laid upon the Table—

brought up the Second Report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, as follows—

26. The time for the ordinary meeting of this House shall be a quarter-past two o’clock in the afternoon of each sitting day, namely, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday in each week. Should this House be sitting on Friday, it shall, when it rises on that day, stand adjourned, unless otherwise ordered, until the following Monday. If, after the eleventh sitting day of the session, business be not concluded at six o’clock p.m. on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the proceedings shall be suspended at that hour and resumed at eight o’clock p.m. on those days.

43.

1. (1) Government business shall have precedence on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, and the right shall be reserved to the Prime Minister of placing Government motions and orders on the order paper in the rotation in which they are to be taken on such days.
2. (2) After the fiftieth sitting day of this House, Government business shall have precedence on Fridays, and if business be not concluded at six o’clock p.m. on such days the proceedings of this House shall at that hour be suspended and resumed at eight o’clock p.m.: provided that if in the opinion of the Government it is desirable that special facilities be granted on such days for the discussion of any order of the day of which a private member has charge, precedence may be given to such business; and provided further that the Government may intimate on the order paper for the day the time allotted for the discussion thereof, and if not concluded within the allotted time, such business shall be treated as interrupted business in the manner set out in subsections (1), (3) and (4) of Standing Order No. 27.

44.

1. (1) Unless this House shall by resolution otherwise determine, and subject to Standing Order No. 42, questions and motions standing in the name of private members shall have precedence on Tuesdays
2. (2) Subject to Standing Order No. 43 (2), questions and orders of the day of which private members have charge shall have precedence on Fridays.
3. (3.) Notwithstanding anything contained in Standing Order No. 43 (2)—
   1. (a) Orders of the day for the third reading of bills of which private members have charge shall on Fridays take precedence of all other orders for the same day, except orders to which this House has previously given priority.
   2. (b) Bills of which private members have charge reported from committee of the whole House with amendments shall on Fridays be placed next after orders for the third reading of bills of which private members have charge.

In order to give effect to the above new rules, if adopted, it is further recommended that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any Standing Order of the House, the business already appearing on the Order Paper for Thursdays be transferred to the Friday immediately succeeding and the business already appearing on the Order Paper for Fridays be transferred to the Thursday immediately preceding.

stated that unless notice of objection was given on or before the 11th instant, the report would be considered as adopted.

On behalf of the hon. member for Border (Brig.-Gen. Byron) in whose name the first Order of the Day for 14th February is standing, may one assume that everything that is on the Order Paper for the 14th will be transferred to the 15th February?

That is provided. In the new rules which are now laid on the Table, the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart) will find provision for that. The work for Thursday will be transferred to Friday.

moved, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

He said: Judging from the daily press and the letters and communications which have appeared in it, I am afraid I have put my head into a hornet’s nest. Well, I anticipated as much, and I assure the House that the Government would most gladly have spared the House the trouble and anxiety of dealing with this most difficult matter, if it were in any way possible. But after giving the subject most careful attention, we have come to the conclusion that there is no alternative course left to Us but to bring in this matter before the House, and ask it to deal with it as soon as possible, this session. It is a fact that this subject, whenever it has come before Parliament, has always proved contentious and has always engendered a great deal of heat. Discussion of wine produces almost as much heat as the consumption of wine. I therefore appeal to hon. members to approach this dangerous subject in a good temper. It is a difficult one; it is one involving not only large principles, but large interests, and I would appeal to hon. members of both sides of the House to eschew all bitterness and heat, and to discuss the matter in as good a temper as possible, and approach it in a spirit of give and take. I believe that the principles that are embodied in this Bill now before the House, are sound and I believe will prove generally acceptable to the country, but I know that in detail and in their actual application there is a good deal to be said on both sides, and as far as I am concerned, I am prepared to approach this subject in a spirit of give and take on all matters of detail. If we do that generally in this House, I think we shall be able to avoid a good deal of bitterness which is characteristic of previous discussions of this kind. Let me just say one word on the situation which has arisen. The problem of the wine industry is a problem of over-production, over-production of a luxury which has become greater every year, until it has become chronic. For years we have produced more wine than this country in the ordinary way consumes. Last year—I believe it is a fact, although I do not bind myself to details of the figures—last year there was a production of something like 120,000 or 130,000 leaguers of wine of which 40,000 leaguers were surplus and which had to be allowed to run into the gutter. The producers, who belonged to the Co-operative Society, and who were fortunate enough to sell the article, had to support the others, whose wine had been destroyed. This situation of over-production has made the industry one of the most disorganized and most uncertain. You have continual slumps, you march from one crisis to another, and the result is that the industry is in a very parlous condition. There is another very great drawback which we have to consider, and that is this: not only have we over-production, but over-production of an inferior article, for which in different and normal circumstances there would be no market. If the wine industry were in the same position as the wool and maize industries, it would be in a very strong position indeed. Our wool is one of the superior articles of the world; I do not believe there is a better wool in the world-market than that which comes from South Africa. Our maize is as good, if not better than that produced in any other market. If the wine industry was in the same sound condition, we would probably not be in the position we are to-day. We have natural advantages. I have often probed into the position, and when in England, I had occasion to discuss the question, with a number of the big wine dealers, who knew South African wines, who had close acquaintance with the wines of South Africa, and who stated that South Africa, unlike many other countries, is capable of producing a first-class wine; they assure me that if the conditions and methods in South Africa improved South African wines could compete with France in the wine market. They said we had advantages to produce a superior article, but we do not make use of them. Owing to disorganization and a living from hand to mouth, there is no improvement, and there is continued uncertainty in the position both from the producers’ and the merchants’ point of view, and the result is such as you see. If we grow a good article, we can sell it. I hope in time if we adopt the right line, it will be possible to produce an article, which will compete with any wine in any part of the world. I am told by Mr. Spilhaus, who has taken a great interest in this industry with regard to its development in Germany, that the Germans, probably for political reasons, preferred the wine from South Africa to that which comes from other countries; the quality may, I suppose, have something to do with it. The result is, there is a growing market in Germany for our wine, and I hope in ever increasing quantity, but that will depend on better methods, more improvement and a better article. There is another point. A good deal of the stuff we produce to-day is not fit for distillation, and, to use a vulgar expression, is only fit for the gutter, and the result is that a natural industry is in a very parlous condition. Another danger, owing to our having gone in more for brandy and neglecting the wine production, a tendency in this country is to drink less wine—the market, even in South Africa, does not expand, and we have the danger, and it is difficult to pull an industry like this out of the mire. To my mind, if ever there was a case for regulating an industry, this is the case—an article of luxury, which is to some extent absurd, and which is also over-produced in large quantities, it seems to me the very article that should be subject to regulations. It is not one like the diamond industry; in the diamond industry we had a small number of producers, who could come together and control the industry in the output of the article, and in that way keep production in harmony with the market. With the wine industry, this regulation and control could not possibly be made by the producers themselves, and the industry is going to pieces. If ever there was a case for regulation for the industry, it seems to me this is the case. We had a similar crisis in the wine industry in the vintage of 1917. There was a slump until the price reached a level which did not reach the cost of production. The result was that several of the producers came together in 1917 and formed a co-operative society, the Wine Growers’ Society, and that was joined by the vast bulk of the wine farmers in this country. I am told that during the last five or six years, at least 90 per cent. of the wine farmers belonged to this society. There is a good deal of criticism of this society. I am not going to go into that—opinions differ. I know that the Co-operative Society had a hard and difficult problem to deal with. Other societies in South Africa had started under much more favourable circumstances than those of the wine industry here in the Cape, and we have failed with co-operative societies up North. Take the various maize co-operative societies formed in the Transvaal, which had not one-tenth of the difficulties to contend with, and which have ceased with much less cause. Undoubtedly the Wine Growers’ Society has been criticized to some extent, perhaps rightly criticized, being accused of wrong methods of management, but for five or six years they have assisted the wine industry of the Cape. The question is not whether it was perfect, but what would have been the situation during all these years from 1917, if the farmers had not banded themselves together in cooperation? To my mind blank disaster would have overtaken the industry, but that they had bound themselves together at least to a large extent, the vast majority, 90 per cent., have kept the industry going. What was the principle on which they proceeded? It was this. The surplus production is admitted and cannot be overcome, and it is a fact which has to be dealt with. The principle on which the society acted was this: we shall take your vintage at a certain price; we know what the surplus is likely to be, and we shall destroy the surplus and deduct from the settled price sufficient to compensate the people whose wine has been destroyed. The two principles which kept them together were the settled price depending on the season’s output, and secondly the destruction of the surplus. In regard to the merchants, they also had an agreement with the association. These were the principles on which they acted, and then difficulties began to arise. You had in the first place the difficulty of the outsider, that was the wine farmer who had not joined the society, a very small percentage of the people, but there was this small percentage who remained outside. The members of the society sold for a certain price. Let us take the figures of last season. The price fixed was at £6 per leaguer. The member of the society sold his wine to the society for £6 per leaguer without regard to the reduction which had to be made from his price in order to compensate the producer whose wine was destroyed. £3 was deducted and the result was that the minimum price which the member of the society got was £3, but the outsider was in a different position. The merchants had paid £6 and the outsider could say to the merchant, “I am prepared to sell to you for £4.” He was not subject to the reduction and the £4 which he received from the merchant was a £1 better than he could get from the society. Hon. members will see in these circumstances there was an attraction on the part of the merchants to buy from the outsiders at £4 per leaguer when the price the society members got was £6. Beside the problem of the outsider, you had also the problem of the disloyal member. This member said: “I have 100 leaguers.” As a matter of fact he had 150 or 130 leaguers. He brought 100 leaguers into the society, retaining the 30 or the 50 which he sold surreptitiously for a lower price than he got from the society. (An Hon. Member: “Were not the merchants disloyal?”) I am coming to that. There were also disloyal members among them. Now the distressful conditions of the industry had become clear—that the outsider could get a better price, and the temptation became too great for the disloyal members, and resignations set in and if they proceeded far enough they would destroy the society. The whole situation would be destroyed and the country would suffer as much as the rest. That is the position now; the society is threatened from within and without with resignations and with dissolution. If the society disappears and no prices are settled it is left to competitive competition in the market with an article which is over-produced. It is admitted that the prices must slump to a figure which must mean ruin to thousands of homes in this country. I am told that 2,750 members belong to the society—that is 2,750 heads of families with families to support—and there is starvation and ruination facing them. You have also to consider the workers and those associated with an industry like this. In the opinion of the Government the position is an acute one, and no Government in the country can under such conditions sit still and hold its hands saying, “It is a matter of private enterprise and it is no concern of ours.” No Government could face such a position inactively. Under these circumstances we have come forward with this Bill. I have put the position from the point of view of the producer and the difficulty the society has had in competing with the outsider. But let us for a moment consider the position from the point of view of the merchant. There has been a tendency to blame him. In my opinion the merchant is a necessary evil in the industry. If the farmer or the producer simply think it is a case of producing the article they are making a great mistake. You require the skill and expert knowledge of the merchant also which the farmer does not possess and cannot be called upon to show. And in every industry, whether it is maize, or wool, or meat, or wine, you have exactly the same conditions that beside the producer something more is wanted to carry on the industry, and I say when the House deals with this matter, it will bear that in mind and not look at the subject merely from the producers’ point of view but also from the point of view of the merchant. Let us look for a moment from the merchant’s point of view at the situation I have described. The merchant was in this position: he did not really know where he was. He had made an agreement to buy at a certain figure from the producer. He was tempted to buy from an outsider at a smaller figure, and in individual cases the temptation proved too strong. No doubt there were merchants who, when faced with this situation, bought from the outsider at a smaller figure, and what was the result of that? The merchants stuck to their agreement and bought at the agreed figure from the society—but among them were the minority who, in disregard of their obligations bought at a smaller figure and were therefore in a position to undersell them. They had bought their wine at a lower figure and they were again, therefore, in the position to undersell their competitors, the other merchants, in the market. From the merchants’ point of view the situation was becoming just as impossible as it was from the producers’ point of view. The merchants insist, and rightly insist, that they should get all their wine at the same price, if that price is not unreasonable and not high; that they have equal terms and equal conditions, so that they can know where they are and can regulate their industry and their business on that basis. And the merchants being therefore interested in the negotiations which they have had with the co-operative society, insist that the co-operative society should ensure them against sales by outsiders or by others at a lower figure. I have a letter here—only one of those recent letters which have passed between the Co-operative Society and the Wine Merchants’ Association. This is what the merchants say. They insist on this as a condition of going on further and negotiating with the society. They insist upon this condition—

