitting there now. And it deserves to be kicked out if it wants to continue as it is doing now. On whose behalf are we fighting here? Hon. members over there always laugh when we champion the cause of the miners, but the time will come when the miners will get their turn to laugh at them. The Witwatersrand is not of so little importance as the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) may think.

I do not think so.

The hon. member reckons that as long as the miners continue working and make it possible for him to speculate in shares, everything is rosy. But when we ask for some understanding from the people here in the Boland and the Cape who are waxing rich by speculating in mining shares, then our pleas fall on deaf ears. The miners are at present reaching the stage where they will stand so much as any class of decent man in South Africa can stand. But no more. The miners cannot stand anything more. Has there ever been a period in South African history when money flowed so plentifully in this country as during the past six years? But during those six years not a penny has been given to the people whose cause the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) championed, not a single penny. Can you imagine a more damning position and a more destructive policy than the one the Government is following at present? Can it become any worse? We do not want to see again how one speaker after the other on the Government benches gets up and expresses his sympathy for the mineworkers. We do not quarrel with individual members who know what the position of the miner is, but we do quarrel with the hard-of-hearing Government, because they are prepared to do anything for any other section, except the mineworkers. Whether this is a kind of revenge for what the miners did in 1924, I could not say. Let the Government have its revenge but one day those people will get their turn to retaliate from their side. That opportunity will come. The hon. member here made a passionate appeal on behalf of those miners. It is not the first time that was done. We have pleaded year after year, but we have, so to say, been cold-shouldered as soon as we started talking about the miners’ phthisis sufferers and their dependants. If you do that you are immediately in disfavour. This time we do not ask the Government’s sympathy only. We submit a proposal which will, if put into practice, actually give those people something. We do hope that there will not be the usual excuses again. Up to the present stage we have been fully justified in saying that we do not have confidence any more in the word of the Government, when it says that the Miners’ Phthisis Bill will still come before this House during the present session. Even last year the Government in the speech from the Throne announced all kinds of promises which were never fulfilled. Also this year announcements have been made in the speech from the Throne which we do not believe will ever be carried out. For that reason we come here with a concrete proposal and declare that the people can no longer be put off as they have been in the past, but that they should get relief immediately. Here is your opportunity to give them that relief. You can make use of the money which these people themselves have produced. Dividends have accumulated, profits have accumulated since the beginning of the war. In spite of the taxation imposed on the mines, during the war years the mines flourished more than ever before.

Most of the dividends have gone down.

I suppose because the shares went up? I do not want to quarrel with the hon. member; he of course knows more about shares than I do, but from the newspapers I gather that the shares have risen enormously. So much for the miners’ phthisis sufferers. I want to draw attention to the fact that there is not a single class of worker in the country which did not receive an increase in wages. There is no native who did not get an increase. In the Railway service, the civil service, everywhere wages and salaries have been increased, but the mineworker has not yet received a penny. Also as far as providing employment is concerned, the mines have not done nearly enough. During the war years we were prepared to contribute everything and to endure everything, but the war is over and we now request the Government to do justice to these people, too. They are the forgotten class of South Africa, these people who provide you with all those millions and millions of pounds. It is often thrown before us that the miners are riding around in motor cars. If they have a motor car they have paid for it to the last penny. They do not get motor cars as presents. So much for the mineworkers. You will realise that we will not have the opportunity to tear to shreds the Budget any further than has been done already. The criticism from all sides of the House shows what the value of the Budget is. I fully associate myself with the important point made by the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie). The taxation relief we have been granted now looks quite acceptable on paper. But, as the hon. member for South Rand said, seeing that the country has been staggering under a particularly heavy burden for six years, even the slightest relief will be welcomed, the smallest measure of relief will be noticed. Once more, however, the poor man has been ignored. He should have been given a greater measure of relief. The mines receive an exceptionally high measure of relief, but here the Government had an excellent opportunity to tell the mines that they would get such relief on the condition that they would take into their service at least two-thirds more than the present number of employees. The mines, which are looked upon as one of our most important industries, have never yet stirred a little finger to provide more opportunities of work in South Africa. The ratio of Europeans as against natives is more unfavourable now than it was in 1922. The mines can play a big part in South Africa as a source of work, but unfortunately they are selfish, whereas they could do much more for the people of this country. This is the point on which I consistently come into conflict with the mining interests, namely, that they have only one principle, and that is to be able to pay out the highest possible dividends, and South Africa has consistently been suffering as a result, and the country has always been sacrificed on the altar of the mining industry. I say that the time has arrived when the mining industry should be run in the interests of South Africa, and no longer vice versa, as is the case at present. Another aspect of the Budget is, and I believe that even hon. members on the Government benches will agree with me in this respect, that there is not the slightest trace of any Government scheme in regard to post-war reconstruction. Once more everything is left to the mercy of private initiative. Years ago, when the iron and steel industry was established at Pretoria, there was a tremendous outcry throughout the country, and I now ask whether even the most ardent opponents of that time are still opposed to the undertaking at present. Of course not. The irrefutable proof has been brought that there are industries which the State can undertake, and which it can place on a sound footing. This industry has become one of South Africa’s assets, an asset also to the farmers and to the population as a whole. I had expected that hon. members on the other side would by now have been converted. Here they are being given the opportunity to call into being further industries, but nothing is done about it. South Africa has marvellous prospects, but it is to be deplored that a Government which was so efficient and active in the prosecution of the war is just as hopeless and inefficient when it comes to the execution of post-war reconstruction plans.

Why did you run away and leave us in the lurch?

I maintain that the time has come when this Government, if it is incapable of giving effect to the promises it has made and of realising the hopes it has created, should resign and call a general election. I think the hon. member himself will agree that the Government has failed miserably in its duties as far as postwar reconstruction is concerned.

I do not agree with you.

Hon. members on the other side condemn the policy of the Government in every respect. Speaker after speaker stamps its policy as hopeless in every respect. So let us get rid of this Government and choose a new Government. The people today want to elect another Government.

A Labour Party one?

What does that matter? But the hon. member should not think that I want to be held responsible for their weaknesses and lack of backbone. This Government had the most wonderful opportunity to have its name engraved into the hearts of the people and posterity if it had carried out only one-tenth of what it promised the country. Let us consider one department after the other. Take, for instance, Mines. No attempt is being made to provide more employment. Take the Railways. All we hear is that the Minister now and again in an after-dinner speech talks about the thousands of people he requires and of the records which have been established, but when you send applicants there they are told that there are no vacancies. There is our police force. After nearly two years of recruiting they have not even got one thousand new men. Then there is the Department of Agriculture. The people are so sick and tired of that department, that they do not want to come near it.

Why did you run away?

We are now dealing with the post-war position. As efficient as the Government was in connection with the war effort, just as inefficient is it now. There is only one Minister of whom it can be said that he has implemented his promises, and that is the Minister of Lands. He has set aside land which is being allotted today. Can you mention another Minister of whom that can be said? There is none. It is one of our great tragedies that this Government is so incompetent in its post-war task. In spite of the large majority on the Government side, they are hopeless in their policy from A to Z. We have been landed with the remains of the former war Government, and the people of this country, seeing that peace reigns once more, want to elect a Government in which they can have confidence, a Government with vision and plans which it can carry out, a Government which will come up to the expectations of the people for the establishment of a new South Africa.

What kind of Government?

Do hon. members have so little confidence in the people’s capability to say whom they want? I am quite prepared to rest content with the verdict of the people. If the people say they want again the present Government party, I shall be satisfied; if the people say that they have confidence in the Labour Party, I shall be more satisfied; if the people expresses confidence in the Nationalist Party, I shall also be satisfied. I do not distrust the verdict of the people. I am not afraid of the verdict of the people and I shall acquiesce in their verdict. The time has arrived when we should get a different government for the new set of circumstances, instead of a government which is tired and worn out and is but the remainder of a war government. Furthermore I want to for the umpteenth time appeal to the Minister of Finance. Have you ever had any private discussions with the Minister of Finance? You cannot find a more reasonable, amiable and efficient man then, but when you have him here in the House, you can talk as much as you like, and year after year, but you do not make any progress. We know that it is the wish of the entire Parliament that he should do away with the means test in regard to the old age pensions. That is the view we all hold, but here the Minister is far too much of a dictator. All parties are in favour of the abolition of the means test, and the Minister is wrong in ignoring the voice of the people and making use of his Whips and his dictatorship in order to be able to refuse giving in on this point. I again ask that the Minister should abolish the means test in connection with old age pensions and war veterans’ pensions. I am sorry not to see the Minister of Transport in his seat. People say that the position of the railworkers has improved in many respects, but I would fail in my duty if I did not plead for the section of the railway staff that is doing the most arduous work, namely the loading masters, shunters and others. The rate of wages they earn is far below the standard they should receive in order to keep themselves in a fit condition for performing strenuous work every day. The clothing allowance is also something which should be investigated. Finally I just want to mention that I do not know why the Hon. the Prime Minister is absent. Although I do not belong to the party of the Leader of the Opposition, I do want to say that I think the Prime Minister really owes it to this House and to South Africa to give a fully considered reply to the Leader of the Opposition. We do not again want to be kept in the dark until the eleventh hour, as happened in connection with the late war. I hope that this time the people will be kept well posted about the position and will not be kept in the dark until the worst befalls us.

In his Budget speech the Minister of Finance referred to the food shortage in this country, and that it would be necessary to import large quantities of cereals this year, the cost of which would amount to about £10 million. It is in connection with this food shortage that I would like to offer one or two suggestions to the Cabinet Food Committee, which I trust they will seriously consider. There is not the slightest doubt whatever that we must explore all avenues to provide our native and coloured people with a better balanced diet. In other words we must see to it that they get foodstuffs containing proteins, which are absent in normal cereal foods and see whether we cannot by some means or other augment the native diet. Now I have an experiment which I would like the Cabinet Food Committee to adopt and that is an experiment which can be tried in the first place on a short-term basis and later on a long-term basis. The scheme I have to suggest, would, I think, provide our natives and coloureds with the necessary proteins that we are so anxious to give them, and which are in short supply today in this country. At the same time, if this experiment proves successful, I feel that we would be able to open up a new industry in South Africa. In examining this experiment the following Government Departments would be vitally interested, Public Health, Agriculture, Commerce, Social Welfare and Native Affairs, and last but not least Finance. But some of these Departments would only come into the picture after the experiment had been made. In order to make the position clear, I feel I should divide my remarks into two sections, (1) a short programme dealing with the present food position, and (2) a long-range programme which would only take effect after the experiment has been carried out. Dealing with the short-range plan, or experiment, I would urge the Cabinet Food Committee or the Government to import in bulk form large quantities of flour made from soya beans which, I understand, are available for export in America. That flour, as the hon. members know, is not a food in itself. It can only be added to other foods and would provide the nutritive value which we are so anxious to give our natives and the lower income groups.

It has not got a nice taste.

The hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) points out that it has not got a nice taste. If this soya bean flour were added to the food given to our hospitals, our prisons and other Government institutions we would be doing something to provide the inmates of those institutions with food of a very high nutritive value. At first glance, as the hon. member for Rondebosch has said, it has been tried in this country in the past, but has proved a miserable failure owing to the bitter taste, and the native has refused to eat any food to which the soya bean has been added. That certainly was the case, but I am informed that this bitter taste was entirely due to the fact that we had no facilities for the proper processing of the soya bean. I would add that I have recently tasted and tested the soya bean flour properly processed, and I can assure hon. members that there is not a suggestion of a bitter taste in the soya bean flour if properly processed.

Would you be prepared to serve ’it here?

I would be only too glad to serve it here. Let us examine the protein content of the soya bean flour and compare it with other protein foods. The following are good examples: 2 lb. of soya bean flour is equal in protein content to 15 quarts of milk, or 2 lb. of soya bean flour is equal in protein content to six dozen eggs or 5 lb. of boneless meat or 4 lb. of cheese. I think with this information before the hon. members they will realise that if we can provide such nutritive food to the lower income groups we would be doing something of great value for our coloureds and natives in this country. One can just picture the actual cost that is involved in obtaining 5 lb. of boneless meat, even at pre-war prices, but when you take the present-day levels, few have access to such food. I think in the circumstances, I have made out a case for an experiment to be carried out whereby we can obtain this flour from America and give it a test to see whether the native is prepared to accept it and also whether the lower income groups or the public generally are satisfied with its flavour. As regards the long-range plan, which can only take effect when the experiment has been carried out, the long-range plan is the growing of soya beans in this country on a large scale. I know that hon. members, particularly our farming friends, will say that this has been tested before, and that they are trying it out today, but there is no market, and that soya beans do not grow successfully in this country. Let me say that there is one important thing to remember and that is, that it is the seed of the soya bean which is the secret of the whole thing. I am informed that there are 130 varieties of soya bean seeds.