The merchants insist that they should be protected against this temptation to which some of them may succumb and that the price of the society shall be the price at which all wines shall be sold. And quite right too. I think they are right in insisting upon this. Now arises this point. As the law is to-day the society is not in a position to have this complete control. The merchants insist upon complete control. They insist that no one shall come into the market and sell to them or to anybody else under the price the society has fixed. But hon. members can see as the position is to-day, whilst there are producers not belonging to this society, so long as there is no law to deal with them, you will not have this absolute control. I think we have reached this point now, that both the vast majority of the wine farmers and the merchants insist that for the future there shall be absolute and complete control of the prices of this article. Complete control therefore is agreed upon. The question is how far that control can go. On the question itself, there is an agreement I believe. The question is how far shall it go. How can we get control; how far shall it go? There are various methods of dealing with this subject which the Government have considered. We have set aside the method of forcing everybody into the society. That would have been to some extent a solution by making the joining of the society, even by the minority, compulsory, but that would have been from many points of view an undesirable step and we have not adopted it. Then another set of difficulties arose. The producers of first class table wines said to us: “We do not want to join the society. Leave us out. The society consists of people who make ordinary, common place and even inferior wine—that is, the rank and file of the producers. They cannot sell their article, and we are not in that position. We are in the position that we make a superior article for which there is a market and a very good market in most cases. We do not want the control of the society over us, nor do we want to make any contribution towards any other members of the society. We want to stand upon our own legs.” That seems to me to be a fairly strong case. If there were a section of producers strong enough to stand upon their own legs and do not want to be mixed up with the rest, it seems to be going rather far to force them also under the control of the society. But if you had to exclude them and had to exclude the makers of first class wine from the control of the society the question at once arises, Where do you draw the line before first class wine and second class wine, and third class wine? Who is to decide what is this superior wine, and what is not? As soon as you make an exception of that kind you are up against very great practical difficulty in the administration of the control. Well, Sir, finally, after a great deal of consideration, the Government have come to the conclusion as hon. members will see from the first section of this Bill, to exclude all wine not destined for distillation from the control. We have therefore excluded not only the makers of first class wine but the makers of second class wines or any other wine, which is not going to be distilled into spirits or brandy, and which has to be consumed as wine. This has satisfied or reasonably satisfied the requirements of these superior farmers, these highbrows amongst the producers, who say “Do not mix us up with the rank and file; we can stand upon our own legs.” That, hon. members will see, is the principle which we follow under section one to exclude all wine not meant for distillation and leave them alone. That is about 20 per cent. so far as I can find out of the article produced, of the wine industry. About 80 per cent. of the wine produced here is turned into spirits and brandy and the other 20 per cent. is consumed as wine and we have limited the control which it is proposed to establish to the 80 per cent. of wine which has to be converted into spirits and brandy, the other 20 per cent. being left alone. Hon. members will see that the Bill provides in Clause 1 that nobody shall buy wine for distillation purposes except from the society or with the consent of the society, and no wine shall be distilled even from the man’s own crops or wine made into brandy or spirits without the consent of the society. It is quite necessary to go as far as that. So far as I have been able to consider this subject, I am convinced that if we were to limit the control to wine which has been turned into spirits or brandy it will have to hit not only the merchants, the distillers, but it will also have to hit the producer himself. Otherwise you will simply get to this position, you will drop out the merchants and the distillers on a large scale and every producer, every wine farmer as in the olden times will once more start distilling upon his own account and you will throw this industry back probably ten or twenty or more years; you will be reverting to the state of affairs most lamentable and ruinous which has passed away, and in order to prevent that evil we have limited the control of wine for distillation but have so limited it that it applies not only to the merchant but also to the wine farmer himself. Now so much about control. I think that so far there probably will not be very much or there ought riot to be very much difference of opinion. As I say the vast bulk of the producers wants this control. The merchants insist upon it as a condition of going on. They insist on the control. But the question arises: Who is to exercise this control? There we come within the arena of conflict. Some say: “Let it be a Government body, and not the co-operative society. We shall submit to Government control. Let there be a Government body to control the industry.” Well, Sir, the Government have decided that that would be a very undesirable course to pursue. Nothing seems to me from my long knowledge of public affairs, nothing seems to me more ruinous to any industry than bureaucratic control with the exception of certain well defined services such as transport, the post office and similar things. I do not know with those exceptions a single service over which the Government have undertaken control which has not come to grief, or which is not run at a loss to the public. Government control of industry is really a blight. Industry is regulated by natural laws—the laws of industry, the laws of economics which are just as much fixed and certain as are the other laws of nature, and Government interference and Government control I am afraid will be just as ruinous to the wine industry as it would be to any other. What would be the position then? We know it is a very difficult industry. I have explained to the House how inherently difficult the circumstances of this industry are and I think it would be a very unwise policy for the Government, to say the least, where it is conscious of these difficulties to rush in and say we shall take it out of the hands of the wine farmers and we shall do it ourselves, and the onus will be upon the Government. Session after session the matter would come before us and everybody would be cursing the Government—[An Hon. Member: “We are doing that now.”] Ah, but most unjustly. In that case there might conceivably be good reason for all this undeserved censure and criticism. Now to my mind, let us set Government control aside. I do not think in this country we ought to face it in a case like this. What better than the control of the industry by itself? Here is an industry where after great vicissitudes and trials the vast bulk of the producers come together to form their own society and to run the industry. They have been running for better or worse their industry for the last six years. Why take it out of their hands? We understand exactly why they are getting into difficulties. They are getting into difficulties not so much because of their own fault but because of the position they have created for their industries. The industry is being exploited by people outside. That is the root of the difficulty. I ask what is the reason for taking the industry out of their hands and placing it in the hands of some outside body like the Government or anybody else? This industry like every other industry must save itself. If there is to be any salvation for it, it must come from inside. Leave them to manage their own affairs. Let them run their own industries. We only say that they shall come up to a certain standard of membership. The Bill says at least 75 per cent.—the Minister must be convinced that at least 75 per cent. of the producers belong to the society. I am told the percentage to-day is far higher than that. Well, leave it at that figure of 75 per cent. So long as the vast bulk of the farmers, big and small, come to 75 per cent. and are called together to manage their own affairs, I say we should leave the matter to them and let them run their own industry. To my mind there is no question that the wise policy for us to pursue is to leave things as they are, to leave the management of the industry in the hands of the industry, as it is at the present and not to try and adopt a remedy which to my mind will not work and which will probably produce a worse state of affairs, if that be possible, than what we have at the present time. Now we have to meet an objection. Hon. members will see the course that we have adopted in this Bill. We have given the control not to an outside body or to a Government organization, but to a body that has had the control so far, inadequate and inefficient control. Then after that is done, after that is recognized, and stabilized by law this difficulty arises which the merchants urge. They say: “You now place us completely, or the legislature places us completely at the mercy of this co-operative society of the producers. The producers may arbitrarily fix prices for their own wines for any particular vintage, which prices are beyond our resources and beyond the requirements of the country. You go too far.” They urge this as a criticism of the scheme that this arbitrary power should be put in the hands of the producers as against the merchants and the consumers. Now I think that there is an answer to this objection. I feel there is a certain amount of weight in this objection, and I want to be perfectly fair to the merchants. But I would urge this, on the other hand, is not this difficulty merely a technical one; is it not merely academic? After all the co-operative society knows the position, namely, that the producers are overproducing in this country. They know that the higher the price they fix for their wines the less will be the consumption. Therefore, by placing this power in their hands, they might simply cut their own throats—[An Hon. Member: “It depends upon the quality.”] I am speaking of the price which is fixed as hithertofore for the ordinary run of wine to be distilled into brandy. The hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) will see that we have excluded from control all the higher classes of wines. The society will control the ordinary low-class ones which are to be distilled into brandy, and they will set up the price. The fear has been expressed by the merchants that this price will ruin the sale of brandy and spirits. To my mind it is merely an academic objection. I cannot see people who are depending on an industry fixing prices which will ruin themselves, to limit consumption and ruin themselves. I do not attach much weight to this difficulty, but I am prepared to go this length, I am very anxious to carry the wine merchants with me in this matter. I have no grudge against them, no feud against them. I regret very much the spirit of antagonism which has grown up between the producers and the merchants, because they should realize that for the good of their industry co-operation is necessary as far as possible. I am prepared if the House is with me to go a long way in case of dispute in regard to the price between these two parties. There should be some reference to a more impartial party, so that any unnecessary dispute may be avoided. I am quite prepared to consider that when we have discussed this matter in the House, for I am desirous of meeting the merchants as I am of meeting the producers. This, therefore, is the decision which the Government has brought before the House in Clause 1 of this Bill. We place the control in the hands of the society which has not exercised it heretofore. That is the main principle embodied in this Bill, and before I go on to the next point dealt with, let me just say this. I have seen in the press that the merchants make a great point against Clause 2. which lays down in effect that the prices charged by the society to purchasers shall be the same all round for the same class of article. Well, that was put in by me with the most laudable intention in order to prevent abuse, but the merchants have pointed out in the correspondence which has appeared in the press that that will hit them and be against the custom of the trade, as existing heretofore. In a detail like that I am prepared to deal with the merchants fairly, and leave it out if necessary in the public interest. Now let me pass on to the big topic dealt with in this Bill. Control, no doubt, is the central idea, but we have to deal with another problem, and that is the wastage of surplus. Nothing has been a greater shock to the public in this country than to see year after year, carried out by the wine industry—the oldest industry in this country—the turning of this article into the gutter. It is such an abuse, it seems such folly from all ordinary economic points of view. We should prevent in every possible way that sort of thing in the future. Hon. members will see what it is proposed to do in this Bill. I am informed that in most countries in the world the law is that no brandy or spirits shall be sold that has been distilled less than three years, and that it is wrong to sell spirits earlier. No doubt a highly rectified spirit and from which all deleterious substances have been evaporated away can be drunk shortly after manufacture, but in most brandies that is almost impossible. You get an article so young, so green and raw that it is largely poisonous, more poisonous than liquor generally is. Most countries have gone the length of laying down by law that no brandy or spirits can be sold or consumed unless it has been matured for at least three years. I am told that that reform carried out in other countries is a reform highly necessary in South Africa. Hon. members will see that if we prevent waste by saving this article which is now running into the gutter, and let it mature for three years the result will be that the article which is now wasted will be a much better article than heretofore. We will have a better article, we will fall into line with other more progressive countries, and we shall have prevented this waste, this running out which takes place year after year. What the Bill lays down in the second place as a main provision, which I am desirous or bringing into force with the permission of the House, is this: we give notice to the wine industry that after 1928, that is four years hence, no brandy or spirit shall be sold or drunk unless it is more than three years old. We have applied that law to all brandies and spirits imported into this country, and we are going to apply that same law to our own internal production. We are also going to improve our spirits in the future and prevent this waste in the meantime. The result of this will be that the waste, this article which is run into waste in the gutter, will be turned I hope into a decent drinkable article, and in the end we shall not only have a more drinkable article in Africa, but a better article to export. For I hear it is possible to find a market for our brandy if it is distilled as is laid down in this Bill. Hon. members will agree with me that this is a proper reform to carry through this House, and that it will be a great boom for the wine industry. Now that is also subject to a criticism which I wish to point out in all fairness to the House. It is said that the effect of this proposal is going to be that for three years there will be no waste. The wine which is now wasted will be turned into brandy and properly matured; there will be a proper market for all the wine produced. The result will be a greater increase of vineyards, and an artificial prosperity will be effected for three years, and after that time we will be in the soup again. That is the criticism which is made, but I can only say this: There is no doubt that if this proposal becomes law the conditions in the wine industry for the first three or four years will be much better than they are to-day, and there is the risk that if people make an abuse of this position there may be a fresh set-back. I will say this on the other hand that in the end and in the long run it must be a drag for any production in this country, when an article produced has to wait three years before it can be consumed. If the farmer knows that his article has to be laid up, and that he has to meet all the costs incurred for three years that must act as a drag and as a slowing-down process on production. Therefore, I am not very much impressed by the criticism which I have mentioned. I think the general tendency will be for farmers to realize that they cannot dispose of it at once, that it will not be consumed at once, and the merchant who buys it has to put his capital into it, and in not being able to use it for three or four years the result will be there will not be an artificial boom and stimulus to production if this Bill becomes law. To my mind, if this Bill goes through the society will be on their mettle, they will be put to the test, and if they are able to save their industry they can show how to do it. If additional vineyards were planted in this country, the society can see that they are vine yards not specially meant for wine. Raisins, table grapes, and these other items which are more remunerative for the careful wine-farmer can be exploited to the full if the society guides its members and counsels them, for then the members will follow. I think we ought to trust the society and appoint them to a position of authority in their industry. I think they should put their house in order, which I am sorry that they have not done up to now. If they get control from Parliament they will have to guide their future development in such a way that they will not be up against a wall for five years. I hope that that will be the result. There is this criticism which is made against my proposal, which I think has some weight. But that will depend ultimately on the grip that the society will have on production in this country. But there is another difficulty which is urged by the wine merchants and it is this. They say: ‘In the Bill you are throwing a very heavy burden on the merchants. The merchants are now called upon to buy the surplus, distil it, store it and keep it for three years. All this will mean a great deal of capital and where are we going to get the money? We are in trouble as it is and now you throw this additional burden upon us.” To my mind that difficulty is one which requires careful consideration, but I think it is soluble, and it might be solved on the same lines as that of legislation which is already laid down in this country. Some time ago we passed a law which laid it down that if a distiller would distil properly and keep the spirits or brandy he distilled under Government control for three years then at the end of that period a rebate on excise would be given, a rebate amounting to 3s. a gallon, which means £19 a leaguer on brandy. That is a very substantial rebate which is promised by the Government at present for spirits which have been distilled and kept for three years under excise control. To my mind that rebate ought to form a basis for the financing of this new development in the future. If the matter is gone into it will probably be found that the commercial banks will also help. To my mind that is not a problem beyound our powers to solve. While we give the control in this Bill we should also effect the reform which is a very important one and which should lead to our having a much better wine industry than we have to-day. It should certainly lead to a much better quality of brandy than we manufacture to-day. I would say this in conclusion: I have dealt with two problems here in the discussion before the House and hon. members will see that there are these two main ideas embodied in the Bill. I admit that the wine industry as it is to-day is a matter of far greater complexity than the two main aspects which this Bill deals with. There are other far-reaching matters which should be probed into so that a comprehensive reform of our wine industry should be brought about. I have not dealt with them in this House, but in recent months I have gone into these problems and some of them are so complex and difficult and dependent on technical knowledge that I feel it is impossible for the Government or the House to deal with them to-day. What the Government proposes is this, that concurrently with this Bill which stabilises the industry and keeps it going, the Government is going to appoint a commission of impartial men who have a knowledge of the wine industry in all its aspects, in its technical aspects, in its business aspects, who can probe into all those aspects of the situation which we do not deal with in this Bill. That commission can take evidence; that commission can give the subject all the consideration it requires and they can in due course bring up their report for the consideration of the Government and of this House. It may be that in future years we may have to give further thought to our legislation. It may be, however, that it may be unnecessary. Perhaps the report which this commission may be able to lay before us will be of such a character that legislation may not ensue. But I think that it is most advisable if we want to save this industry and make it an industry worthy of this country and of the other industries we are developing in this country that these other matters should be also gone into and an attempt made to get at a comprehensive solution. What the Government asks this House to do is to prevent the immediate ruin and decay of this industry. It is proposed in this Bill to leave over the other questions which require more expert investigation and will require more time and evidence, to the commission which will be appointed concurrently with this Bill to inquire into these matters. After that I hope it will then be possible for us, not without serious trouble, to put this industry on its legs and make of it a good, decent industry for this country. Hon. members will see that the present Bill is meant to apply to the present vintage; the Bill is to date really from the 1st of February and is in that sense a retrospective Bill. But although that is far-reaching it is absolutely necessary. The trouble is about the present vintage already and in the absence of agreement between the parties, and there seems no prospect of their coming to an agreement, it is necessary for us to step in and pass this Bill with all expedition. Nothing can be worse than to keep a Bill like this hanging over this industry for any length of time without coming to a decision. Certainty is wanted: the wine farmers want to know where they are, the wine merchants want to know where they are, and whatever is to be done has to be done as soon as possible, so that through this Bill we may not hang up the industry and place it in so uncertain a position that they do not know what to do with the present vintage. I would therefore ask the House to help the Government in this matter and to see that no unnecessary time is taken either with the discussions or the passing of this Bill through its various stages. I do not look upon this Bill as a party measure in the ordinary sense. I look upon it as a big national problem which the Government has brought into the House in a non-party sense. It will be a difficult matter to get through this House and there will be heavy opposition from quarters who think that their interests are jeopardised in this Bill. Let us meet as far as possible, let the spirit of “give and take” prevail, and let us as soon as possible come to a solution and put this industry in a position commensurate with its position among the other industries of this country.