132.

And further, soya beans can grow anywhere where corn or cotton will grow. They will stand extremes in weather such as floods and droughts.

In that case it would be ideal for this country.

It would therefore be ideal for this country, as the hon. member remarks. Let us see what we can get from the bean beyond flour. This again is interesting. The plant itself can be used as a fertiliser. The whole bean will provide vegetable milk for cheese and condensed milk. The processed bean, apart from flour, will provide oil for margarine and edible oils of which there is a great shortage in this country. Furthermore, the oil can be used for soap, lubricating oils, paints, varnish …

Margarine.

… printers’ ink, glycerine, livestock feeds, fertiliser, glue and plastics. How many of our secondary industries today depend upon these oils from outside. Let me just mention this. In 1922 the processing of soya bean flour was started in America and the first year four million bushels were processed. In 1945, 300,000,000 bushels were processed.

If you utilised the flour you won’t have any beans.

No, half and half.

You have the flour and the oil. Grow more—I think that is the answer.

Fifty-fifty.

I feel that an endeavour should be made to grow soya beans in this country, but before anything can be done one would have to make scientific tests to see where the seed grows best and further I feel that experts should be sent to America to study this matter.

That is a good idea.

After the trials have proved successful, as I know they will, then I think what should be done is that a plant should be erected for processing the bean and the farmer supplied with the seed by the Government and given a fixed price for the beans he produces. I am satisfied that if this were taken seriously a new industry would develop in this country, an industry that would help not only the farmer but would supply nutritive food which is so lacking in this country. I trust the Cabinet Food Committee will give this their serious consideration.

This afternoon I want to confine my remarks to a certain item in the estimates. The hon. Minister of Finance has set aside an amount of £10,000,000 for a specific purpose. My first impression was that this amount was to be spent on purchasing food in order to make up the shortage which exists in the country. But at a later stage the hon. Minister explained in fuller detail that this amount had been set aside to cover price variations. If that is so, I shall have to address the Minister of Agriculture. We cannot get away from the fact that the policy which has been followed has been a very expensive policy for this country, and that leads to the conclusion that our present Minister of Agriculture is a very expensive Minister of Agriculture. If the differences which have to be paid between the price paid in this country and the price at which imports can take place, already amounts to £10,000,000, then he is definitely the most expensive Minister of Agriculture we have ever had in South Africa. Today a lot is made of the fact that the Government we now have is so generous—the Minister of Finance makes £10,000,000 available for making up the food shortage, but the position is that that £10,000,000 is not going to the consumer in this country. That £10,000,000 is going into the pockets of overseas producers. That is where the money ultimately goes. Up till now both the hon. Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture have failed to put before this House a policy indicating that they have now decided, in view of the seriousness of the present emergency, to make available a certain amount in order to try to raise the production in our own country to a level which will enable us to meet the requirements of the people in this country.

No, they have done nothing.

This side of the House has issued warnings year after year. I can still remember that last year I got up in this House at the end of the session and as a maize farmer and maize producer I addressed the following words to the Minister of Agriculture: I do not want to quarrel with you tonight; I do not want to go in for splitting hairs, but I do want to give you some sound advice; let us co-operate and achieve something which will be in the interests of the country. What did he do? What has been done in that direction? This £10,000,000 is not to be voted in order to increase the price of wheat in this country to such an extent that the wheat farmer will be encouraged to increase his production. That is not to be done. Part of that money is, for instance, not to be utilised to increase the price of oats so as to encourage the farmer to produce more oats. That is also not done in the case of maize; it is not done in the case of any product. No provision whatsoever is made to encourage the farmer to increase his production. But what is England doing? Hon. members of the other side are so attached to England that everything that England does must be copied here. What did the British Minister of Agriculture do some days ago? He realised the serious position throughout the world and in order to achieve the maximum production by the English farmers, he increased the prices of agricultural produce all along the line. He went even further. Quite recently he declared that he will once more put into force the powers which he possesses under emergency regulations in order to achieve the maximum production. Here in our country nothing is being done. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) said just now that this Government is impotent to tackle the post-war problems. To prove that I need only refer to the number of emergency regulations which the Government has from time to time issued in this country, and not one of these regulations is intended to be in force for more than 24 hours. If it has been in force for 24 hours and something goes wrong, a new emergency regulation is published the next morning. A long-term agricultural policy should be laid down, and in times such as the present the maximum assistance should be given in order to help and encourage the farmers to produce. We are sitting here today; the wheat farmer has to plough. When the rains fall, as they have done in certain parts of the country, the wheat farmer has to plough. But what encouragement does he receivê? There is a shortage of fertilisers; I have here a number of letters which I could read to the House. I have here a letter from a person who wants to sow 50 bags of wheat, but he only received fertiliser sufficient for 10 bags of wheat. That man cannot achieve the maximum production which he would have achieved if he had not been penalised in this way. What has happened to our dairy industry? What happened last year? Last year a deputation was waiting — I could nearly say for weeks — on the doorstep of the office of the Minister of Agriculture. They asked for an increase of 1d. per gallon of milk, but what did they achieve? They had to go home again with their hats in their hands. Those people supplied the proof that they had to obtain that difference in price in order to enable them to keep up the maximum production. They received no encouragement. In the same way one can consider one section of agriculture after another, and you will find that nothing has been done in the direction of aiming at the maximum production in this country. I now want to come to the section of the farming industry which I represent, the maize farmers. During the present year we have suffered a drought practically throughout the country. Last year we pleaded that the maize farmer should be encouraged to produce more, but the Minister of Finance jibbed when it appeared that an extra amount of £120,000 would be needed to encourage the maize farmer to produce the maximum. He then declared that he could not afford that difference in price, because it would then mean an expenditure of more than £1 million. The result of that policy was that he now has to spend £10 million. If the money had been spent at that time in the right way, if the farmer had been encouraged as we suggested, it would not have been necessary today to set aside £10 million. The Minister of Finance also knows that we on this side have fought for the kaffir-corn farmer. The price of kaffir-corn was reduced last year from 22s. 6d. per bag to 21s. 6d. We warned against this step, and we pleaded for those people. What happened then? The Government imported kaffircorn from Rhodesia at more than £2 per bag, although they did not want to pay 22s. 6d. per bag to the kaffir-corn farmer in our own country. Consequently, the corn produced here landed on the black market. The Government by its action created a black market. Unfortunately, the hon. Minister of Agriculture is not present this afternoon. But I address my remarks to the Minister of Finance, for he holds the strings of the purse. I want to warn the Minister that if he does not encourage the farmers, even the small production which will be available will be kept back; he will get hold of only a very small percentage of the production and he will have to import practically all of the country’s requirements. The position today is very bad. The farmers mow down their maize and they will not supply the small quantity which is produced at £1 per bag. What I want to suggest is that the Minister of Agriculture and the Government should consider giving the maize farmer at least the average price of 28s. 6d. for imported maize. The Minister of Finance will now have to grant a subsidy of 14s. per bag on imported mealies to the consumer. If he can obtain half of his requirements in the country and has to import the other half, he should take the average import price and take steps so that the farmer also will receive that average import price, because otherwise our maize will disappear on the black market. Another suggestion I want to make is the following: Follow the policy of England; do as the British Minister of Agriculture did; give our farmers a long-term policy. I can assure the Minister of Finance that the South African maize farmer will be prepared to accept a longterm policy if the price is fixed at £1 per bag, but then it must be fixed for a period of not less than four years. The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) yesterday admitted in this House that the price of maize would have been considerably higher during all these years if it had not been for the application of the control system. I now want to ask the Minister to consider instituting a long-term policy. He should tell the maize farmers of the Free State and the Transvaal that a fixed price will be guaranteed to them for four years, that so much will be their minimum and so much their maximum price. If he does that, I can assure the Minister that he will achieve the maximum production.

In spite of droughts?

During the present debate we have heard several times, and it has been proved time and again, that the Minister of Finance is just as much to blame for the under-production at present taking place in the country as is the Minister of Agriculture, but the latter was the first to sin. Four years ago, when we met him at the Agricultural Congress of the Free State, we asked him to exempt the farmers from the Excess Profits Tax, so that they might be encouraged to produce more, but he refused to do so. The big farmer today does not produce as much as he can produce. We have penalised the big farmer, and there can be no doubt about it. Our actions in the past have proved it. We paid the small farmer 1s. 6d. more per bag. We took up the attitude that the small farmer should receive his rightful share of the market, and we knew that it was the big farmer who produced the surplus. Then the Minister of Finance came along and expelled the big farmer from the market, and it is as a result of that action that we are today faced with a shortage, and I do hope the Ministér of Finance will reconsider this matter, and will try, by means of exempting the big farmer from that Excess Profits Tax, to encourage him to maximum production. Nobody in this country, not even the Government supporters on the other side, will be prepared to plough their land and exhaust the productivity of their soil in order to hand over to the State 15s. or 16s. in the £. No farmer will be prepared to do that, and the sooner the Minister of Finance considers this matter and corrects it, the sooner will he render a service to the whole country by assisting and encouraging production.

I must confess my inability to follow the arguments by which the hon. member who has just sat down asks for further increases in the price of a commodity that is a necessity of life to the majority of people in this country. I was not clear whether he meant that the price to the consumer should also rise.

No. The Minister of Finance must suffer for his sins.

The hon. member also referred to the policy of Great Britain where production has been considerably stimulated. I do not know whether the hon. member has studied the policy of subsidisation and the extent of the subsidisation of the consumer that has been indulged in in Great Britain. The cost of living to the consumer in Great Britain has been kept down to the most amazing degree by subsidisation—I believe to an extent of over £200,000,000. I doubt whether the direct taxpayer in this country would have been prepared to submit to anything like the degree of taxation necessary for the purpose of subsidising consumers’ goods as has been done in Great Britain during the war.

It will come as no surprise to the hon. Minister to learn that I view his budget, as I think I have viewed all budgets since I have been in this House, from the point of view of the poorer classes of the community. The large bulk of those classes consists of the race whom I represent in this House, but by no means all. Since the hon. Minister’s second war budget in 1941, I have all along protested against a method of finance which encourages an inflationary rise in prices, without taking adequate measures and adequate safeguards against such rises taking place in the prices of the necessities of life. When I speak of inflation I want to be quite clear as to what I mean, because inflation is a word which is more often used—as I have heard it said— than defined. What I mean by inflation is an increase in the volume of currency and an expansion of credit based thereon, not in proportion either to any increase in local production or in the importation of goods from abroad. It is through the competition of increased money incomes for a limited amount of goods that prices are forced up, which hits more particularly the poorer classes of the community, especially those who are wage-earners, or other persons whose money incomes are more or less fixed. In this country the mass of the people have been severely, and are still being, severely hit by these rises in price to an extent far exceeding what one would gather from a study of the official cost of living index figures. The Bus Services Commission on the Witwatersrand made a special investigation into the cost of living for the families of urbanised natives in the townships on the Witwatersrand, and the figures — I have given the figures before in this House—were very much in excess of the official cost of living index. It is 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. on the necessities of life. I want to examine to what extent the Government has been responsible for this, and more particularly I want to ask what, in the present situation, the Minister of Finance, so far as it lies within his province, is going to do about it. I do not contend and have never contended that the Government has taken no anti-inflationary measures. The Minister of Finance has, of course, done so. His policy of repatriation of our external debt is a policy for which, I believe, he has earned the fullest credit of the country, and many of the taxes he has imposed, whether they have been popular or whether they have not been popular, have been anti-inflationary in their effect. I might more particularly mention in that connection the tax on the transfer and exchange of property. But what the Hon. Minister has been doing in the past —I am coming to the present Budget in a moment, because the damage has largely been done and we must now consider how we are to get out of the position we have been landed in—what the Minister has been doing in the past is that at a time when the resources of the country under the then existing conditions were fully employed, he has been resorting to a form of concealed or semi-concealed deficit financing for war purposes. Although the manpower of the country was as fully employed as it was likely to be employed in the absence of a very considerable change in the social structure of the country, the Hon. Minister continued to pursue a policy of unbalanced Budgets.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned I was referring to what I contend was the inflationary situation in this country, and I was attempting to assess in some measure the Government’s responsibility for it. I attributed that responsibility to their sustained policy of deficit financing at a time when full calls were being made on the manpower and other resources of this country. It might be contended that other countries which were involved in the recent war borrowed to a much larger extent than we did for their war purposes. There is some measure of truth in that, but the answer to it is that they took adequate safeguards against the development of inflation. Great Britain is the outstanding example of that position. There, all prices were rigidly controlled, whereas our price control was very late in spite of demands made for it—by me amongst others—at an early period. There, there was a policy of subsidisation of the price of imported goods. There, there was a comprehensive system of control and rationing such as we have never known in this country. The policy of borrowing was to a large extent set off by a policy of control and of subsidisation. The point I want to make now is this. We have, in the sense that I have defined it, an inflationary rise in prices of the necessities of life which bears hardest on the poorest members of our community; and I have contended that our budgetary policy has in a large measure contributed to that. It might be answered, of course, that our borrowing has been done, not through the Reserve Bank predominantly, but through private individuals, through commercial banks and insurance companies, through small men also and that what has been subscribed has been backed by an adequate gold reserve. I want to answer that point. It is true that our currency is in financial terms sound. It is true that the banks have not extended credit beyond the traditional proportion of their cash reserves. That is all true. But that has been very largely due, as I see it, to a fortuitous increase in the price of gold and makes no difference in practice to the inflationary situation which has been created in terms of ordinary prices. If the amount of money in circulation and the amount of credit expansion on the basis of that money, is out of all proportion to an increase in the production of goods, with resulting high prices of the necessities of life, the fact that there is a gold reserve backing our currency makes no practical difference whatever. The only value of having a gold backing to a currency is that we are enabled to purchase abroad, and we have not been in a position to the extent we would like to have been during the war years to purchase abroad. Therefore restriction in imports, plus the rise in the price of gold, plus the policy of borrowing, has resulted in what I have described as an inflationary situation. One fact cannot be denied, that there has been an enormous increase in our note issue. There has been an enormous expansion of credit and neither foreign purchases nor local production have expanded in anything like that proportion compared with the pre-war years. That is what I call an inflationary situation. I do not think that could be possibly denied on the facts. But I want to point out that against that background the policy of borrowing for war purposes was a form of concealed taxation, taking the shape of rising prices for the masses; a policy of favouring direct taxation rather than borrowing, of comprehensive price control, and of rationing with the deliberate purpose — as was followed in Britain—of holding down the cost of living would have prevented those hardships to a great extent upon the poorest sections of the community. The policy of inflation has therefore meant a tax on the majority of the people of this country. We have had much talk during this debate on the remission of taxation, as to whether the actual remissions of definite taxes which the Minister of Finance has announced, have been adequate, or whether they have not, and as to what classes of the community they have relieved. That sort of approach to the problem is the typical approach of people who represent a privileged class. When I speak of a remission of taxation I speak not only of a remission of taxes which bear hardest on the poorest consumers, but also of a purposeful effort to lower prices by a purposeful and judicious deflationary policy, as a measure of relief from a policy of inflation which was resorted to for war purposes. That may not be so simple as saying: reduce this tax or reduce that tax, but so far as the majority of the people are concerned it has much more significance and much more effect on their daily lives.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance a specific question. What is the Government’s policy? Is the Government’s policy to bolster the present inflationary prices? I think the Minister will not deny the price level is of an inflationary character. If not, is it a policy of judicious deflation, and if it is that, what are the measures the Minister proposes to adopt in order to bring about a judicious deflation in our price level? I am going to suggest to him some of the measures I think necessary to bring about a measure of deflation. I do not hold the view that it will ever be possible, in the forthcoming years at least, to return to the pre-war cost of living, to the pre-war standard of prices. It was found impossible after the last war. But the following measures should be resorted to. First of all comes the balanced Budget; that has been done on this occasion. Then, borrowing should be confined to expenditure on actual durable assets, to revenueproducing assets. The Minister assured us during his Budget speech he had done that, or so I understood his words. He has reduced the body of expenditure on loan account. The figure he gave us was £36,000,000, although he anticipated it would not be necessary to expend so much. I do not know what that expenditure consists of. I take this opportunity to say I have never understood why, when we discuss the Budget, we have never had the loan estimates before us. All we have is the estimates of revenue and expenditure on revenue account, but never the loan estimates. It may be said that in theory the Budget is not concerned with borrowing; in practice it is; in actual experience we know it was during the war years. I do not understand why we should not have the loan estimates at the time of the Budget. Perhaps the Minister will explain. I must confess I do not understand. I do not believe it is possible fully and properly to discuss the Budget without having before us the loan estimates as well as the expenditure estimates on revenue account. However, I assume the correctness—I have no reason not to—of the Minister’s statement that any expenditure on loan account has been used for the purpose of producing revenue-producing assets.

The second measure which I suggest is necessary is the maintenance, and if necessary, the extension of anti-inflationary taxes. The real anti-inflationary tax is a tax which falls directly on incomes, which falls on higher incomes to a greater extent than on lower incomes, which cuts down expenditure on luxury articles, which cuts down expenditure in the field of speculation and so forth. The case has been put to the Minister before of the necessity for remodelling our whole system of taxation along lines which will ensure that direct taxation shall be placed on the shoulders of those best able to bear it, which is not the case today. The Minister, as I understand it, has given the assurance that before next year our old system of taxation will be remodelled. I will return to that in a moment. As far as his tax remissions are concerned, I must confess I do not understand why he has remitted to any extent the property sales tax. I do not understand why he has given the green light to the land shark. In the past the Minister has justified this tax on the ground that it was an anti-inflationary measure, and I do not understand why he has selected that as one of the first taxes to be remitted. I would have thought it would have been better to maintain that tax and extend its principles to other property. The suggestion has come, I think, from the Opposition, that the principle of the property sales tax should be extended to share dealings. That is a suggestion which, speaking for myself, I fully support. Those are taxes which are anti-inflationary in character, and I myself would have been pleased to see the Minister not only maintain the property sales tax but to extend it to other transactions of a character that members of the Opposition have suggested. In saying that the Minister should remodel his taxation system on an anti-inflationary basis, on a basis that will cut down expenditure of the higher income groups, I would also suggest that in that process of remodelling he should cut down taxation which falls on the lower income groups. The equitable system is that a tax is based on what income the individual has, and any form of poll tax whether it falls on black or white is an unsound type of tax. The Minister last Session promised that he would reconsider the whole question of the incidence of the native poll tax. The suggestion made to him was not that the native people should not pay a direct tax, but that the obligation should fall on them to pay the ordinary provincial taxes and that this central Government poll tax should be abolished. The provincial taxes, except in the Orange Free State, are not entirely poll taxes. They take graduation of income into account, and I hope the Minister, in reconsidering his taxation system, will bear that in mind. The natives should be taxed on the same basis as anyone else, and this Government tax—which is an unsound tax on any criterion of taxation—should be abolished. I have suggested to the Minister that maintenance, and if necessary the extension, of anti-inflationary taxes should be a cardinal principle. The stimulation of the local production of goods in order to overtake the unwarranted expansion of currency goes without saying. I take it the Government accepts that as a principle. What they are doing about it I do not know, and I hope we shall hear about it tries later in the Session, if not the Minister of Finance, in reply to this debate. The principle of subsidising high-priced imports should also be extended. I want to acknowledge at once that the Minister has taken a step in that direction. He has been more or less forced to do so by the fact that a large section of our native population is in a state of starvation. He has set aside £9,000,000,000 for imported mealies. I suggest to the Minister to extend that principle of subsidisation of the prices of imported goods. We are very used to the subsidisation of exports. But we have a situation today, due I repeat to the high cost of living, which warrants the subsidisation, not of exports but of imports. Clothing and such types of ’foods as can be obtained, and the necessaries of life generally which are available should be subsidised. There is no use our having large gold reserves if the mass of our people are poverty-stricken. It goes without saying also that he should continue in a most comprehensive form price control, and control of supply, as long as goods are in short supply. Those are some of the measures I suggest should be resorted to in order gradually to readjust the structure of prices which has grown up during the war. But it will take time. In the meantime immediate relief for the lower income groups is required. A very large expansion of the principle of food subsidies should be effected. I cannot go into the details of that. It was the subject of a motion yesterday by my colleague the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). That should be embarked upon and the Government is in a position to embark upon it now that the Government has cut down war expenditure on revenue account from over £50,000,000 to £18,000,000. That should be definitely embarked upon.

I want to stress this point, that the remission of taxation which was conceded to the gold mines should be regarded, in a considerable measure, as a condition of their being compelled to pass on the benefit to their own employees. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) made that point, and I want to make it, too. I have not the time to go into the position now of the unskilled employees on the mines, who are the vast majority. Before the war, in 1939, the Minister himself said, in another capacity, that they were in a worse position than they were in 1914. Certain increases of wages have been conceded to them during the war, far far less than was necessary as the Lansdown Commission showed. There was a steep rise in the cost of living. I contend that the real wages of the native mine labourers are lower today than they were before the last war, the war of 1914-T8. The Government has not even accepted the report of the Lansdown Commission on the professed grounds it was too great a burden on the mining industry. They felt sorry for the mines. The small increases they did sanction were offset by them through remission of the gold realisation from the Minister of Commerce and Indus-charges. When the prices of gold rose last year the Government took the gold realisation charges back, but they said nothing about the wages of the native mine labourer. They are now giving the mines £3,000,000, but still without any conditions in regard to wages. Do not let the Government say, as they said as an excuse for not accepting the full report of the Mine Wages Commission, that the mines cannot afford it. They enforced increases then. The mines were in a far weaker position then than they are now. They paid the increases the Government demanded last year, and if they could afford them, they can afford a substantial increase today in view of this remission of taxation. That I also recommend to the Government as a measure of relief to a very important section of our community which has suffered severely from inflation and the rising cost of living.

It is the duty, no doubt, of the Opposition to make every possible criticism of the Budget as set forth by the Minister of Finance. But one at least expects the type of constructive criticism to which we ought to be accustomed in this House. It is quite true that we on this side of the House are out to say that every Budget is, under the circumstances, the best Budget possible. I have listened very attentively to all Opposition speakers in the House, and it is a fact that except for a hint from the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) that the Minister might tax Stock Exchange transactions, I have not heard anything in the way of constructive criticism from the Opposition.

We only want tax relief.

What struck me forcibly is that there is no praise where praise is due. There is a remission of £16 million of taxation.

A flea bite.

The benefit of much of this goes to the lower-income groups. There is an additional rebate of the war surcharge of 15 per cent. Not one word of praise did I hear for the fact that telephone taxes have been dropped or the Railway surcharge. All these taxes were no doubt war-time taxës, but the very fact that the Minister has seen fit to give relief where the tax was most felt, the poor people, has been passed over. What really hurt me is that the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg), who is not here now, attacked this side of the House for not giving better treatment to the miners’ phthisis pensioners, and actually blamed this party for the fact that the necessary legislation was not passed last year. But last year they were closely allied to us, and we and they, together with the Opposition, assaulted that Bill with constructive criticism, and it was due to the fact that there was so much criticism from all sides of the House and that so many faults were seen in the Bill, that it was postponed until this year. But now the hon. member for Krugersdorp attacks the Government before he has even seen the new Bill which is to be introduced, and the new scale of compensations it contains. He is anticipating. But he goes further. He went out of his way to attack the Prime Minister on his appointment of the present Minister of Mines. I know my hon. friend is a voluble speaker and sometimes he gets a little “het up,” as the Scots say, but I do not think his attack on the Minister before the Minister has had a chance of presenting his case to the House was in his usual charming style. I interrupted him on one or two points, and he accused the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) of being unsympathetic to the sufferings of the miners, but he knows that last year I spoke here most sympathetically about the phthisis sufferers, and in all my political life I have proved sympathetic towards everyone suffering especially from industrial diseases. But I do not believe that the hon. member was really serious and that he meant for a minute what he said in a moment of heat this afternoon. I am not a financier, but I do think that the Minister of Finance might perhaps have given greater encouragement to industrial expansion by lowering the point of application of the excess profits tax. I think perhaps he could have taken a leaf out of the book of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Britain when he gave additional rebates, provided that rebate was used entirely for development.