Ek wens dadelik te sê, dat wat my betref en ons almal aan hierdie kant van die Huis, ek die Eerste Minister die versekering kan gee dat geen een van ons die saak as ’n party saak beskou nie, hoewel dit ’n kwessie is, welke onder alle omstandighede grote verskil van mening sal uitlok, en waar soveel belange is die met mekaar in stryd is, sal ons ons bes doen om te sien om dit met mekaar te versoen. Almal sal onder die omstandighede met die Eerste Minister simpatiseer; in die laaste paar dae van dat ek gesien het dat die mense in die koerante soveel moontlik opposiesie teen die Wet verwek, oor diewelke ek bly is dat die Eerste Minister dit hier voorgebring het, dink ek dat die Eerste Minister reg het op onse simpatie. Sy doel is hierdie grote industrie te beskerm en in soverre as hy dit doet, sal ek saam werk aan ’n oplossing. Die kwessie is hoe die beskerming moet bewerkstellig word en hieroor bestaat blykbaar groot verskil van mening. Ek stem grootliks met die Eerste Minister mee, dat dit onmoontlik is om toe te laat dat die wynindustrie sal ten onder gaan sonder ’n poging aan te wend om dit te red. Die Eerste Minister wys daarop dat daar nie minder as drie duisend boere by die industrie betrokke is nie, feitlik vyftien duisend mense daarby betrokke, afgesien van die industrie. Vyftien duisend van die beste in ons land; daaraan bestaat geen twyfel. Ek sê dus dat dit die plig is van die Regering om onder die omstandighede toe te sien dat daar iets gedaan word om die industrie op ’n behoorlike, bestendige en vaste voet te stel. Ek dink die Eerste Minister kon ’n stap verder gegaan het, om deur in die besonder te wys na die belang welke die Staat daarby het. Dit is ’n industrie wat aan die Staat drie miljoen pond inkome besorg. Onder sulke omstandighede is dit die plig van die Regering om dadelik in te gryp as hulle sien dat deur ingryp hulle die industry kan red. Ek is van gevoele dat ons die Regering soveel moontlik moet help, want ek beskou die Wetsontwerp as te noodsaaklik om daar ’n party-saak van te maak. Die enigste kwessie is dat die Eerste Minister het daarna gerefereer dat die mense, die by die saak betrokke is, onder mekaar soveel verskil van mening aanwys dat die grootste gevaar bestaat dat hulle die grootste party sal gemaak word. Vir ons is daar net een plig, en dit is om te sien of die Wetsontwerp werklik die industrie sal help. Word deur die instap van die Regering die beste wyse van hulpverlening in werking gestel? As die kans bestaat deur die wet sal ons moet buig, maar omdat daar so’n grote verskil van mening bestaat juis onder die belanghebbende, word die saak ingewikkeld. Maar niemand van ons kan enige politieke belang by die saak hê nie. As die boer te dom is en ’n te hoë prys vra, dan sal hulle die lydende party wees. Dit is ’n weelde artiekel, welke mens gebruik as jy wil en laat staan as sy wil. Die Huis sal, hoop ek, ompartydig wees en slegs die mense wie sê belang deur die wet beoog word, het grote verskil oor hierdie saak. Dit kom my voor dat vir die Regering en vir ons almal, is die enigste weg om in te slaan die om die mense die voile geleentheid te gee dat die saak behoorlik ondersoek word deur ’n Gekose Komitee, aan diewelke hulle alles kan voorlê, opdat dan die Regering kan doen wat die beste is in die belang van die industrie. Ek voel dus dat ons die Wetsontwerp behoort te verwys na ’n Gekose Komitee voordat ons oorgaan tot die tweede lesing, en ek doen dit met die grootste vrymoedigheid omdat dit die enigste weg is wat die Regering en die Eerste Minister kan inslaan. Ek bewonder die moed van die Eerste Minister dat hy waar hy sien waar daar so danig wetgewing nodig is, hy dit dadelik mgebring het. Ek stel daarom die verwysing na ’n Gekose Komitee voor en hoop dit sal aangeneem word dat nl. die tweede lesing ge skrap word en die saak verwys na ’n Gekose Komitee. Soas dit vandag staat, heers onder daardie mense die gevoel, dat hulle het so’n wet nie nodig nie. Ek verskil en sê reguit ek dink dat so’n wet wel nodig is. Of ons daarin verandering bring of nie, maar dit is nodig. Tog skyn daar heftige gevoel te bestaan dat dit nie so is nie. Ek wil die mense nie in die posiesie plaas nie dat hulle kan sê voordat ons gehoor is is die wet aangeneem, en het hulle ons gekommitteer. Dit is wenslik dat voordat ons iets doet dat ons sê, as julle van die sienswyse is gaat ons julle nie kommitteer maar eers die saak na ’n Gekose Komitee verwys. Na die volledige uiteensetting van die Eerste Minister is dit nie nodig iets verder te sê nie, maar stel ek voor dat dit verwys word na ’n Gekose Komitee ten einde die mense die kans te gee hulle opvatting uiteen te sit. Ek stel voor—