They are still charging 12s. in the £.

Yes, but originally it was 20s. in the £.

We are still better off here.

I am not denying that. But we could be better off still if the Minister would give us a further rebate, provided that rebate is used entirely for development.

And still better off if we abolished it altogether.

Yes, and especially for professional men, because we are the only country in the British Commonwealth which applies this tax to professional men. I am glad to see that Provincial Councils are getting a further £1,610,020 under Vote 8. The Minister made me understand that that increase is largely due to the fact that the Provincial Administrations will have additional expenditure under their hospital administration which was handed over to them. I would like the Minister to inform this House and the country exactly how much of that Vote to the Provincial Councils is intended for further health services. We were told last year that theré would be enormous expansion in the health services and that the additional Vote last year under this heading was partially for increased health services. I have seen in the newspapers that in the Transvaal at all events they have come forward with a positive scheme for free hospitalisation, although the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) gave me somewhat of a shock about that proposition this morning when he said that so far this has all been promises that nothing definite has happened. At all ’ events I want to say that in the Cape Province in the past year, we did not even have promises of increased hospital or health services, although I see that the Administrator today made a statement in which we are promised increased health services. I am only afraid that the increased hospital services in the Cape might mean additional taxation to the Cape Provincial taxpayer. I fear that for this reason that the Transvaal can have improved and competent hospital services because their income is bigger than ours here and their services are more centralised, as in education, whereas ours are more difficult and widespread. I feel that every citizen of the Union should have health and hospital services equal in all the Provinces, and that there should be no provincial differentiation between the available health and hospital services.

Hear, hear.

I hope that the days of the Provincial Councils are limited. After all, the National Convention did express that hope in their minutes which I read very carefully, that the Provincial Council system would not last excessively long, and that the spirit of provincialism would die as the spirit of unity grows; that provincialism which is so strongly represented in this House by certain members of the Dominion Party. After all, from 1910 until now we have had time to forget our provincial differences and we should now come to the stage wherein we should all be imbued with the same spirit of true unity in South Africa. It is not only in the Provincial Council that this spirit is exhibited. Always when commissions are appointed, and even in Cabinet appointments, there is the necessity to have a pro rata apportionment between the four Provinces. I hope that the time is near when the provincial spirit will die in this country, and the provincial vote go off the Statute Book, and when we will have every system regionalised in this country. The County Council system in Britain is a good example, and it is admitted that in every country where you have a central policy, but decentralised administration, it can only be done through a system of regionalisation. And that is the system we should adopt ultimately in this country. Now I would like to say a few words on the question of national housing. I can understand the difficulties, and I do not carp at the Government because through these difficulties the housing scheme has not come up to expectation, and I think in all fairness we must admit that in the matter of housing we have been really up against it. Not only the world shipping position, but the difficulty of getting essential material has been a great drawback, and something which has been practically insuperable. Notwithstanding that I am satisfied that within the last six months at all events, we have taken great steps forward and progressed definitely. The policy is sound. The execution has been faulty, but through no fault of the Government, except perhaps here and there a minor administrative fault. I want to direct a plea on behalf of those public utility companies who are concerned with housing. I am thinking particularly of the Citizens’ Housing League, which in the Cape Peninsula has done great work. This League for ten years has put up over 4,800 houses sub-economic houses for the poor classes of Europeans, and they now have a great scheme on hand at Matroosfontein for the sub-economic housing of coloureds, but they suffer under this disability that the Central Housing Council will only advance 90 per cent. of their requirements at sub-economic rates, so that the other 10 per cent. has to be borrowed at current rates. It does not seem very much, but in a case of European sub-economic houses, that makes a difference in the rental of roughly 10/- a month, while in the case of coloured sub-ecomonic houses, built by the League, it makes a difference of 8s. 6d. a month. When you deal with people who have to be housed sub-economically, that is an amount of money which helps not only in the housing scheme, but in the rehabilitation scheme of these people which really falls under social welfare, and it is surprising that in the sub-economic housing scheme we have here in Cape Town we actually month for month rehabilitate people out of the sub-economic houses into economic houses. In other words that is social welfare work, as we tide them over times of stress and strain and help them to a position where they get better work and the family is in employment, and then we turn them over to the proper economic scheme. Surely that work of rehabilitation going hand in hand with the housing scheme is not to be ignored, and it is something which our housing board should strongly recommend and encourage. Therefore I want to make a plea that the full amount of the sub-economic housing scheme, the full 100 per cent., should be advanced to such utility companies. They are a band of good men and women. I serve on it. [Laughter.]. Hon. members laugh too soon. I was going to say that I happened to be appointed by the Minister of Lands to keep a watchful eye on them. I can assure you that I went there out of a sense of duty, but I now thoroughly enjoy the work, because to me it has been a revelation. I have heard no word of encouragement from the hon. member for Krugersdorp to the Minister of Finance about the fact that he has raised the Social Welfare Vote by a considerable amount, and although he was a bit remiss in his criticism of the miners’ phthisis compensation because he was premature, not one word of encouragement came from him about the fact that the pensions for blind persons was increased. The one good point that he made and which touched a chord of sympathy in my heart was his appeal to the Minister to abolish the means test for old age pensioners. After all, our food position is difficult, and not only have these people difficulty in getting accommodation, but it is a hard task for these old men and women who have often spent their lives working in the interests of the country, to try to come out, to eke out an existence, on a paltry £5 a month, and I feel that especially in view of the food shortage, particularly in Cape Town in the last week—I notice the Minister of Agriculture has his eye on me— I think the Minister might consider favourably the abolition of the means test. I know that in Britain it caused a tremendous lot of anxiety, and I know that under the Social Welfare Vote aid is given to such men and women, but this means test should be abolished. I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Abbott) when he raised the question of the Agricultural Department and other Departments encouraging new food industries in this country. He referred to what was being done in other countries with soya beans. I want to remind him of the fact, however, that the Government has not been idle, because when I served on the Health Commission I saw some interesting work in the Transkei and Ciskei in regard to soya beans, to propagate them and to encourage the natives to prepare various foods from soya beans. But our difficulty is that custom dies hard amongst the natives. Maize and kaffir com have been their staple food throughout the ages, and it is hard work to educate them in new food habits. Nevertheless, I think more work can be done, if not amongst the natives, then amongst the Europeans, to encourage them to use soya bean preparations. There is no doubt that from the point of view of its food properties it contains practically all the necessary food factors in excess of other foods, it is something which should be developed. It answers very well in this country, and it is worth investigating. I want to make one final point on the question of our mental institutions and hospitals. For years we have spoken about it in this House. Let us admit quite frankly that our mental hospital accommodation today is far below the needs of the country. I do not want to insinuate for one moment that the mental disability rate in this country is higher than in other countries, but owing to war conditions and other conditions there is terrific overcrowding today. We have not gone forward with schemes which were on the books some years back. In fact, I know of cases in Cape Town in the last month where badly mentally deranged patients could not be admitted to an institution and had to be kept in their homes, in one case for ten days. This was a terrific mental and physical strain on the members of that family. I do not think it is just and right that in a civilised community mentally deranged people should be forced to stay with their families when they are in that state. We pity them intensely, but we know how difficult and trying it can be for the members of the family and to the community. I notice that in the Public Health Vote there is an increase of £242,000, and that it now stands at £1,900,000. When I first saw this figure my heart rebounded because although it was not up to expectations, I thought that there was a substantial increase. But when I thought back to my first speech in this House in 1938, it struck me suddenly that in those days the Public Health Vote was £700,000 in a Budget of just over £40 million. Now that Budget is roughly £130 million, but the Health Vote, pro rata, has shown hardly any increase. I am reminded of it that in this House the Prime Minister mentioned that he hoped that if the Planning Council’s recommendations were accepted, and if the report of the National Health Services Commission was accepted, the Vote for Health would reach £10 million by 1947. Well, we are far short of that figure as yet, and I think, pro rata with the total Budget, the Health Vote is still a scandal. I do not blame the Minister for that, but I think it is a reflection on the health consciousness of the nation that we should be prepared to accept a Budget of £130,000,000 where the Health Vote does not even reach £2 million. I hope that health consciousness in this country will be engendered and that we will throughout the country demand that the health of the nation is of primary importance, much more important than our industries, or farming or gold and diamond mining, more important even than education, because you cannot have education or industries developing unless you have a healthy nation. It is a reflection on this country that more people die per annum—I have got the figures herein the cities alone, from pulmonary tuberculosis than we suffered casualties in killed in the last war. That is a sad reflection on the attitude of this country as a whole to the health problem. I do not blame this Government or any other Government. I blame the public, because if the demand by the public was insistent enough, we would have had health services deserving of the name.

I can quite understand that the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) is perturbed about provincial boundaries, seeing that he wants to put his finger into the Transvaal to rake in a little of the money there, but I give him the assurance that we in the Transvaal are proud of our finances, and as far as hospitals are concerned, legislation is now before the Provincial Council, and we will have free hospitalisation before long. I would also like to refer to certain remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) that whenever they bring up anything in this House they do it more in the spirit of representing only the native people. I hope that in future when they do come forward with suggestions in this House, they will consider themselves to be members of Parliament, not only representing the native people in this country, but representatives of this country, and they must take their full responsibility. I, for one, feel that although I represent certain districts, and have been elected by the white population there, every native in that area is entitled to my services as much as any white man, and if I am not approachable and the natives and coloured people cannot come to me for my services I should not be in this House as a representative of this country. Coming back to the Budget speech of the Minister of Finance, I would like to say to him: “Ons klein Jannie, you have done well.”

You mean “Slim Jannie.”

There are three outstanding figures, but the first I would like to refer to is the one of £16 million. I think that reduction in taxes is given in recognition of the fact that the lower-income groups in this country carried their full responsibility with regard to the war effort. They paid their contributions in a very smiling way, because they felt that that was their true contribution towards the freedom of South Africa. I wish to thank the Minister for the reduction which he has given, especially to the backveld people in the way of reduced taxation with regard to telephones, petrol, oil and Railway rates. I would like to say this to the Minister, that he has rendered a service to these people, because these are not luxury articles, but today they are essential services without which no man in the backveld can do. If it is at all possible, as time goes on, for the Minister to reduce these ’taxes to the very minimum, I should be glad, because these people out in the wilds today must have these services if they are to be able to render their true contribution towards the welfare of this country. The other figure I wish to deal with is the figure of approximately £13 million, “The Red Tab Figure,” the figure that was paid out for our soldiers, the red tabs. I heard the hon. member for George begrudging that amount. I want to tell him that the red tab investment will not only give this country compound interest, but these red tabs have established a lighthouse which has thrown its light into the furthest comers of the universe. Those lads have brought back contacts from all over the world because his red tabs have shown the metal they are made of. Not only are we proud of our lads, but I know the Opposition members are as proud of them as we are. While at one time they considered the red tabs did not do justice to the people, they have helped to give hon. members opposite their freedom as well as us. These boys have made a name for South Africa. I know that some hon. members opposite will laught. But why? It is because the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) knows as well as I do they are now courting that young lady they despised, they are now making love to her. The third item I should like to turn to is that figure of £10,000,000. I trust the hon. Minister of Finance will allow that figure to remain for ten years in order to put this country on a solid basis as far as farming is concerned. If that amount is spent in the right way in each of the next ten years I think we can defy any drought as we can now defy horsesickness, rinderpest and other diseases. We have emerged triumphant over all of them. What is it that the Opposition want? They want free tractors, free seed, free labour. These very people who say that they want to fight for a republic and fight for freedom —I do not want that freedom to be taken away from me; I will work out my own salvation as a farmer. We do not want to borrow £10,000,000, but give us the necessary machinery and water and we will deliver the food the country is in need of. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. Steyn) told the Minister of Finance: If you had given us more money we would have ploughed bigger lands. And what would that have amounted to? Those crops would also have perished in the drought. We have learned during the war that we do not want to be dependent on other countries for fertilisers. We have been taught to make use of the material at our back door, and today you find men succeeding on a small piece of land because they have experimented for themselves with compost and manure that has been lying idle for years. The people on small farms are getting bigger returns than before. They have learnt to depend on their own resources. If this £10,000,000 is spent rightly we shall beat the droughts in the future. The Government must not only look to the outside of the House. Today we have control boards, we have subsidies, but none of these things have solved our problems. I say: Do not look to the Farmers’ Association or the Farmers’ Union; not that I despise them. We have been elected by the people and must accept full responsibility to place the country’s farming operations on a sound basis. We can do it. We must look to the North. You will not get a market outside, you must lock to the hinterland up in the North and develop it so that we can sell up North, and these people will be able to buy the foodstuffs we can produce in this country. We feel that in looking outside for advice we are shirking our responsibilities. Let us get to our people the food that can be grown in this country.

I make bold to say that if given the right type of man on the land we can produce the desired results. We need a bigger white population, but not necessarily from outside. Let us give our sons and daughters farms in this country. We heard from the hon. member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman) that the universities are full; I know that from the platteland we cannot get a child into an agricultural school today. We cannot obtain the facilities to enable a child to train as an artisan. If given the opportunity, these boys and girls would turn out as efficient as any men brought from overseas. But they must be given the opportunity, otherwise these boys and girls will not be able to pull their weight against people from outside.

Before I pass any remarks about the Budget, I just want to say something to the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). I am very glad that he is here. We listened yesterday to his unsavoury attack on the Minister of Agriculture, because he had sent food out of the country and had supplied ships with provisions. He made the remark “Must we supply ham and eggs to the sailors when oup own people go without.” I want to remind him that those same sailors kept him alive in this country through all the dangers and disasters of the war and brought him petrol, agricultural machinery, fertiliser and other things which he required. Those are the same sailors which he now wants to send away from our coast without food. The hon. member who always wants to pose as an international authority.

As what do you pose?

Just as a farmer. It does not suit the hon. member for Beaufort West to adopt such an attitude and to use such words. When the world gets to know those words the ships will stay away from our coasts and that will hamper our trade. Then the hon. member for Beaufort West tried to sneer at me by saying that I have never put a shilling into the box in the cinema for food for Great Britain. I want to tell him I will again give £50 and deposit it with the Speaker for food for Britain if the hon. member will do the same for food for Germany. I do not expect him to send it to Britain. He will never do that, and therefore I give him the chance to send it to his spiritual equals in Germany.

The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) is a financial expert. I am not, but I have learnt to do a simple arithmetical sum. He stated that the Minister of Finance had saved £32 million on three votes and only had a tax remission of £16 million. When the hon. member started his exposition, I asked him by way of interjection why he did not mention the Police Vote for which £1,500,000 extra had been budgeted. If I take all the extras which appear in the Budget I arrive at a figure of £11,500,000 for the expansion of services. There was a tax remission of £16 million. A further £10 million is being voted for the importation of food. That gives one a total of £37,500,000. I do not want to go further into that. I just want to tell the financial expert opposite that while he is complaining that the Minister of Finance has not given larger tax remissions there has never yet been a Minister of Finance in our country who in one Budget gave tax remissions of £16 million, and that to the poorer section of the population.

The mines?

Never before has a Minister of Finance in one single Budget exempted 130,000 of his citizens from paying taxes.

Never before has a Minister of Finance made 130,000 people taxpayers in one fell swoop.

The hon. member will have his opportunity, but I am just memtioning these incontrovertible facts. I now come to the criticism of the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier). He said that the Minister of Finance is impeding production and if he were to wipe out mortgages or limit repayments to 20 per cent. he will be encouraging production. I defy any farmer to prove that. That kind of criticism just proves how little members opposite know about farming if they state that by cancelling bonds production will be encouraged. I shall deal in a moment with my criticism of the Budget as far as that is concerned. If the Minister wants to encourage production he should abolish the super-tax on farming activities. That is my criticism of the Budget. We had another criticism from the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). He is also one of the barristers of Cape Town who represents a farming district. When one listens to his criticism of the Budget it is perfectly plain that he knows nothing, about farming. He also spoke about the shortage of food, that it is short-sightedness on the part of the Government which has caused our present shortage of food. Those were his words. But the hon. member for Fauresmith knows that during the war 60 or 70 per cent. of the farmers were on the battlefields, and that during the war we were using our reserves. The farmers could not build up reserves and produce from hand to mouth, and apart from that we had the droughts, and therefore we today have a shortage of food for which the hon. member now wants to blame the Government. I do not wish to enlarge upon that because my time is limited. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he wants to encourage the production of food, to fix the price of wheat for the coming season as soon as possible and to announce it. Whether it will be an increase on the present price or not, let him announce it as soon as possible. The tobacco farmers under irrigation have suffered much damage, and if they know that they will receive an increased price, they can sow wheat on their lands. I realise that if one disturbs the price structure and perhaps fixes the price too high this year it may cause difficulty in future, but I should like to suggest that a bonus should be given for every bag of wheat produced, a bonus above the fixed price. That will be a great encouragement, and it will not be necessary to retain that bonus if in future we have bigger crops.

Furthermore, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture to make better provision for the training of veterinary surgeons. We are a great pastoral country and in view of all the pests and plagues we have there ought to be more veterinarians. The position is that many veterinarians resigned and went into private practice because they received better remuneration there. I understand that there are enough facilities only for the training of fifteen veterinary surgeons per annum at the University of Pretoria. That should at least be trebled if’ we want to keep pace with the development of cattle farming.

Then I want to direct a word or two to the Minister of Transport. I was very glad and appreciated it when in his Budget speech he referred to what has been achieved in the way of Road Motor Services, and when he referred to three districts, namely. Kuruman, Vryburg and Rustenburg, where the Road Motor Services contributed in large degree to increase in the production of food by providing farmers with proper transport facilities. If in my district he would have further development in that direction—and I shall later suggest the routes to him—the production of food in that area can be doubled again. The future of our country lies in the bushveld, the sparsely populated areas, and not in the over-populated areas. In that backveld there can be much more production, but the production depends largely on transportation. Without transportation the farmers cannot produce. If the Minister would expand his services there, much progress can be made.

The difference between me and the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie), who now shows off so much with cheques of £50, is that I am not a German Sap but that he is an English Sap. As long as I need food in my own country for my own people, I first look after my own people before looking after other people, whether they are French or German or English. That is the difference, that the hon. member is an English Sap and I am not a German Sap. But the hon. member has not yet answered the question I put yesterday about how much he gave to the Food for Britain Fund, and seeing that he opens his mouth so wide, I just want to ask him whether he has ever given a tickey or a sixpence to it. What has this hon. member, who now opens his mouth so wide, put into the tin at a bioscope? Not even a tickey. The hon. member will give £50 if I would be prepared first to feed people in Germany. He knows well enough that I am not a German Sap, and that is the reason why he keeps his £50 in his pocket and does not even put a tickey into the tin. He must stop talking about sending food to England. But I leave the hon. member there. Before coming to the last paragraph of our amendment, which deals with international agreements, I wish to say a few words about the international position, which was exhaustively dealt with this afternoon, also by the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan). There is not much I can add to what he has said. He covered the field pretty thoroughly, but there are a few points I may perhaps add. I want to associate myself with what the hon. Leader of the Opposition said, that the international situation today creates anxiety. It is more disturbing than it has ever been since the end of the war. When I say this I do not only express my own opinion, but it is also being stated in the Press of all the countries. I have before me a report sent three days ago by one of the London correspondents of one of our local newspapers, which says: “The most serious crisis since the war is the Russian decision to keep its troops in Persia.” That is the opinion of others, but it is also my humble opinion. The question which is being put today is not whether an eruption will take place, but when it will happen. That is clear to anyone who keeps his eyes open and watches the newspapers and reports. Some people shut their eyes to the dangers threatening the world, and which face us also in South Africa, but there are also others, inter alia Mr. Winston Churchill, who, as a realist, warns his people. Mr. Winston Churchill was the war-time leader of England who has always been a realist and who in 1942 warned his nation that England was standing on the brink of defeat. He is still a realist today, and it is very clear from his recent speech at Fulton, in America, that he also regards the position as being very serious indeed. It is also clear from Mr. Churchill’s speech that he has very little faith in U.N.O., the new international organisation. It is true that he refers to U.N.O. as the possible guardian of the peace, but between the lines of his speech one can clearly read that he has very little faith in U.N.O. He prefers an Anglo-American agreement. That is the idea permeating his whole speech. He has little faith in U.N.O.; he fixes his faith on Anglo-American agreement. The question which arises is whether America will be willing to enter into such an Anglo-American agreement. Judging by the Press comments following on Mr. Churchill’s speech, it seems pretty clear that America is not willing, that America is not really impressed with Mr. Churchill’s proposal. That is also understandable, because America and the average American in the first place looks to his own interest. That has always been so, and in future it will always be so. In the first place America will think twice before it accepts the proposal, because it will not only mean that America will be binding herself to England— it would perhaps still be prepared to do that— but that by doing this it will also be binding itself to Europe, and in spite of all the beautiful words we had during the war years, it is already clear that one finds the same spirit in America now which there was before the war, namely a spirit favouring isolation. That is there again. When they see that the cauldron is starting to boil in Europe, America will protest, and may perhaps even act, but only if her interests are involved. She will perhaps protest if Russia takes action in Iran, and for the same reason America will be prepared to act in connection with Manchuria because America’s interests are involved there. Russia has already notified the world that she is going to hold what she has. The Russian general there said that whoever stretches out a hand towards Manchuria will lose his hand. However, America will only act when its interest are affected, but I ask myself whether America will be prepared to react in the case of Russia, for example, taking some action in connection with Trieste. I doubt it very much. Will America be prepared to act if Russia were, for example, to demand authority over Tripoli? I doubt it very much. To take an extreme example, supposing Russia wants to take any action in Madagascar, will America be prepared to react? I say no, America will only react if its own interests are involved, and for that reason I do not believe that it will accept the Churchill idea for an Anglo-American agreement. Now we come to Mr. Churchill. He on the other hand is concerned not so much about world peace, but what Mr. Churchill was concerned about at Fulton was the future of Great Britain, because there is not the least doubt that as far as Europe is concerned Great Britain today is practically standing alone. The Allies it could rely upon in the past have disappeared. France is exhausted and divided internally. England cannot rely upon the small countries. The idea which Éngland had of forming a Western European bloc has also disappeared. Therefore England today stands alone in Europe, and Europe is being dominated by Russia. Russia has direct or indirect control over the major portion of Europe, and in those countries where it has no direct or indirect control there are governments with a Left tendency, or there will be such Left governments who are well disposed towards Communism. The days when England had power in Europe are past. Mr. Churchill realises it and for that reason he wants a British-American agreement, because he realises that if England has to rely on U.N.O. it will receive very little help. Mr. Churchill is a far-seeing man, and wants to create a feeling of solidarity between America and England. Mr. Churchill also realises something else, namely that especially in the past few months there were signs of estrangement between England and America. Just read the newspapers. Just read what is going on in connection with the American loan to Great Britain; read what was said in the American Senate. It is clear that the two countries who until recently were still fighting together, are drifting away from each other, chiefly as the result of financial difficulties and economic rivalry. Therefore Mr. Churchill is faced with the difficulty. As a realist he realises that England cannot rely on U.N.O. There is a clear estrangement between America and England. In the meantime the international position is getting worse. The balance of power in Europe has shifted, and as I have said before, Russia today controls the major portion of Europe. When we on this side of the House said the same thing a year or two ago, the Government members laughed at us. Today one hears no single word of protest from the other side, nor from the Government Press. Now that Russia has entrenched its position in Europe it is busy devoting attention to the Middle East. The Middle Eastern countries are today in a very important position. They are the link between the East and the West. They are the key countries, the connecting links. Then, Mr. Speaker, there is also the Mediterranean, which has always been regarded as the very lifeline of the British Empire, the jugular vein, and the countries adjoining the Mediterranean can be likened to the membranes round the vein. Russia at once realised what the strategic value of the Middle Eastern countries is, the link between East and West. It is now devoting its attention to Iran. It is impossible, in my opinion, to exaggerate the importance of what is happening at present in Iran. I do not know in how far the reports we read tonight in the “Cape Argus” are correct. Those reports are to the effect that Russia is sending its troops deeper into Iran. The strategic position of Iran makes the happenings there of the very greatest importance and seriousness from the point of view of world peace. Iran not only lies between the East and the West; it lies on the way to the Indian Ocean and Russia wants access to the Indian Ocean. Iran affords that opening. It lies on the road to India and is on the boundary of Afghanistan. Round about Iran there are countries like Iraq and others which are amongst the richest oil-bearing countries in the world. It is easy to understand why Russia selected that particular area for its first aggressive action. It is a serious situation, and because England as well as the United States of America realised the seriousness of the position, they have already sent two diplomatic Notes to Russia. These two Notes have been sent to the Russian Government, and we are waiting to see what Russia’s reaction will be. It is possible that Russia may make some suggestion to allay the trouble for the present, but I believe, and I think that I am correct, that is can only be a temporary solution. And if that happens it will only be because Russia has not yet completed its plans for the future, more especially as regards the atomic bomb. If it does not act, I believe it will be because they are still unprepared. Together with Russia’s action in Iran, we have its action as regards the Arabic nations Recently there was a report of a particularly important nature. A prominent Russian newspaper published an article expressing special friendship for and interest in the Arabic countries. We know that the Arabic countries formed an Arabic League in recent months. But what is especially interesting is the interest Russia exhibits in Egypt. We know about the riots that have taken place in Cairo during the past three or four weeks. It is significant that the Russian Ambassador paid a visit to King Farouk of Egypt and assured him of Russia’s sympathy in the conditions created by the riots. There has also been trouble in India. We know that trouble has been brewing in India for a long time, but I believe, especially after the revelations in connection with Russia’s actions in Canada, that as regards India it was Russian propaganda, Russian agents and spies which lie behind the mutiny of the Indian sailors on British ships, as well as behind the riots in Madras, Bombay and other places. As Mr. Churchill rightly said, Russia has its fifth column. It has the same sort of fifth column as that about which we heard so much during the war years. Mr. Churchill admits that Russia has a fifth column. We saw what happened in Canada and the revelations made there in connection with espionage. May I remind the House that we on these benches in 1943 proposed a motion about Communistic propaganda, and that on that occasion I spoke, amongst other things, about the activities of the Comintern. I referred to Russia’s activities in all the countries of the world in spreading Communism over the whole world by means of propaganda. Members opposite then laughed at me. They said that there was no longer any such thing as the Comintern. They said that Russia had been converted and was no longer making propaganda. What does Mr. Churchill say in his speech? Listen to this—