I second. I think the Prime Minister himself in his speech to-day has shown us the reason for this amendment because he did not seem happy with regard to the Bill and most of the arguments he used were condemnatory of the Bill. I will refer to them in detail just now, and I hope, therefore, he is going to accept this amendment and have the whole matter referred to a Select Committee without deciding any principle on the second reading, otherwise it will be very difficult to get any principle out of this Bill that now appears in the Bill. The Prime Minister seems to have given the whole case away when he said the subject was full of such difficulty that as soon as we pass the Bill the Government is going to appoint a commission to take evidence. I have never heard of that before: to pass judgment first and then call for evidence to see whether your judgment is right or wrong. The best argument the Prime Minister used in favour of the amendment was that it may be necessary to have the whole matter threshed out by a commission. This Bill is called “A Bill to Provide for the Control and Management of the Wine and Spirit Industry.” It is a misnomer. The name should be, “A Bill to give the Uncontrolled Monopoly of the Wine and Spirit Industry without any Appeal to the present Management of the Wine Growers’ Association.” The mass of the wine growers are out of sympathy with the present directorate. Therefore, one must distinguish between the management of the association and the farmers who are supposed to be benefited by the work of the association. Really, this is what one might call a Bolshevist Bill. It is a Bill to take away everyrbody’s rights and interests in the wine and spirit industry and hand them over to those who are at present managing the association, and according to the Prime Minister, not managing it too well. He admits that their house is not in order and yet he is going to give the control to the people who are controlling the association. If ever there was a Bolshevist Bill this is one. Is the Prime Minister satisfied that the management of the present organization is satisfactory? Does he for one moment suggest that they satisfy the wine farmer? Does he suggest that they assist in the production of good wine? As the whole of the first part of his speech showed, the great thing is to produce good wine. The most hostile of critics of this Bill are the producers of good wine. They will not back it at any price. They are dead against it. He tells us that the merchants are an important link in the wine industry, and he wants to destroy that link. Under the Bill that link will entirely disappear. If he acknowledges that the merchants are a strong link, why are they not given any control jointly with the organization of the producers in this Bill? Why are they completely left out just as the public are left out? This Bolshevist Bill even goes so far as to apparently destroy existing contracts. I say apparently, as it is hard to think that the Prime Minister intended this in view of the date in sub-section of the first section. You cannot distil any wine after 1st February, 1924, and you cannot acquire any wine after that date unless you get the consent of the association. There are people who have completed contracts up to the crisis, and it was only because of the working between the wine merchants and the producer that the situation was saved. The association, it is said, has a large membership. If the association is so strong as the Minister makes out, why does he introduce the Bill at all? Apparently the association wants the Government to give them a big stick in order to have some control over the membership. Unless Parliament gives them this power they will not be able to compel the outsider to become a member. There is no provision in the Bill for fixing prices. Nothing is said about it in the Bill except that you cannot sell without the consent of the society. One would think that at least you would expect to find in the Bill how the price was to be fixed. It is a very curious thing that this most important point is not included except when you say you cannot acquire wine without consent, and wine includes grapes and raisins. What is the meaning of the definition of wine? Why should you single out this particular association to control the industry? Then there is the question of geographical advantages. Does the society take into account that it costs more to produce in one district than another? Then there are economic conditions to be considered. As I have said, no price has been fixed. It is left to the society. Everything else is left to the imagination. They have complete control. This is a serious matter and one that should have been dealt with in the Bill. The Prime Minister tells us that he is satisfied with the organization which consists of 75 per cent. of the wine farmers. I cannot agree with him. The definition of wine grower excludes those who farm with 10,000 vines or less, and so they will have no say at all—a most undemocratic principle. Let me ask the Prime Minister this. According to sub-section 2, Clause 1, a man who acquires wine after a certain date without consent commits a crime, but a man who sells does not commit a crime. That is a curious bit of legislation. The Prime Minister has admitted that many have refused to join the association and many others are very sorry for ever joining it. This legislation appears to me to be a big stick to compel those who do not want to join to do so, and to keep those in who are at present members in the society and want to get out. This is a Bill to bring up the membership of the association. Supposing a farmer has got wine and he goes to the organization stating that he wanted to sell it. They tell him he cannot do so; what is to be done with his wine? There is no provision in the Bill for this. What is going to happen to him when he has spent all his money in producing the wine and the association prevents him from selling it? Perhaps he will have to do as suggested by the Prime Minister, “Put it into the gutter.” One cannot imagine what will happen to him if the society is hostile; if the management of the association makes a decision there is no appeal and no provision is made in the Bill. These are not matters of detail but matters of very serious importance. Suppose a merchant pays a good deal for wine and finds he cannot sell it as good wine and wants to have it distilled and cannot get permission, what is he to do? I suppose he would also have to run it into the gutter. He cannot dispose of the wine and he cannot distil into brandy. Supposing the association fixes the sale price of distilling wine at £6 and the farmer has 50,000 leaguers and he can only sell 25,000 as good wine, he will naturally want to do something with the remaining 25,000, and if he asked for permission to turn it into brandy the management can say no and give no reason and there is no appeal for that farmer. I suppose he would have to run the 25,000 leaguers into the gutter. The Prime Minister has intimated some difficulties and he has said that these were matters open to criticism. I should like to remind him that as early as the 5th December the Cape Town Wine Merchants’ Association telegraphed that in view of the present trouble regarding this matter they requested the Government to immediately appoint a commission to enquire into the position of the wine industry. That was two months ago, but nothing has happened. The telegram from the Wine Merchants’ Association read—

A reply was received from the Prime Minister’s office—

Recently the merchants tried to get into touch with the management of this association, and suggested meeting them in connection with the matter, but were put off from time to time. The merchants do not take up a hostile position to the farmers, but suggest to the Prime Minister that he should cope with the immediate difficulties for 1924. Prices should be fixed by a joint board half composed of the wine farmers and half by the wine merchants, with the chairman nominated by the Government and there would be no difficulty in fixing the price. That a committee be appointed immediately to deal with the immediate situation, and a commission could afterwards deal with the matter in its wider aspects. The immediate situation need not be dealt with by this Bill, but by the board which would include representatives of the wine merchants and the wine farmers; that is a right solution. I am quite with the Prime Minister when he tells us that it was important a good article should be produced, so as to carry on the good name of South Africa in the same way as has been done in the case of the wool industry. The Prime Minister says that the industry was faced with black disaster if the association had not taken control. At present the position is most unsatisfactory, and they should put their house in order before this Bill comes before this House, and I may repeat that the merchants and many farmers are against the Bill. The Bill indirectly secures that the outside farmer must be compelled to join the association. If that is not force, I do not know what force is. What will become of the surplus wine? I may point out that this association can go into any business they like they can open shops or bars. The memorandum and articles of association are very wide, and it would be very illuminating if in a schedule to the Bill the Minister inserted the memorandum and articles. It would frighten many of those on the other side. We are now asked to give the association control of the industry, apparently in perpetuity. The Prime Minister says there is nothing more ruinous than bureaucratic Government control. I could wish that he would give a hint on this subject to the Minister of Justice when another Bill comes under discussion. The Prime Minister, I repeat, says that there is nothing more ruinous than bureaucratic Government control. The control which will be exercised here will be exercised by a small directorate. Is the right not there given to put one particular industry under the bureaucratic control which has been referred to by the Prime Minister? The fact is I would rather see myself that the Government have control—in spite of the disparaging remark made against Government control by the Prime Minister, when he referred to ruinous bureaucratic Government control. In spite of that, I prefer to see control by a nominated chairman and a board consisting equally of the representatives of the two parties interested. The chairman who would represent the Government would also represent the public, and the representatives of the other two parties would be representatives of the industry, one of the merchants and one of the producers. That would be a very much better way of dealing with this matter than the way suggested in the Bill. The Prime Minister told us, and quite rightly, that the law of economics must not be interfered with. But there is not another Bill which interferes more with the law of economics than the present Bill. The Prime Minister has told us that we must not interfere with business, yet he brings forward the most Bolshevistic Bill ever before the House. In these circumstances, I think I can claim his vote upon the amendment. If the Prime Minister does not want to interfere with the laws of economics then he has no right to bring forward this Bill. The control must not be by one section of the community. It must be joint in the public interest. The objection of the merchants is not merely academic. It is very serious. There is one point touched upon by the Prime Minister as to the Act of 1921. There again it must be considered that the Bill is hastily drafted and it is not at all clear whether, in the Bill, when he speaks of maturation, whether he is speaking of potstill maturation or patent still maturation. The Act of 1921 refers to the potstill method of maturation, and I am told that under this Bill it will not be possible for potstill brandy to be used in three years, but a blend of potstill brandy and patent still brandy could. Then the Prime Minister, in the last portion of his remarks, indicated that the farmer might have a distillery upon his own farm, and that in the distillation of wine into brandy, he must come under the Bill. I did not know that the Government were going so far as that. It is not clear if that is the effect of the Bill. We are told it is, and it is a possible interpretation of Clause 1.

No that is not proposed.