I especially direct the attention of hon. members to the words “expansive and proselytising tendencies.” Mr. Hamilton McMillan, M.C., the ex-Resident Minister of Britain in the Near East, makes the same statement. On the 21st of last month he, inter alia, said the following—

There we again have the Comintern, which according to members opposite is dead and no longer exists. It again exists. That is the opinion of Mr. Hamilton McMillan, and it is also Mr. Churchill’s opinion. But it is not only in the Middle East and in India that these things are happening. If we have regard to what is happening in Java, there is not the least doubt that behind the trouble there one will find Communistic propaganda. Even “The Guardian” adds its voice in regard to the situation in Java. Take Indo-China; take Manchuria. Everywhere we see the fulfilment of this Russian policy—the influence which emanates from an international Communism standing under the direction of Moscow. We even have it here in South Africa. The situation is considered to be so serious that the American Government last week decided that no longer would they permit any Communist to hold commissioned rank in the American Army. They recognised the seriousness of the situation to which we on this side have been pointing for years. We have been indicating this danger for the past three years. I was laughed at from those benches when two years ago I put questions as to the personnel of the Russian Consulate in our country, and asked why it was three times as great as that of any other country. We saw what happened in Canada. It was revealed that a member of the Russian Embassy took part in the espionage; that he received the necessary information and transmitted it to Moscow. An hon. member on this side told me the other day—the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) will remember it—that I must not say: “I told you so,” but when we are dealing with members like those sitting opposite the temptation to say: “I told you so” is very great. I am glad to see the Minister of Labour in his place tonight. On 12th February, 1943, I moved a motion about Communism in this House. I ’have re-read that speech of mine, and I must say that after having read it I almost thought that I must be a prophet. What did the Minister say in his reply?—

And further—

What did Mr. Churchill say a few days ago?—

He sees the same shadow. And he immediately proceeds—

But this Minister said that we were telling ghost stories. This Minister further stated that what I told the House about Communistic propaganda was ghost stories. He stated—

That is what the Minister of Labour, at that time the Minister of Justice, replied. I now come to another important member opposite, who unfortunately is not present here tonight, that is the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. He also spoke in that debate, and said this—

That caused laughter from members opposite. Tonight they laugh no more. The Prime Minister proceeded—

And then he also refers to the ghost story—

I do not want to take up the time of the House by reading further extracts, but I have here also a very interesting speech by the then member for Cape Town (Gardens) (the late Mr. B. K. Long). If I were to read that speech tonight, members opposite would be surprised. I say that in view of all this I have the right tonight to say: I told you so. Then also the organiser of the United Party, Mr. Okkie Oosthuizen, came forward with his party bulletin in which he refers to—

That is what he said on the eve of the 1943 election.

The international position is serious. I personally stick to the attitude I adopted in this House a few weeks ago. I do not see the least hope of being saved by U.N.O. It is said that half an egg is better than an empty shell. But an empty shell is better than a rotten egg, and in my opinion U.N.O. is a rotten egg’ I want to tell the Minister of Finance that before he pays that £124,000 as our contribution to the cost of U.N.O. he should wait a little and should not be in such a hurry to pay as he was in the case of the League of Nations. Let him first see what happens to U.N.O. before paying out the money.

I now come to that part of the amendment which deals with international agreements. The amendment proposed by us asks that the Government should not enter into international or suchlike agreements in the sphere of commerce which may harm our industrial development in this country, or our export trade. Just as we issued a warning about Communism, we also warned the Government about the entering into of international agreements. The same thing applies to international economic matters that applies to international politics—beautiful words and beautiful ideals, but it remains at words and ideals. When it comes to practical steps to apply those ideals someone is always at the wrong end of the stick. To put it in these words, someone is always defrauded and it is usually the honest and trusting to whom injustice is done. May I ask the Minister of Finance to see to it that this time South Africa will not be one of the innocent, honest and trusting parties? Let us for once open our eyes and not agree to everything simply because we are asked to do so. The amendment moved by us states that care should be taken that we should not find ourselves at the shortest end of the stick, when it comes to the so-called arrangements for the reconstruction of the world. If there is reconstruction, if that is the aim of those agreements, then we say it should not take place at the cost of our own industrial development, nor at the cost of the export trade of our own country. Although South Africa has not been as seriously affected by the war as other countries we also have to do some reconstruction in our own country. Rather let me put it this way. We must make up and win back what remained static during the war years. There is the essential expansion of public works, telephone connections, irrigation antierosion measures, settlements, roads and the necessary services in connection with social welfare, health education, etc. Then there are also the services falling under the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Posts. Many things have to be done for the reconstruction of our own country, and I ask that we should devote attention to reconstruction in our own country before we involve ourselves with matters in other countries, and before we make promises and compromise ourselves in connection with reconstruction on an international scale. In one respect we did make progress during the war years. That is in connection with our industries. I am sorry that the Minister of Economic Development is not here. The Minister of Economic Development knows that these amendments are on the Order Paper and that we are discussing them. He is absent in spite of the fact that we are discussing matters affecting his department. I should like to tell him this—and I would have liked to tell him in his presence—that if I were to judge from speeches made by him in recent months, I get the impression that his attitude towards industrial development is generally speaking sound. He sometimes says things with which I do not agree, but my general impression is that his points of view are sound in respect of the industrial development of the country. But he has this difficulty, namely that he practically stands alone in the Cabinet. He has to cope with two other Ministers especially. In the first place he stands powerless against the Prime Minister, whose attitude is more international and imperialistic than national in the broader sense of the word. In any case, as far as the Prime Minister is concerned, he is a comparatively new convert to the policy of industrial development. There was a time when he opposed us with regard to industrial development in the country. I believe that he will be in favour of industrial development only to the extent that it will assist imperial expansion. His point of view is international and imperialistic. In the second place he has to do with the Minister of Finance. I cannot say that I have ever noticed that the Minister of Finance has exhibited much interest in the development of our own industries. I will not say that he is antagonistic in his attitude. His attitude really amounts to this, that he is prepared to float with the stream in the direction of industrial development, but he does not want to float with the stream too fast, and he resists that stream a little. Certain phrases in his Budget speech make it clear that that is the correct description of his attitude. There is also another factor, namely, that he wants to be in favour with the great business elements of the country.

We recently saw from what happened at the conferences of those organisations that there is disagreement between the Federated Chamber of Commerce and the Federated Chamber of Industry on the question of industrial development, a struggle between the great importers on the one hand, and the industrialists on the other. There is not the least doubt that as far as the great importers are concerned, the Chamber of Commerce is in general unsympathetic to the expansion of our own industries. Therefore, however good might be the intentions of the Minister of Economic Development and however little fault there is to be found with the statements he makes from time to time, and however good the intentions might be of the Secretary of his Department, they have to consider the imperialism and internationalism of the Prime Minister and the fact that the Minister of Finance is under the influence of big business and trade, and that he is also imperialistically inclined. These factors have to be viewed in the light of the post-war plans for international and imperial economic reconstruction. The idea of the Prime Minister and also of the Minister of Finance, is that South Africa must participate in the game. They say that South Africa should play a worthy role in this international economic reconstruction. Well that may be very nice, but the question I put is: Can South Africa afford it? Can we, while aiming at the development of our own industries in this country, afford to play ball with the great ones; can we afford to take part in this economic and financial game of an international character. I fear that in that game South Africa will have to push in the scrum, but will never handle the ball. South Africa will run about and push in the scrum but will never handle the ball; the great ones will run away with it. And in addition South Africa will get hurt. That is usually what happens to a passenger in the game. He is hurt but never receives the benefits of participating in the game. What benefit is there for South Africa in participating with the great ones in the economic and financial game? Let me state here clearly that I fully realise that South Africa cannot follow a policy of isolation in the economic and financial sphere. I was concerned with these matters long enough—for twelve years —to know that economically there can be no isolation, because trade is international. I realise that South Africa is influenced by and in a sense is bound to overseas economic and commercial developments. I also realise the necessity not only of exports but also of imports. Nevertheless, I want to say this: we do not live in normal times; we live in a time of economic unsettlement right throughout the world. Every country in the world wants to regain as soon as possible what is lost during the war. In other words, every country wants to reconstruct. That is just another word for regaining, and as a necessary result of the desire of each nation to reconstruct and regain what is lost, we have intensive economic, financial and trade competition. There are these two tendencies in the world, and those two tendencies clash with each other. On the one hand there is the tendency towards international co-operation, and on the other hand there is the strong desire for national reconstruction. They clash with each other. I have said it before in this House, and I say it again, that history has taught us that just as the ordinary man in the first place looks to his own interests, so every country and nation in the first instance looks to its own interests before considering the interests of others. In spite of all the nice talk self-interest comes first. As regards Great Britain and the United States of America, much is being said about international agreements and co-operation. In the Atlantic Charter the underlying idea is that in order to obtain international reconstruction and co-operation there should be a removal of the restrictions to trade. In other words, tariffs must be abolished, and with this aim in view there will in the near future be a conference of fifteen or sixteen nations in America, and in May, there will be an imperial conference in London. It will be urged that tariffs and restrictions to trade should be removed. I want to put this question: Can South Africa afford to play that game in view of the fact that the industries of Britain and the United States are old established industries, large and extensive industries, well organised and based on the principle of mass-production. We have to keep in mind the fact that our own industries are young and small, that many of them are still struggling and that they are not organised for mass-production. It is easy for England and America to make concessions and to say that this or that tariff wall will be broken down, that this or that restriction on trade will be removed, but can South Africa afford to do that in view of the fact that our industries are still young and in process of development? I say that South Africa cannot afford to participate in this international game. We cannot and we dare not because our industries are young still and our production small; we are only in the dawn of our economic and industrial development. [Time limit.]