I understood that was so from the latter remarks of the Prime Minister.

No.

If that is so, what a loop-hole it offers for every farmer to distil; what will become of this wonderful control? The Prime Minister tells us that we should have farmers distilling upon their own farms, and if that is the position, where is the control? I understand the Bill certainly does not exempt the farmer for Clause 1 reads—

If the Prime Minister says that is not the intention, he will amend the Bill accordingly, I suppose. I think I have said sufficient to make it clear that it would be wrong of Parliament to hand over the whole control of the management of the wine and spirit industry to one small section of that industry. It would be wrong for Parliament to divest itself of complete control with regard to one of our most important industries. Personally, I have no unfriendly feeling towards the industry. I recognize that so far as the Western Province is concerned, it forms the hinterland of Cape Town. The prosperity of the Western Province is bound up with the prosperity of Cape Town, and we want to do all we can to see that the wine industry gets a fair chance, and if the Government brings forward legislation to help that industry, I shall support it. I have no objections to the industry. I would like to see it flourish, because I recognize that so long as the hinterland of Cape Town flourishes, so long will Cape Town flourish I am at one with the suggestion that if the industry is mined, a great many people will also be ruined. Many people say that if the Bill is carried through in its present form, the present chaos will be perpetuated, the present trouble will be made greater. The Bill, instead of saving the question, makes confusion worse confounded. In these circumstances the leader of the opposition told the Prime Minister that he and his party would help the Prime Minister, and I therefore hope the Prime Minister will agree to this amendment, and not use a party majority to force this obnoxious Bill through the House. It is very much better for the sake of all concerned, and particularly for the people in the industry, that everyone should feel that they have had a fair chance of getting the ear of the Prime Minister and the Committee which may be appointed. The whole thing has been done in a great hurry. A deputation waited upon the Prime Minister when he came back from Europe. It is true, two months ago a telegram was sent, and I have already referred to that. I say, the whole thing has been sprung upon us in a desperate hurry. I have never known Parliament to legislate in a hurry without making grevious mistakes. It is a great mistake to do so. The only thing to do is to consider it quietly, and the only way to consider it quietly is in the Committee room. Do not pass the second reading and tell us that you will consider it. Do not pass the second reading and then go to Select Committee, but, rather let us have a Bill that will be satisfactory to the wine-growers, to the merchants, to the public, and to the whole Union. That can only be done by having a thorough enquiry in the Select Committee room, before a second reading, and then we can put upon the statute book a Bill which will stand the test of time.

The Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill, appealed to the House to regard the seriousness of the situation of the wine-farming industry and to deal with this matter as freely as possible from all party bias. I propose to do so. On these benches here, we have very little direct interest in the wine industry. I do not think any of our constituents are interested in the wine industry. We come from other parts of the country. We know of the distress in the country, and are the last people to oppose any earnest desire to prevent any other section of industry falling into distress. I make these remarks in to urge the Prime Minister to accede to the amendment. I think it will be apparent to him that it will be entirely in accord with the attitude he took up in moving in the matter. He asked us not to consider it from the party point of view. Except from that point of view I think it is on all fours with the arguments that we used when we asked him to accede to the request, that this Bill should go to a Select Committee before the second reading is taken. I put it in this way that, from the point of view of time which the Prime Minister has laid so much stress upon whether it goes to the Select Committee before or after the second reading, is a distinction as between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The only distinction between the two processes is that one is a question of the amour propre of the Government. I entirely support the principle that the Government as a rule, in introducing a measure, that that measure must be carried by the second reading or the Government loses the confidence of the House. But look at the exceptional nature of this measure. The circumstances are these. A crisis exists in this industry so considerable that it found a place in the Governor-General’s scheme. They are bound to take emergency measures in regard to a considerable crisis and the emergency which has arisen. In any real emergency—I am one of those who, as a matter of principle, objects to emergency measures—but if you have an emergency you may have to take exceptional measures. But I think the whole House will agree that measures upon any principle of such an extraordinary kind as in this case, this House has never been asked to affirm. We are asked to hand over what amounts to the control of a private association this considerable industry in which this distress exists. Further, in this Bill, while this body is mentioned by name, there is no schedule which gives any particular information as to their constitution or personnel, or standing in the wine industry. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) may have such information, but I am bound to say for myself, and perhaps for 100 out of 134 members of the House that we know nothing whatever about the Wine Growers’ Association. Let a contrast be made. We have another Bill before the House, the Conciliation Bill, regarding another body of persons, trade unions and their registration, who are expected to exercise far less important functions than are proposed in this Bill. We have embodied the principle, but their constitution must be approved by registrar, and their membership and all sorts of details. But Here the Prime Minister—I will not say that enquiry will not justify him—but I think he will agree that Before the House affirms the principle of handing over such extraordinary control, such unprecedented control over an industry to a body of private persons, this House should have some safeguards and some control and some conditions upon which the House is satisfied. I would ask the House and the Prime Minister to consider these points. The Prime Minister may take up the line to take the second reading of this Bill now and say that all the information you require can be acquired by the Select Committee after the second reading is taken. After second reading there are some amendments that are in order, and some that are out of order, and I think there are a few old and experienced members of the House who can be perfectly certain that amendments on the border line of the principle of the Bill they may desire to make are in order until they have been referred to Mr. Speaker. It is placing too close a strain on the conscience of members to ask them to go to Select Committee before taking such unprecedented steps, in giving over these enormous powers to a private body about which we know nothing and concerning whom we have seen much criticism in the press against the wishes, expressed in public print by a large number of persons with direct interest in the matter. Before we take that step the House should be satisfied as to two things. The first is of the reality of the emergency apart from hearsay and apart even from the merely second reading speech of the Prime Minister. We are bound to get information upon that point. We are bound to get information on the question of the constitution and the personnel and of the real standing of these people to whom we are handing over the powers which their constitution may give over to other people who have an interest in the matter. On those grounds I suggest to the Prime Minister first of all that this is emphatically a matter upon which the Government can yield to what I believe to be the prevailing desire of both sides of the House, that we shall not be asked to vote upon the second reading before the matter is investigated by a Select Committee. I put that to the Prime Minister and to the Government, and if the Government, before they allow the matter to be investigated by a Select Committee, insist upon the second reading, on the grounds I have stated, for my part I and my friends cannot, and very few members even on that side of the House, I venture to say, feel that they can read the Bill a second time. The principle involved is that the liberties, which all those who to-day are engaged in that industry enjoy, a portion of their economic liberty is to be handed over to the society of whose standing and of whose constitution we know nothing, and as to whose reputation we are singularly lacking in information.

Ek wil net ’n vraag stel aan die Minister. Ek sou graag wil weet of die Wet nie kragteloos gemaak sal word, as boere met 10,000 wingerd stokke nie ondor die bepalinge val nie? Sal dit nie daartoe lei, dat by voorbeeld boere met 40,000 wingerd stokke hul 40,000 stokke onder vier seuns sal verdeel, sodat elk maar net 10,000 sal hê en dus die Wet ontduik? Dit sal ontevrede wynboere maar net die geleentheid gee om die Wet te ontduik. Ek stem in met die voorstel dat die ontwerp voor die tweede lesing na die Selekt Komitee sal verwese word en ek hoop die Minister sal bereid wees dit aan te neem.

It is difficult to appreciate the standpoint of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) because, first of all he said he was anxious to do whatever he could for the wine-industry and now he wants an enquiry, and he seconded the motion of the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) who was sympathetic towards this Bill and urged for a Select Committee. The hon. member then goes on to denounce the principle of control and said it was a Bolshevistic measure.

The Bill.

Is it possible to introduce any other form of control which the hon. member would not also denounce as Bolshevistic? If this Bill is to be passed at all, it is urgent that it should be passed as soon as possible, not only for the sake of the wine farmers, but also for the sake of the trade. I can quite appreciate the standpoint of many members in the House, who would wish for more information, and wish that the matter was investigated by a Select Committee. If it is acceded to that this should go to a Select Committee, I hope that there will be some time limit and that the Select Committee will report as soon as possible. If they did not report within a certain period of time then it would be useless, and it would be playing into the hands of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) who does not want any control at all. I am surprised that he has seconded the motion of the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog). Let us limit the enquiry by the Select Committee to as short a period as possible. We, the co-operative society, have now to make, and are making, provision for turning a good deal of the grape crop to other uses such as dried grapes and raisins, which we are subsidising, and we can only do that if we have control. A great number of our farmers are doing that simply on good faith, but if we have no control, then we would not be able to compensate those people for the sacrifices they are making and much more wine would be made. For these reasons I do hope that if it is sent to a Select Committee, the Committee will report at the earliest possible date.