I do not intend to follow the hon. member who has just sat down in his argument, and I am prepared to leave him to his petty obsession, namely Communism. But I think the time will arrive when not only will he find that he is wrong but he will remember the words he has just used, namely, “I told you so.” Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose any Budget has ever been presented in this House which does not afford the opportunity for a certain amount of criticism, but in the case of the present Budget I feel that although it is not entirely free of criticism it can definitely be described, and it has been recognised as such not only in this country, but overseas as a sound Budget and a just one and one which discloses the fact that the country’s finances are on a sound basis.

That is the main thing.

In complying therefore in this Budget with these three fundamentals the Minister deserves the thanks of this country and of the House. There is also the fact to remember that this Budget must still be looked upon partially as a transition Budget, because we have not yet entirely escaped from the demands arising out of the war, and money still has to be found for purposes as a direct result of the war. It is thus fitting for the Minister to direct his attention to the granting of such relief as can be afforded in connection with what may be described as “war-time taxation”, and although some critics might have expected greater remissions, I do think that the Minister has done exceptionally well in conceding a big amount of something approaching £17,000,000. Furthermore it should not be forgotten that money will be required to see the country through the serious food shortage, and also to enable the Government to proceed with the initial stages of social security. It is totally impossible for any Minister of Finance to please everybody, but I do think that it definitely shows that he has given his favours fairly to each section of the community. I do not propose, and indeed I do not think it necessary, to deal with the remarks of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and those opposite who followed him in their wild assertions about the unfavourable state of the country’s finances, as it is quite evident that they suffer from what I can justly describe as financial cold feet; and whilst they talk and gesticulate in millions, they actually think in Yiddish. The finest investment this country could ever have made to preserve its national honour, dignity and prestige was to enter the war, and although a heavy burden has been placed on this country by reason of the increase of the national debt, there is one compensation, and that is that my hon. friends opposite and those associated with them, although they have not been prepared to contribute in the past to any war funds, they will in the future have to contribute towards the redemption of the expenditure incurred in waging and prosecuting the war. I represent a large farming area, and I was amazed that the hon. member for George contended that no relief had been provided for the farmers. What about the reduction in the price of petrol, of which commodity alone the farming community uses a considerable quantity? What about the abolition of the surcharge on telephone charges and railway fares, and also the increase of the age for children under the Income Tax allowances? In addition to that, there are large allocations of money for agriculture and irrigation, and I can only say, surely the farmer will benefit to a material extent by those concessions, and I am somewhat surprised at the lapse of the hon. member.

But I feel that the Minister was wrong in even retaining to a certain extent the Fixed Property Profits Tax. There is not the slightest doubt that this tax has not curbed inflation, and I only hope that in the coming year at any rate the Minister will completely do away with this tax. I agree with the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) that the Minister should have been able to get a higher and a bigger revenue by taxing share transactions, and I am also sorry that he was not more sympathetic in the granting of cost of living allowances for Government pensioners who, after all, are a very deserving section of the population.

Dealing now with matters which do not directly arise out of the Budget, I would like to express my thanks and pleasure for the Government’s proposal to maintain the big farming industry of the Union as recently outlined in the White Paper on agricultural policy. I know that in some quarters White Papers are very often looked upon as mere words, but in this particular instance it is clear that it is not merely words. The Minister has already introduced legislation dealing with soil erosion and wool and other agricultural matters, which is a clear indication that the Government is sincere and in earnest in carrying out the terms of the White Paper policy. But I feel there is not the slightest doubt that these proposals will have to be tackled without delay. I do not want to go into the details of those proposals, because they already appear in the White Paper itself, but I do commend to the Minister that the proposals must be tackled further without delay—the sooner the better. I am satisfied that in the Minister of Agriculture we have a young Minister who is not lacking in either courage or vision, and that he will be prepared to tackle these great and arduous duties in order to put farming in this country on a stricly economic basis.

Then I would like to ask the Minister of Finance two questions. Firstly, I would like to ask what are the Government’s intentions regarding assistance to farmers who have suffered very serious losses as a direct result of the drought? I feel that most sympathetic treatment will have to be afforded to those farmers who have so suffered; and I would like the Minister to tell this House what steps will be taken, either under the Farmers’ Assistance Act or otherwise in order to assist those farmers to replace the serious stock losses which they have already sustained. Secondly, I would like to ask what relief the Government is going to give with regard to those farmers who are on the cash basis for Income Tax assessment, and who as a direct result of the drought have had to sell their stock, and who are unable to replace that stock in the same Income Tax year, either by reason of the fact that grazing is not available, or on account of the high prices prevailing. I do feel that these farmers are entitled to special consideration, otherwise many of them will lose through taxation most, if not all, of their capital. These two matters are urgent, and I commend them to the very sympathetic consideration of the Minister, and I trust that he will deal with them if the opportunity is ripe when he replies to this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I want to confine myself to mines, but I would first of all like to say—and I am speaking as a layman—that I consider that the proposed relief in taxation as indicated in the Budget is proof that the Government is tackling our post-war problems with determination. The benefits that are to be derived from the proposals with be very well distributed and the country is gratified with the relief that will be granted. Mr. Speaker, as I maintain that gold mining is still the backbone of the country, I would like to express my appreciation to the Rt. the Hon. the Minister of Finance for the concession of £3,000,000 in gold mining taxation. But, Sir, I am more grateful for the relief that has been granted by removing the native pass fees and the claim licences. By removing those burdens from the working costs of the Witwatersrand gold mines it will enable the industry to increase employment by working more low grade ore. The proceeds from such increased production together with the relief of £3,000,000 in taxation will increase the profits substantially with the result that more money will become available for the development of our primary industries as well as our secondary industries. Mr. Speaker, the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance has indeed given an incentive to create employment and, Sir, he has not only provided this incentive but he has also given a lead by providing a valuable opportunity to the industry to share its good fortune with its employees, and thereby give the incentive for increased efficient production. As I see the position, Sir, the monetary benefits that are to be derived from the concessions can be converted into an instrument of power to increase our national income. It can be applied for the expansion of industries and so provide full employment at a wage that will give a decent standard of living. The proper distribution of capital for the development of industries and the equalisation of purchasing power will stimulate agricultural production and stabilise the prices of agricultural products. It will encourage capital to develop agriculture on which future generations will have to depend. I feel that this Budget is an appeal by the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance to all employers and to all employees to co-operate and win internal peace. We have come out of this war untouched by the ravages of the war machine, and although our national debt has increased by £273,000,000 we must also remember that we have invested £95,000,000 of that in new State assets. We are therefore very fortunate indeed and we owe a deep debt of gratitude to everyone who answered the call, and I include those on the home front who, to the best of then* ability, maintained full production of the various classes of commodities. It should therefore be the desire of all employers of labour to express their gratitude to the employees by providing them with the means to purchase the necessities of life which are enjoyed by so few yet earned by so many. It should also be the desire of all employees to produce efficiently in order to stabilise purchasing power for the benefit of the whole community. Then, Mr. Speaker, with regard to that part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), which refers to phthisis legislation, I would like to say that I am quite confident that the Government will fulfil its obligations. I am quite confident that the hon. the Minister of Mines will introduce legislation that will meet with the approval of all parties. But may I ask what contributions have been made by the hon. members opposite to improve the Bill that was before the House last year, when they were invited to do so by the then Minister of Mines, or do they consider that there is nothing of sufficient national importance to keep it above party politics? With regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers), I would have liked to ask him if he would be satisfied with the interest of approximately 3 per cent. on the £11,000,000 and therefore give £330,000 as a measure of relief towards the phthisis victims and their dependants.

He said so.

I would have liked to ask him whether he is satisfied with that amount.

That is what he asks for.

May I ask the hon. member who has just interjected whether he is satisfied with that?

Yes, we accept that.

As the first instalment.

I am afraid the hon. member is not speaking for the Labour Party, and I would like to remind members opposite that we on this side of the House represent all sections of the community and that the responsibility will again rest on us to approve or disapprove of any such legislation.

I wish to refer very briefly to two subjects tonight. The first is demobilisation and the second is manpower. In regard to demobilisation I wish to pay tribute to the Hon. Minister of Social Welfare and Demobilisation. I also wish to congratulate the Directorate of Demobilisation and the staff entrusted with the duty of carrying out the work. I think a very good job of work has been done by them under very trying circumstances. The war in Europe ended very suddenly and the war in Japan ended equally suddenly and caught most of these organisations and departments, for that matter, on the hop and I feel that under war conditions and taking everything into consideration demobilisation has come out of it pretty well. I would like to single out particularly the educational and vocational training scheme which in my view is one of the best aspects of Demobilisation today. But I have one quarrel with demobilisation and that is the lack of emphasis on the individual. I want to indicate that very particularly at this stage, because it affects my remarks in relation to manpower. This lack of emphasis on the individual is not necessarily the sole responsibility of the demobilisation plan. I maintain that it is part of a wider issue and as such must be viewed on a national basis. I want to make myself perfectly clear. The demobilisation principle lays down that the man must return to his preenlistment employment. I do speak from experience today and I do know that there are hundreds of men who are totally unfit to return to their pre-enlistment employment and I come now to this aspect of manpower, which is an important one in the future. We must realise that profound changes occur in a man after he has been on service for five or six years. He comes back to us with new thoughts, new ideas and wider experience, all of which factors we must take into consideration in the postwar period. Let me quote a few examples. You have the young student who may have spent two years at the university and on discharge finds that he is unable to settle down. You have the man, for example, who is regarded as being too old at forty. Nobody wants to take any notice of him. You have ‘the clerk who rises to a high position in the air force. He comes back having carried responsibilities for five or six years. He has proved himself in the army and he can prove himself in peace. You have the man who was in legal practice and who finds on discharge that his competitors have got away with his practice and he is obliged to find a practice elsewhere. But demobilisation lays down that he must return to his home town and settle there. You have the man who wishes to set up his own business. In many cases the man has come back with new experience, but we do not lay that emphasis on the individual which is so vitally important. And who are we to say that a man is not fit enough to set up his own business? I want to indicate that these are problem cases. There are not merely hundreds of them, there are thousands, and that is why I am particularly drawing attention to this very vital and important factor tonight. And I must indicate that many of these men possess latent talents which can be applied to good purpose in a young and expanding country such as South Africa. I am not suggesting that the clerk who on discharge was a colonel in the Air Force should be made the managing director of a company, nor am I advocating the wholesale dislocation or disruption of industry or commerce, but I do submit that every man and woman, both European and nonEuropean, should be studied in relation to the problems we have to face in this country, on the basis that manpower is the only real and tangible asset we possess. In wartime we perfect ourselves scientifically. Hon. members may be aware that in the air force, we conducted aptitude tests in order to determine whether a man was capable of becoming a pilot. That is a factor worthy of note in peace-time. Why cannot we apply these scientific measures in peace time? Why cannot we determine by scientific measures whether a bank clerk would not be fitted for some other sphere of activity? I come now to another very important factor which concerns this whole aspect and that is our Social and Economic Planning Council. I am wondering whether the council is alive to this very important factor of manpower. We have coming to us so many bodies in varying degrees of intelligence and capability — I am talking of the human bodies coming to us from the army. Does its plan embrace the general principle of the study of manpower on the most favourable basis? If they do not then all these large-scale plans we have heard so much about and of which we have heard a tremendous lot in this House during the last few months, all these wonderful conceptions of the human brain are of no avail because the most important aspect of all is the man himself. I do appeal therefore to the Minister concerned—I think it is the Minister of Social Welfare and Demobilisation—that we set up in this country a regional employment bureau where men and women can be studied in relation to their own capabilities and how they can best fit into the general scheme of things. I would like to see something started along the lines of the set-up we had in the air force but certainly not the type of labour exchange we have in operation at the moment. They are totally out of date and archaic and certainly do not meet the present needs. While our national plans are taking shape we can at least collect information and data on what our men and women can do in this country, and we shall then know how to choose our men and women efficiently. I am all for the little man. I am all for the little fellow who carried us in peace and in war. I am all for building him up on a sound economic basis; I am all for relieving him of social and economic stress. I would like to see us make it possible to permit the smaller man to produce more of his own kind, because I as a young member of this House am beginning to ask myself the question what this country is going to be like in 30 or 40 years time if we as Europeans do not pull together as a group and strive to build up the country on a sound and economic basis. I call for that cooperation because I speak in the name of many ex-volunteers who today are anxious to see an end to politics. After all, we have no time for the political opportunist; we have no need for him. The ex-volunteer who comes out of the army has no need for him, and the little man in the street does not want to know anything about him. In my view the greatest problems we have today are not those of Indian penetration or of crime or of disease or the imperfections in our educational system, but rather we ourselves, that is the degree of honesty and sincerity we can bring to bear upon the solution of the many problems that face us, how and along what lines we are prepared to offer ourselves to this country, what type of service we are prepared to offer, and finally whether we are big-hearted enough to realise that the needs of this country and of the people who live in it are of greater consequence than ourselves.

In reviewing the Budget I think I am voicing the opinion of most people when I say that it has given general satisfaction. Members of the Opposition have called it a Hoggenheimer Budget. Well, Mr. Hoggenheimer has to pay heavily in taxation, and if the people in the country districts have to pay as heavily I feel sorry for them. We have a standard of 70 per cent. for the mines, and this figure is considered too high. There are very few industries in this country, and I do not think there is an industry anywhere in the world where the figure is anywhere as high as 70 per cent. We have had various charges on the mines. For example, we had the realisation charges; a charge made on the mines out of which the Government received altogether £10,000,000 and yet incurred no expenses whatsoever. That charge has fortunately been removed. Another one is the 22½ per cent. levy, a totally unscientific charge made on the mines. That has gone as well. Another tax that is totally unscientific is the pass fee. That is an antiquated tax and a bad one. It was originally brought in to give the natives hospitalisation. It has been taken into the general revenue of the Province and has been a tax on the mines. Another one is the claim license. That is a survival of the early days of mining in South Africa when there was a large amount of outcrop mining. These fees are not only antiquated but they are harmful in their effects as well. These are taxes which have added to the cost of gold mining and should never have been imposed. These matters have in this Budget been attended to by the Minister, and most of these taxes have been removed. I now come to another matter which I would like to place before the Minister and that is the matter of the lease formula plus taxation. The Deep Level Mining Committee strongly recommended a single formula in that respect, and I think it is as well for the House to hear what they said. They said—

I think we ought to have, as the committee reported, a single formula instead of these two. Every encouragement must be given to mining in this country. The whole country depends on it. No matter what hon. members opposite may say, the whole economic structure of this country is built upon mining and every ton milled represents a benefit indirectly to the State of 6s. 8d. Last January 4,844,000 tons were removed, giving a gross tonnage of 60,000,000 tons a year, out of which the indirect benefit to the State is approximately £20,000,000. I am sorry this Government has no immigration policy at all. We see what has been happening in other parts of the Union; we have the outcry in Natal. We see what is going on with the increase of the native population, who are now four to one, whereas the European population, though increasing, is growing at an ever decreasing ratio. We only have to look at Indonesia to see what will happen to this country in the next fifty to a hundred years. The only way to counteract that is by a large immigration policy. We could do with 25,000 building artisans at present, and other industries also require men. I think the Government ought to institute a State-aided immigration policy. It would be to the benefit of the country and of our European population.

We know that during the war the country benefited largely as a result of the British Navy, and I should like to see this country make a loan to Britain, an interest-free loan of £100,000,000 to help the people of Britain in the dire straits they are in at present.

The next matter is the fixed property tax. This tax was originally brought in by the Minister of Finance to curb speculation. I think it has stimulated speculation. Instead of doing what he hoped it would do, it has raised the price of property out of all proportion. Had he fixed a ceiling price it would have had the desired effect; I understand this was done in Australia with great success; he would have achieved his purpose in a far better way with that than with the tax he has imposed.

I was very pleased to have the privilege of hearing the thoughtful speech on demobilisation given to us by the hon. member for Nigel (Maj. Ueckermann). He is particularly qualified to talk on this subject because, as most hon. members on this side of the House are aware, he devotes the whole of his time to the work involved in the care and rehabilitation of men discharged from the service. I am glad to have the opportunity of paying a tribute to him for the great work he is doing on behalf of the party on this side of the House, and the country in general, as well as in the interests of those who served during the war. The services the hon. gentleman is rendering are beyond my powers to describe, and I trust the House will in due course appreciate his work.

I now come to the subject I rose to discuss, though I was so impressed with what was said by the hon. member for Nigel that I digressed in order to pay my tribute to this gentleman. I want to discuss the general world food position and the serious situation that exists here in particular as well as in other parts of the world. Various statements have been made by Ministers. We have been regaled with statements in the Press that are sometimes most alarming or of a most distressing nature in connection with the present position in Europe and elsewhere. There is definite cause for anxiety in South Africa regarding the general food position, and particularly as it affects the poorer type of citizen. I think there is general agreement on that. South Africa has been fortunate in escaping the ravages of war, but unfortunately there is no defence against the scourge of drought, and no honest person will blame the Government for what happens as the result of an act of God such as the drought through which we have recently passed. The serious maize position is generally appreciated. The fact that it should be necessary to import a large quantity of maize from South America, probably for the first time for a generation, in order to supply the necessities of life to the native population and to provide cattle and livestock with their normal feed, has resulted entirely from drought conditions. It can only be relieved by favourable conditions of nature which I trust will be forthcoming during the coming season, and I trust by the time the crops are reaped we shall have supplies adequate to see us through our difficulties. Unfortunately, we are faced with the position that hunger and starvation are possibilities. Whilst in 1939, when the Government declared war on the enemy in Europe, the Opposition Were opposed to it and remained opposed throughout the war, I trust they will take a different point of view in regard to this war against starvation and hunger, and that they will adopt a patriotic attitude and support the Government in its efforts to defeat starvation and hunger, which are the sequel to conditions over which they had no control and which can only be relieved by the grace of God. The Government gave a great lead to the country in 1939, and maintained that lead throughout the war, and they led us with the United Nations to victory. I have no doubt that, given adequate support from the country, the Rt. Hon. gentleman who leads the Government will be equally successful in this war against hunger and starvation. But, in order to achieve success, it is essential the general public should accord the Government the same support as they gave it in the war against Germany, and I feel one is jüstified in asking the public to support the Government to the utmost of their capacity in its effort to secure, to the poorer section of the community in particular, an adequate supply of essential food. I do not think it will be denied we have been an extremely fortunate country. We have gone short of practically nothing. Other countries in the world have starved, and their peoples have lacked the essentials of life. As we have read, the average number of calories per day allowed to millions of people in Europe is inadequate to maintain a reasonable standard of life. That being the case, and while the rest of the world has been living below the bread line, we have been able to build up what we might call a healthy condition of fat. Most of us can live on our fat for quite a long time, and if, owing to present conditions, we have to go without some of the luxuries we have enjoyed during the last six years, it will do most of us a lot of good.

The Minister of Finance has made provision in his Estimates for £10 million to make up the difference between the controlled price of locally produced foodstuffs and the cost of such essential foodstuffs when they reach the Union. I trust that amount will be sufficient to cover the difference, and that the favourable weather conditions which I hear now exist in the Transvaal and parts of the Free State will make it unnecessary to import anything like the tonnage of maize and other foodstuffs that at one time was considered necessary. I submit for the consideration of the Government that up to now very little has been done in order to conserve available supplies of essential foodstuffs. I agree that steps have been taken to ration maize to farmers and oats to dairies, and other foodstuffs required by poultry-keepers and others, and that drastic cuts have been made in the breeding of poultry, and generally speaking the Maize Control Board has endeavoured to conserve the quantity of maize that is available. The Wheat Control Board has, I understand, similarly reduced the quantity of flour available for bread, but flour is still freely sold to shops and stores and people, to their shame, are still sifting that flour and producing white bread, and in a large number of cases are wasting the offals, which are a valuable item of food in ordinary farming operations. The fact that flour is still available in apparently ample supply in the shops is an encouragement to people to sift it for white bread, such as they were accustomed to in pre-war days. I have heard people say they cannot eat the good wholesome bread made from the flour of 95 per cent. extraction. It is well known that sieves are sold in shops throughout the length of the country and no effort has been made to stop their sale or production. I suggest the Government should prohibit the manufacture and sale of these sieves and appeal to the public to discontinue their use. I admit that even the discontinuation of the use of sieves will not stop people sifting their meal and making white flour, because when I admonished one lady friend of mine for giving me white scones the other day and told her she should not use a sieve she said she used silk stockings for the purpose. I can think of better uses for silk stockings than sifting flour. In regard to the people who cannot stomach the unsifted meal I suggest they find some other substitute instead of wasting perfectly good foodstuffs by sifting. In addition to what I have already said we know that most of us who have the good fortune or misfortune to go to cocktail parties and other parties are given white scones, white biscuits and white bread which are freely available, and it is time the country realised the seriousness of the position and economised in that and other directions. Recently I had the pleasure of travelling from Cape Town to Johannesburg in the Blue Train—I may say at very low cost—and whilst I should like to congratulate the Minister of Transport on that magnificent train and the comforts one enjoys on it, I suggest it would be good for the passengers if he reduced the amount of food made available to them. I confess although I have a reasonable appetite I could not take one-quarter of what was available, and I am sure most of the passengers could not manage the five or six course meals that were provided.

Is this the reason you support the United Party?

We can tell the truth on our side and it receives consideration, and there is no resentment. I would suggest that on our railways in particular we reduce the quantity of bread or toast prepared for passengers, and also that in this dining room of Parliament—which is under the control of the railways—we set an example by discontinuing the use of bread during lunch when ample food of other description is available. I am certain it would have a good effect on the public in general and indicate that what we are prepared to legislate for we are prepared to carry out in practice. I hope some notice will be taken of the desperate position the world is in while we in South Africa, for the first time in our recent history, are realising what it is to be short in essential foodstuffs. It is of the utmost importance, I think, that we should realise the position and face it bravely, just as we faced the years of crisis during the war when everything appeared to be lost. Are we justified in continuing to live at the extravagant rate at present existing? Is it not time we seriously consider the position, and leave for the poorer people the types of foods that we can do without? We should assist the poor people to purchase them in the quantities we have been doing up to now. We find on every breakfast table at every public place mealie meal porridge. Is that an essential food for Europeans when millions of natives, as we know, are dependent on mealie meal for their daily sustenance? Is it not possible, by regulation or by a Government appeal to discontinue its use on the breakfast table of the Europeans, who can satisfy their appetite with foods of less calorific value? I would urge we start without delay a publicity campaign to encourage economy in the use of bread, and generally in the use of foodstuffs which are in short supply. I am quite satisfied, if the Government utilises the advertising facilities at its disposal and plans a satisfactory publicity campaign it will be possible to convince the public of the urgent necessity for economising in bread. If something of the sort is not done, I would submit that in spite of the fact we have a 95 per cent. extraction from the wheat we have been milling hitherto, we have no justification for asking the United Nations Food Organisation to divert to South Africa any considerable quantity of wheat which would otherwise be made available to starving people in the Northern Hemisphere and the countries of the Eash We should do all we can to encourage economy in the use of this vital foodstuff, and I am satisfied the only satisfactory way would be to appeal to the goodwill and the good nature of the thinking public, who were prepared to make great sacrifices during the years of war, and will, I am sure, be prepared to make further sacrifices for the benefit of their fellows during the troublous times we are experiencing.

What about the export of food?

The export of food happens in any shipping country. We have heard a lot about the amount of food which the ships that call at our ports take away. I have yet to learn we have ever criticised the amount of food which is brought here from overseas or the amount of essential supplies brought here by the ships that have taken small quantities from us. I suggest the less the Opposition say about that subject the better for them.

In addition to the shortage of wheat, on which I have laid considerable emphasis, we are now faced with a serious shortage of oil and fats; and it is well known that oil and fats are essential to the building up of health and ordinary bodily well-being. There has been much criticism of the fact that the Government has not yet produced margarine, and I submit until such time as the raw materials have been secured it is impossible to do so even if the machinery to produce margarine were available. With the recent embargo on Indian export we are in a serious position. The position before that was bad enough, but now I fail to see where we shall obtain the necessary raw materials to supply South Africa with its requirements of oils and fats.

At 10.55 p.m., the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 14th March.