Meneer Speaker, ek stem met die edelagbare die Eerste Minister ooreen, dat die toestand van die wynindustrie bedenkelik is. Ek het jare gelede voorspel wat sou gaan gebeur, toe die wynko-operasie gestig is en toe dit aan my duidelik geword het dat die ko-operasie sou werk in die rigting van oor-produksie. Die feit is dat sedert 1918, daar 43 persent. meer geproduseer is as toe. En ek het ook keer op keer gewaarskuuw teen die verhoging van die aksynsbelasting. Die aksyns belasting het in die ag jaar dat ek in die Parlement is verhoog geword met 7s. 6d. per gallon, dit wil sê, 1s. per jaar. Dit is een van die oorsake van die bedenklike toestand waarin die wynboerdery vandag is. En dan moet ek die Regering daarvoor blameer, dat die tariewe van vervoer van wyn oor ons spoorweë so hoog is, as die maar gemaak kon word. As jy wyn wil stuur van hier naar die Vrystaat of Natal of Transvaal, moet jy op die allerhoogste skaal betaal. Dit is noodsakelik dat die Regering die boer daarin tegemoet kom. ’n Ander grief van belang teen die Regering is dat hulle nie gevolg gegee het aan die voorstel van die Selekt Komitee van enige jare gelede, wat diep in die wynkwessie gegaan het, ek bedoel die Rooth Komissie, om in die kompounds van Johannesburg aan die kaffers ligte wyn toe te staan. Had die Regering aan die voorstel gevolg gegee, dan sou die toestand vandag beter wees. Ek meen ook dat die onderskeid tussen die douane-belasting op ingevoerde drank te klein is teenoor die aksyns-belasting. As dit nie die geval was nie, dan sou die boer ook nie in die toestand wees waarin hy vandag is nie. Die laaste jaar is daar 400,000 gallons whisky in die Unie ingevoer, en ek glo, die jaar tevore was dit selfs oor die 500,000 gallons. Is dit nie ’n skande nie? As jy in Duitsland, ook vóór die oorlog, na champagne gevra het, dan het hul nie geweet wat dit is nie, En in Frankryk sal jy geen duitse wyn vind nie. Die invoerbelasting aldaar is so hoog gestel, dat dit nie kan word ingevoer rie. Ons het natuurlik ook ’n vyand gehad ’n die kleinhandel. Wat help dit die verbruiker dat die bar 3d. per bottel ontvang, as die kleinhandel in die geleentheid is om dit teen 1s. 6d. te verkoop. Maar, ek kom nou tot die wyn-kooperasie self. Die edelagbare Eerste Minister het gesê, dat deur die invloed van die Kooperasie die pryse van wyn sedert 1917 hoër gewees het. As daar ooit nonsens van daardie kant van die Huis verkoop is, dan is dit nou. Jy kan net so goed sê, dat die wyn-ko-operasie die graanpryse so hoog laat styg het. Wat het die ko-operasie daarmee te doen? Dis net die gevolg van die oorlog gewees, dat die prys so hoog geklim het. Ons het gedurende die oorlog £23, £25 tot £30 vir ons wyn gekry. Dit het niks te doen met ons ko-operasie nie. Al wat die ko-operasie toe gedoen het, is, om sekere minimum-pryse vas te stel. Ons het in die oorlog wyn kan verkoop in Mauritius, die Kongo, Rhodesië en Australië, omdat die vervoer van sterke drank uit Europa destyds verbied was. Daardie markte is nou vir ons gesluit. Dis alleen tengevolge van die oorlog, dat die hoë pryse behaal is. Ek maak verskil net soos die edele lid vir Kaapstad (Kasteel) (de hr. Alexander), tusse die ko-operasie en sy bestuur. Dis aan daardie bestuur te danke dat soveel lede bedank het. Dis hoogs noodsaaklik dat ondersoek ingestel word in die oorsake wat vir die lede daartoe aanleiding gegee het Die Eerste Minister weet dat die tout by die direksie daar lê. Twee lede daarvan het bedank weens wat plaas gevind het, en een van hulle het naar my en andere Volksraads lede gekom en ons gevra om die uiterste te doen om die Wetsontwerp te opponeer. Wat dink ons daarvan? Daar is baie lede van die kooperasie wat graag wil ontslaan wees van die ko-operasie, maar hulle weet nie hoe om dit te bewerk nie. Ek het o.a. ’n brief gehad van een van die vooraanstaande boere in die distrik Stellenbosch, wat skryf, dat die Eerste Minister baie slim is, maar dat hy met die indiening van hierdie Wetsontwerp baie dom is. Meer as een van sulke ontvredenes het die Eerste Minister wil sien, maar hy het vir hulle gesê: “Ek kan nie.” Een van die afgetreë direkteure het dieselfde grief. By ’n menigte boere vind die Wetsontwerp g’n byval nie. Die grootste wynboer in die Paarl distrik is met hart en siel daarteen gekant. Daar is baie lede wat hul wil onttrek van die ko-operasie, maar wat verklaar die statute? Hul kan hul nie onttrek nie of hul moet ’n jaar vooraf kennis gee, en dit help nie om te sê, dat jy bereid is om die 10s. wat jy inbetaal het, maar te verlies nie, jy moet nog die andere 10s. op die aandeel ook betaal. Totdat jy dit gedoen het, is jy mede-aanspreeklik met ander lede in alle verpligtings. Daar is nie vertroue in die oestuur nie by baie lede. Van 1918 tot 1920, het die kooperasie 95 persent van die wynboere tot lede gehad. Hoekom het die aantal geval? Toe was die posisie soos die Minister dit nou wil hê onder die Wetsontwerp. Die bestuur het toe volle beheer gehad oor die wyn en brandewyn-produksie. Het hulle van hul kans ’n sukses gemaak? Regter Gardener het tereg in die Botha-saak verklaar dat die bestuur van die ko: operasie meer gewerk het in die belang van die wynkoper as in die van die wynbouer. Ek hou daar nie van om persoonlik te wees nie, maar in so’n geval moet jy dit wees. In die statute van die ko-operatiewe vereniging staan, jy mag nie ’n kontrak vir verkoop van wyn aangaan vir meer as een jaar nie, tensy die kontrak gemaak was vóór ’n sekere datum—ek glo Juni 1920—en daar het vyf sulke kontrakte gewees. Dis ’n baie belangrike bepaling want anders kan iedereen die wet ontduik. Maar wat is nou die posisie? Meneer Köhler het ’n kontrak gemaak, dat hy kan sy wyn verkoop van 1920 tot 1930 teen ’n besonder hoeë prys, ek glo meer as tien pond. Hy is dus’n bevoorregte persoon teenoor die gewone man. En dis nie alleen die voorsitter van die ko-operasie nie, maar ook ander dierekteure wat sulke kontrakte gemaak het, kontrakte wat hulle uit, sluit van die operasie van die statute. Ek sou drie name kan noem—[Een Edele Lid: “Hoekom hou die lede dan die bestuur nog?”] Ek weet nie of hulle hul kan verset nie. Ek verneem selfs, dat die sekretaris van die kooperasie wyn verkoop buitekant die ko-operasie. Dis kwessies wat ondersoek moet word. Daar is dinge verkeerd. Ek sê nie, dat daar oneerlikheid is nie, maar daar is ’n skroef los. Die blote feit, dat gewese direkteure en oprigters vandag die sterkste opponente van die bestuur is, bewys dat daar iets verkeerd is. As die edele lid vir Worcester (de hr. Heatlie) die moeite wil doen om uit te vind hoeveel lede van die ko-operasie ontevrede is met die wet, sal hy uitvind dat dit nie minder is nie as 50 persent nie. Daarby kom nog die mense wat heeltemal apart is van die ko-operasie. Ministers weet miskien nie veel van die saak af nie, maar ek weet tog dat Mnr. du Preez van die Paarl aan die Eerste Minister ’n brief geskryf het om te vra om sy sienswyse aan die Eerste Minister uiteen te sit.

Ek het geen sodanige brief ontvang nie.

Wel, ek het die korrespondensie in my besit. My vriend, die Eerste Minister, is te eensydig in die saak. Du Preez het belang in die saak en wou sy mening te kenne gee waarom hy teen die Wetsontwerp is. Ek stem in dat daar ’n soort van beheer nodig is, maar waarom sal dit nie ’n onafhanklike raad kan wees nie? Welke objeksie kan daarteen bestaan? Daar was ’n tyd, toe Dr. Jameson die boere tegemoet gekom het; die boere was in dieselfde moeilikheid as nou. Ook die edele lid vir Stellenbosch (de hr. Merriman) het ’n paar jaar later dieselfde gedaan. Ons kan die boere tegemoet kom as ons net ’n voorskot wil gee. Dr. Jameson het die brandewyn gevat en veertien pond per leêr voorgeskiet. Maar so’n stap sal in hierdie geval nie eens nodig wees nie. Dit kan alleen dien as ’n laaste toevlug. Ek reken dis nodig om uit te vind van die wynkopers en die kooperasie of dit nodig is, dat die Regering tussenbeide kom. Dit is net so min in die belang van die boer as van die wynkoper, dat die wyn op die mark gegooi word. Dus hulle sal sorg dat dit nie gebeur nie. As ’n Gekose Komitee aangstel word, sal gou uitgevind word dat die wyn bewaar kan word. Vir die vrees wat daar uitgespreek is dat die surplus wyn op die mark gesmyt sal word, bestaan g’n grond nie. Mense sal nie so dom wees om £6 of £8 vir wyn te betaal en dan toe te laat dat dit uitgegooi word nie. In alle geval, laat daar ’n Gekose Komitee aangestel word wat op daardie kwessie die nodige lig kan werp. Die getuienis moet vernaamlik ingewin word van die egte wynboere. Die doel van die wetsontwerp is om non-lede te forseer om lede te word, want wat sou ’n non-lid van die ko-operasie-bestuur kan verwag? Wanneer so’n non-lid vra om sy wyn te bestook, sal die antwoord lui: “Ons het nog geen voorsiening gemaak vir lede nie en jy moet wag.” Hy moet dan kies of hy lid sal word of bankrot gemaak word, en maak ek applikasie, dan word daar allerlei dinge uitgegee, want hulle het die reg om misstof te vervaardig, winkelbesigheid te dryf, assuransie en ander dinge te onderneem. Hulle kan klubs stig met die doel persone te bevoordeel, die vroeër in diens van die Maatskappy was.

Word daar tans van die dinge gedaan?

Ja, hulle het ’n gebou opgerig wat hoegenaamd van geen nut is nie. Die man is dus moeg en kies dus om te bedank en bankrot verklaar te word. Hy moes tien sjielings betaal om lid te word; hy vind dit onmoontlik om lid te bly, maar moet weer tien betaal om daar uit te kom. Hulle het op die manier al veel geld van die arme boere gekry. Daar is ’n seker artiekel wat lui, dat volstrek geen kontrakte met kopers aangegaan mag word vir meer as een oes nie, met uitsondering van sodanige kontrakte as wat voor of op 30 Junie 1922, afgeslote was Die voorzitter, die hr. Köhier, het ’n kontrak gemaak met Green vir tien jaar, dat hy geen wyn kan verkoop vir minder as ’n bepaalde mienimum prys nie wat uitwerk op £14 die lêer. Die hr. Piet Roux het ook ’n kontrak aangegaan in dieselfde sin. Ek wil net aantoon wat die mense beteken vir kooperasie. Hoewel ek instem met die lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) en die Eerste Minister, stem ek ook in met honderde wynboere dat die bestuur onbetroubaar is en nie die mag moet kry, wat die Regering voorstel om aan hulle te gee nie. Dit word gesê dat so’n grote persentasie van wynboere aan die ko-operasis behoort, maar ek is verwonder dat dit nie insluit die wynboere van Piquetberg en ander min of meer afgelee distrikte nie. Dit lyk of die boere van b.v. Graaff-Reinet en die vergeleë plekke opsetlik uitgesluit is, en of net die persone hier om die Kaap ingeneem word Ek kan verstaan waarom die lede van verafgeleë distrikte uitgesluit is. As ’n boer uit Uitenhage of daar erens wil stook, moet hy skryf aan die ko-operasie en vra: mag ek stook, mag ek my wyn fortifiseer met brandewyn? Die wyn wat gemaak word moet gis en ’n proses deurgaan voordat dit vir konsumpsie gereed is. Dus die teenwoordige wynoes sal eers in April gestook kan word. Daar is dus geen haas vir wetgewing nodig nie. Daar is baie tyd, voordat die mense die wyn kan verkoop.

Hulle kan nou die druiwe opkoop vir die wyn.

Daar is geen haas nodig nie en in die tussentyd kan daar kontrakte aangegaan word, maar dit sou nou ook gedaan kon geword het.

Dan doen hulle dit met ope oë. Die Wet moet eers aangeneem word.

Ons wil nie die Wet aanneem nie—[Een Edele Lid: “Ons sal hom aanneem.”] Die Wet is nie nodig, voordat die drank gestook word nie, maar daar kan te enige tyd kontrakte aangegaan word. Buitendien sit die Senaat pas weer 25 Februarie, dus daar is geen haas nie. Dit lyk of die Regering haastig is en miskien is hulle bang daar sal opposiesie gemaak word en hulle sal ’n ander oplossing as wat hulle nou voorstel moet omweg. Hulle wil seker bepaalde vriende van hulle beskerm of hulle is bang daar sal dinge uitkom wat nie in hulle kraam pas nie. As die vriende op die Regeringsbanke eerlik wil wees teenoor die boer, moet hulle erken daar is geen haas nie, en wag op die getuienis voor ’n Gekose Komitee. Daar moet kans gegee word, dat al die feite en omstandighede behoorlik gesif word. Die hr. Thiel, wat ’n deskundige is, voorspel dat as hierdie Wet aangeneem word, sal dit die wynboer meer kwaad as goed doen.

Hy gee niks aan die hand nie.

Maar is die vriende dan bang vir die getuienis?

Maar dan moet jy vir die tweede lesing stem.

Onder die omstandighede sal ek teen die Wet stem.

Ek is bly dat die edelachtbare die Eerste Minister sy kop in hierdie byenes gesteek het. Dit spyt my dat ek iets moet sê oor die direksie van die wynboere ko-operasie. Die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. De Waal) het te kenne gegee dat die Eerste Minister gesê het dat die prys van wyn na benede gegaan ’t tengevolge van die kooperasie. Ek moet hier verklaar dat in 1917 mens wyn kon koop vir £2 10s., die lêer en geen maand later nie, toe kry ek £4, tengevolge van die aansluit by die ko-operasie. Ek wens hom daaraan te herinner dat dit kort daarna £5 was en in 1919, £13.

Dit was in die oorlogs tyd.

Ek moet in herinnering bring dat die oorlog begin het in 1914 en die edele lid ’n bietjie in die war is met sy jaar talle. Ek wens ’n bietjie in die geskiedenis in te gaan van die wyn-boere ko-operasie, want die is nie meer as reg nie. Nadat ons gekoopereer het en dit so goed gegaan het, het ons in 1921 die kontróle van die mark verloor. Ek is seker dat toe dit £15 was, het die direksie gesê: “dit is te hoog,” maar die wynkopers het gesê: “laat ons staan” en dit was die oorsaak van die dislokasie. Toe het die geldelike moeilikhede begin. My vriende dink Jat alles die skuld is van die direksie, maar ek gee die versekering dat dit is omdat die boere agteraf verkoop het uit die ko-operasie aan kopers dat nie aan die geaffilieerde kopers behoort het nie. Lede kan wynboere maar self gaan vra en ek kan die Huis die versekering gee, dat baie lede van die ko-operasie, boere wat vroeger lede was van die ko-operasie, ontrou het geword en agteraf hul wyn het verkoop. Ons het die ene proses na die ander gehad—

Wie het gewin?

Ons het die ene proses agter die andere verloor. Ek kan die Huis verseker, dat die fout gelê het by die lede self wat van die ko-operasie het weg gegaan. Die moeilikheid was toe die Kommissie aangestel was, toen het twee lede geweier om sig by die meerderheid neer te lê. Ek weet nie of die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. De Waal) dit as demokraties beskou? Die edele lid het verder gegaan hier en hy het hier name van manne genoem, manne wat lede was van die direksie en wat hul wyn verkoop het vir £10 per legger, onder kontrak. Ek wil die Huis vertel, dat lede wat hul wyn vir £10 verkoop het het £6 opgegee aan die vereniging vir kontributie en later het hul £4 opgegee. Daardie lede van die direksie wat hul wyn onder kontrak het verkoop het nie oneerlik gehandel—glad nie, en as elkeen gehandel had soos hul gehandel het dan sou daar geen noodsaaklikheid gewees het vir die Eerste Minister om wetgewing in te bring. Maar die wynkopers het hul best gedoen om ons ko-operasie op te breek; daar was ’n seker firma wat briewe uitgestuur het en hul het gesê ons moet wyn hier aan die kant van die berg, hier in die Westelike Prowinsie, koop vir £4. En wat is die posisie met die mense aan die ander kant van die berg? Die posisie is dat hul hul wyn maar kan laat uitloop. Dis moontlik, dat daar foute gemaak is; lede van die direksie het miskien foute gemaak; iedereen maak foute, maar hul het die beste bedoeling gehad vir die industrie. Self die grootste besigheids mense maak foute, en hul staan nie alleen. Ek is ’n wynboer en ek weet baie van ko-operasie en van die vereniging af en ek sê daar is me rede nie om modder te gooi op die lede van die direksie. Hul is “gentlemans” en hul verdien nie om op die manier geblameer te wora. Ek kan die Huis die versekering gee, dat as die Regering, die Eerste Minister ooit ’n goeie ding het gedoen, hy dit nu het gedoen deur hierdie Wet in te bring, en ons sal hom dankbaar wees vir die manier waarop hy ons nu kom help. Die wyn industrie het altyd maar die pak perd gewees van alle Regerings. Ons het nie by die Regering gekom om vir geld of andere hulp te vra, ons het nie gekom om vir hulp te vra soos ander industries gedoen het—as ons so gedoen het sou daar baie rede gewees het vir die Regering om ons te help: maar al wat ons gevra het is “help vir ons, sodat ons vir ons self kan help,” en ek vertrou dat die Regering sal aangaan en hierdie Wet sal deurdryf. Ek kan die Huis verseker, dat ons nie tyd het om te verkwis, ons tyd kom nader; ons druiwe word ryp, en boere wil weet wat hul daarmee gaat maak, of hul rosyntjies gaat maak of wat. Ek hoop die Eerste Minister sal nie die raad van die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) opvolg en dat hy nie die Wet na ’n Selekt Komitee vir die tweede lesing sal stuur. Ons weet wat dan sal gebeur, dit sal maar net oponthoud beteken. Vandag is alles droog, maar die reëns sal net nou kom, en as ons swaar reëns kry dan sal ons druiwe bederf en ons sal groot verliese ly. Ek hoop die Eerste Minister sal sy moed in sy hande vat en dat hy die Wet sal deur dryf.

I think every member of this House is in favour of doing all he can to further industries, more particularly one of the largest industries in this country. We are, however, creating a precedent in this Bill which I for one do not like. I am afraid it will reflect on all our future legislation, and unless we get some safeguards it will be difficult for us to vote with the Prime Minister and get the second reading through. I appeal to him either to promise safeguards or that he agrees that the Bill go to a Select Committee. The hon. member who has just sat down thinks it necessary to get the Bill through in the shortest possible period. That may be his point of view, but if we passed the Bill through without proper enquiry it will have little effect on the country, and before the season is well advanced he will be sorry he forced it through. Some of us who have come into contact with the different interests have to admit there are few of them in any way reasonable, but as far as the wine merchants are concerned I can give the House the assurance they are in this matter exceedingly reasonable; they have no grievance, and they are even prepared to allow the second reading to go through and to support the principles provided that certain safeguards are given. Of the farmers who spoke here to-day, not one of them gave any assurance, and they did not show that reasonableness expected of them, especially when one section of the community also interested is so reasonable. They are agreeable to have the second reading go through but they ask far safeguards thereafter to protect their interests. For this purpose I appeal to the Minister to allow the Bill to go to a Select Committee. One big point, an objection against the co-operative society, is that one section of the people interested is going to control the whole industry. There is no appeal from their decision and, rightly or wrongly—I am not expressing my own opinion—there is a very large section of the people in this country very strongly opposed to the co-operative society as it is constituted to-day. When talking with big farmers, small farmers and merchants, and some scientific men, I find they have very few good words for the co-operative society; they think if the regulations are to be such as suggested in the Bill they will fail badly. It should not be left to the people who have not the confidence of the whole farming community to frame, but should be in the form of a schedule to the Bill. Do the farmers realize that on the decision of the co-operative societies depends whether or not they are going to have perpetual servitudes on their farms? The general feeling is that if the Government would appoint a committee allowing half to be wine farmers and the other half merchants, with a chairman appointed by the Government, all concerned would be quite satisfied. All they ask is that the whole issue shall not be left in the hands of these people. Rightly or wrongly, they are dissatisfied to-day. We make 145,000 or 150,000 leaguers of wine per annum, while the consumption in the Union is 80,000 to 90,000 leaguers, which means we are at the present paying for 140,000 leaguers to consume 80,000, and with the regular increasing production this means that at the end of three years we shall be led into a most serious position, for the surplus will be enormous; and what are we going to do then? I regret to say that I differ from the Prime Minister when he states that the farmer is not likely to increase his production of brandy, knowing of the likely surplus. These men are not producing brandy but wine, and the merchant is tied by the price fixed by the co-operative society. He will not continue to buy all the wine made and the farmer will then want more protection. As it is at present one and a half million sterling has to be put aside, and before long that will cause great trouble. Brandy must be three years old before it is sold, and this million and a half the merchants will not pay for. As they did in the past they will do in the future, and make the public pay. The whole of the community will have to suffer for the farmers who make bad wine, and what are we going to gain by it? I do not think that the Prime Minister has been properly instructed by those farmers who gave him information, for I have been told by scientific men that our wines are too heavy and full-blooded to be turned into brandy; they say that the cognac type made from very “thin” wines is very quickly matured. If, therefore, we are to have matured brandy we must have a proportion of pot-still, but pot-still brandy, after three years, is not fit for use and only good for blending brandy. I am not giving you my own opinion but what experts have told me. We find that the co-operative society has set aside two million gallons of this class of spirits which cannot be improved even in the best wood. What are we going to do with this? These scientific men tell me there is no use in rectified spirits and there is no good to the trade to produce pot-still brandy; only, therefore, we must define the percentage of pot-still brandy which should be contained in brandy for consumption. Bad wine reflects more in pot-still than in any other. I think that the reasons I have given are sufficient to prove we should have a Select Committee to deal with this matter. The experts who have spoken to me are men—not farmers or merchants, but scientific men—who are prepared to give evidence before the Select Committee, and their testimony would be of great benefit to us. I put this to the House as we are not in a position to do anything until we get the evidence of these men. We press to have pot-still brandy left for maturing and it does not mature, and we press also for cognac brandy to be left for maturing when it is matured after proper manufacture. In this regard I would like to quote to you evidence given by Messrs. Martell, Hine and De la Main in their evidence before the Royal Commission on Whisky and Other Potable Spirits, namely—

They were not giving evidence for their own good but in the interests of the cognac industry. I want to appeal to the Prime Minister to send the Bill to a Select Committee. I am trusting he will do so, and I am running the risk of not saying all I should wish to say in the hope that he will consider the very strong desire from all parts of the House that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee.

Ek wilnie die indruk gee, dat omdat in my afdeling daar geen wynboere is nie, ek daarom nie simpatie het nie met die wynboere en met hul posisie. Ons het die grootste simpatie. Maar ons het hier te doen met ’n baje belangryke wet, ’n wet wat verder gaan as ’n sosialistiese wet sou doen. ’n Sosialis sou vra dat daar kontrole sou wees oor sekere dinge, kontrole deur die Regering, maar hier word ons gevra om absoluut kontrole te gee deur ’n privaat maatskappy. Ek weet baje van ko-operatiewe maatskappye en ek is baje ten gunste van kooperasie. Ek het van my besté jare aan ko-operasie gegee en ek voel baje vir mense wat ko-operatiewe vereniginge wil oprig, maar hier gaat ons ’n beginsel invoer wat ons in die toekoms op ’n pad sal bring van wat ons nie weet waar die sal uitloop. Die feit dat ons hier te doen het met ’n baje moeilik en baje ingewikkelde vraagstuk word bewys hieruit, dat die Eerste Minister self hierdie wet ingebring het, dat hyself hierdie saak op sy skouers geneem het. Die Eerste Minister het uit sy pad gegaan om die saak hier op te bring. Hoekom het die Minister vir Landbouw weg gehardloop? Hoekom kan hy nie die kwessie invoer. Is hy bang dat hy onpopulair sal word onder die wynboere wat hy verteenwoordig? Die feit dat die Eerste Minister dit ingevoer het bewys dat dit ’n ingewikkelde saak is, wat diep op dinge ingaan; ons word hier gevra om kontrole to oorhandig aan ’n sekere vereniging, maar die eerste ding wat ’n mens daar moet hê is dat die vereniging die vertroue en die goedkeuring sal hê van die betrokke mense, en nietteenstaande wat die edele lid vir Ladismith (de hr. Jordaan) gesê het, sê ek dat die Wynboere Ko-operatiewe Vereniging vandag nie die volle vertroue besit van die wynboere. Daar is baje wat aan die Kooperatiewe Vereniging behoor, maar hul behoor daaraan omdat hul nie weet nie hoe om uit te kom. Ek wil hier op één punt wys. Die edele lid vir Ladismith (de hr. Jordaan) het gesê, dat die ko-operasie wyn in prys opgejaag het, maar die moeilikheid was, dat die wynboere nie kan belet het nie, dat die pryse van wyn buite alle verhouding opgegaan het. Dit bewys dat die direksie wat die kontrole gehad het, dieselfde direksie, het verlede jaar heeltemaal stil gesit en hul het nie geprobeer om iets te doen en hul het die markt heeltemaal bederf. Dis dieselfde direksie wat dit gedoen het. En nou word ons gevra om dieselfde mense te beskerm wat in die verlede aansprakelik was vir wat toen gebeur het—dis daardie mense wat daarvoor verantwoordlik was, dat ’n sleg klasse van wyn in die land op die markte gekom het. Daar is baje boere in Caledon, Stellenbosch, Paarl en daarlangs wat goeie klasse wyn maak, en hul kry £6 vir hul wyn, dis die nominale waarde, maar hul moet £3 aan die Ko-operasie gee; maar die man wat agter die Berg sit, hy kan die wyn maar laat uitloop; ek sê dat wat gebeur het ’n aanmoediging is vir die produksie van die laagste klasse en laagste kwaliteit van wyn. As ons gevra word om sulke magte, sulke drastiese magte te gee aan ’n vereniging, dan het hierdie Huis die reg om te eis, dat daar eers ’n ondersoek sal ingestel word om te sien of daardie mense bekwaam en in staat is om te doen wat van hul sal gevra word. Ons in die Transvaal het ook ko-operatiewe vereniginge. Die Eerste Minister het vir ons gesê, dat baje van daardie vereniginge bankrot gegaan het. Dis so—die posisie van die ko-operatiewe vereniginge is toe te skrywe aan die ontrouheid van lede. Ons weet wat in die Transvaal gebeur het. Sal die Minister ons die reg gee om aan die direkteure van ons miele ko-operasie te sê teen welke prys hul ons mielies moet verkoop? Ek dink dis ’n baje ongelukkige posisie as ’n ko-operasie soos hierdie nie in staat is op sy eie voete te staan. As die vereniging dit nie kan doen nie, dan het hy nie reg van bestaan nie. Daar is baje punte in die Wetsontwerp wat my nie duidelik is nie. Die man wat buite die ko-operasie staan kan sy wyn nie vir die doel om brandewyn te maak verkoop nie, sonder die toestemming van die kooperasie. Wat dan as die ko-operasie weier om hom toestemming te gee? En sal die kooperasie dan nie voorkeur geen aan sy eie lede bo andere? Die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. De Waal) het gesê dat die ko-operasie 2 miljoen gallons brandewyn besit, maar my informatie is, dat hul 1½ miljoen besit. Is dit nie redelik nie om aan te neem dat hul in die eerste plaas hul eie brandewyn van die hand sal set? Die wet vir ons is baje drasties, dis baje drasties om sekere mense te dwing om onder die beheer van ’n vereniging van boere te kom. Wet volgens my mening verkeerd is met hierdie wet is dat die naam van die ko-operatiewe vereniging hier genoem word. Die naam behoor glad nie genoem te word nie. Dit behoor iets algemeen te wees. Dit behoor enige ko-operasie te wees wat 75 percent van die wynboere verteenwoordig, en as daar persone is wat nie wens aan te gaan met die bestaande ko-operasie en wens ’n ander ko-operasie op te rig, dan sal die Minister die reg hê die magte aan hul te gee wat onder hierdie wet is, maar vandag gee ons die magte net aan één persoonlikheid en ek meen dis nie billik nie. Daar is baje ander dinge wet ek teen hierdie Wetsontwerp kan sê. Mens kan vra “ja, maar wat ander uitkoms is daar?” Volgens my mening is daar meer as één ding wat gedoen kan word. Hoekom kan ons nie die invoer van sterke dranke in hierdie land verbied nie? Hoekom kan ons dit nie heeltemaal verbied nie? Hoekom kan daar nie groter fasiliteite geskaf word vir die verbruik van ons eie drank in die land? Die Minister het gepraat van die surplus van wyn. Ek meen dat die kwessie een van te weinig verbruik is. Ons het ’n groot bevolking, maar ons mense het nie die reg om net so veel drank te drink as hul wil. Selfs ’n beskaafde witman kan nie in ’n restaurant in gaan en vra om ’n klein bottel ligte wyn. Vat daardie beperkinge weg en dan sal hierdie wet nie vereist word nie. Ek sê dat as enige ander kombinasie, sê byvoorbeeld die graanboere om drastiese wetgewing van hierdie aard sou gevra het, dan sou dit geweier word. As dit bewys sou kan word deur grondig ondersoek dat hierdie wet nodig was, dan sou mens daar nie so sterk op teen wees. Ek sê, dat die enige manier om die kwessie op te los is om mense die geleentheid te gee om voor ’n komitee te verskyn, mense wat in die kwessie betrokke is en daar kan hul onder kruisverhoor geneem word. Ek wil die mense wat belang by die saak het die geleentheid geeom gehoor te word. As daar ’n kans is om hul posisie te verbeter deur wetgewing van hierdie aard, laat hul dit dan kom sê. Onder die omstandighede hoop ek, dat die Minister die voorstel van die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) sal aanneem om die wet na ’n Selekt Komitee te verwys vóór die tweede lezing.

I represent a section of the wine growers of Constantia which is utterly opposed to this Bill. I want to make it clear that the wine growers of Constantia do not fall within the definition of “scabs.” They are people who for the most part make pure wine, superior wine, not made for the purpose of distillation, but for consumption as wine, and they, and their fathers before them, in most cases, have been engaged in making good wine for many years. They do not directly come under this Bill, because the Bill does net directly refer to the makers of good wine. The Bill deals merely with distilling wines. But what they feel convinced of is this. That if this Bill is passed the inevitable consequence will be that they will be placed entirely at the mercy of the Wine Growers’ Association. If you take the powers that are given under this Bill to the Wine Growers’ Association you will see that it would enable them virtually to dictate to everyone, and they would be able to dictate, for example, to the wine merchants. The wine merchants would not be able to buy from any people upon whom the association places its ban. They will be so bound that they will not deal with people except such as are allowed to sell through or by means of this association. They say that their interests are not the interests of this association, because they have no confidence in the directors of the association and they have been long fighting the Wine Growers’ Association. When they were induced originally to join this association they say that they were told they would not be brought under the surplus provision—that there was no intention to interfere with people who made good wine in the sense of wine not for distillation. That was the position when they joined the association, and on the strength of that they joined. A dispute arose between them and the association. The association endeavoured to make them subject to these conditions with regard to the surplus—that they would be bound to place at the disposal of the association a certain proportion of the proceeds of their wine for the purposes of the association. We know that surplus has been used largely to subsidize those distilling wine. Yet the association endeavoured to force them to submit to these provisions, and the consequence was that there was litigation between them and the association. A test case was fought in which they fought that position and they succeeded. It was held that on the constitution of this association they were not subject to the provision, that it did not apply to the makers of good wine. That case went to appeal and the decision was upheld on appeal. What has happened since then? The Co-operative Act came into force last year and advantage has been taken of it radically to alter the constitution of the Wine Growers’ Association, and the alteration has been made amongst other things, in that very respect concerning which these people successfully fought in the courts, and the association is now seeking to hold them down to the constitution differing in this respect from the constitution under which they joined. They are not only bound to the altered constitution, but they are bound when they seek to resign. I have here letters in which they ask to be allowed to resign and to transfer their shares, and they are not allowed to resign. One clause of the Bill provides that when the Bill comes into operation it will come into operation, when the Minister is satisfied that 75 per cent, of the wine growers are members of the association. I can see no useful purpose in a provision of that sort when people who want to resign find obstacles being placed in their way. There is a dispute at the present time as to what their rights are in regard to resignations and the transfer of their shares. These matters are very much in dispute at the present moment and I suppose, in due course, the dispute will come to a head, but really, if this Bill is passed in its present form, the constitution will make very little difference and litigation will make-very little difference, because the wine growers will be put in the position by which these people will be compelled to submit to its provisions. In the past, when the association and the wine merchants were working in unison, there were provisions under the compact and arrangements were made between the two bodies under which the merchants were not to be allowed to buy from anyone except from the association, and the association did not recognize the sale by any wine grower unless he made it through them. So they were absolutely tied up, and in all probability we shall have similar arrangements-entered into again if this association were put in the predominant position in which it will be put if the Bill, in its present form, is passed. These fears they entertain are not illusory fears or ill-founded. As you can see, a statement was made of the merchants’ case in the Cape Times of this morning’s date, in which the following appears—

That indicates clearly that the wine merchants feel that the position of this association, which represents only a section of the industry, is going to be made so powerful that it will be able to control the entire situation and dictate its own terms to the merchants to whom they sell their wine. If the wine growers can dictate to the merchants, well then there is no prospect of these people finding a market for their product unless they submit to the conditions imposed by the association which they have been holding at arms length all this time and against whom they have been carrying on this fight. At this stage I think it will be convenient if I move the adjournment of the debate. I therefore move—

seconded.

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 8th February.