brought up the Report of the Select Committee on the South African Society of Accountants (Private) Bill, reporting the Bill with amendments.

Bill to be read a second time on 4th April.

laid upon the Table—

Schedule referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

Ek stel voor—

Ek sal kort wees. Dieselfde voorstel was verléde jaar al voor die Huis. Ons het toe nie tot stemming gekom nie, alhoewel ons die saak tamelik breedvoerig bespreek het. Ek denk dat die argumente nog in die geheue van die lede van die Huis sal wees. Dit is die plig van enige Regering om die produkte van die land te beskerm sover as dit in hulle vermoë is, en ons Regering, by monde van die Eerste Minister, het verlede jaar gesê dat hulle baie sterk ten gunste van proteksie was. Hulle het dit bewys deur wat hulle gedoen het vir die superfosfate, die fabriekate op Somerset. Hulle het die plaaslik vervaardigde superfosfate beskerm selfs ten koste van die boere. Ek vra dat hulle die beginsel van proteksie in hierdie geval ook op die wynboere sal toepas. Ek dink, dat ek die ondersteuning van alle kante van die Huis kan vra. Veral kan ek daarop aan spraak maak, omdat ek onthou wat die uitgesproke gevoelens van die Huis op daardie onderwerp verlede jaar was. Toe was die edele lid vir Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell) een van die warmste ondersteuners van die voorstel. Ek verwag dat ons sy ondersteuning weer sal hê, saam met die van alle andere lede aan sy kant van die Huis. Ons het in die land baie oorproduksie gehad van wyn—ek meen één derde was oorproduktie. Omtrent 50,000 lêers het die vorige jaar moet vernietig word om die industrie te red. Dit het ons uit die mond van die Minister van Finansiesgehoor. Dis wel waar, dat daar hierdie jaar nie so’n groot oorproduksie sal wees nie, te dank aan die skroeiende son. Baie druiwe is verniel. Hierdie jaar sal ons waarskynlik net maar 50 of 60 persent kry van die produksie van verlede jaar. Maar dit is iets abnormaals. Aanstaande jaar sal ons wel weer net so’n surplus in wyn hê as verlede jaar. Ek wil nou net wys wat die invoerregte en die aksyns hier in Suid-Afrika is in vergelyking met die in Engeland. Op wynbrandewyn is ons aksyns hier 12s. 6d. per proefgallon; op druiwebrandewyn 17s. 6d. en op dop 22s. 6d. Op whisky is die invoerbelasting 37s. 6d. Oppervlakkig beskou, lyk dit asof ons ’n billike voorkeur gee aan die binnelandse produk. Dit is egter nie die geval nie. Ons invoerbelasting op whisky is nie so groot as die aksyns in Engeland nie. Die aksyns op whisky in Engeland is 72s. 6d., dus 35s. per proefgallon meer as by ons. Al wat ek vra, is dat ons die invoerbelasting op whisky gelyk sal maak met wat die aksyns daarop in Engeland is. Ek dink dis billik genoeg. Engeland sal dan nie kan kla nie. Daar sal geen aanleiding vir weerwraak in hierdie geval wees nie. Engeland se invoerregte op onse brandewyn beloop £3 16s. 4d., terwyl onse invoerbelasting op whisky 37s. 6d. is. So is hulle invoerbelasting op onse produk ongeveer 36s. hoer as ons invoerbelasting op hulle s’n. Ons het verlede jaar 334,000 gallons whisky ingevoer;: die vorige jaar 334,000, die jaar vantevore 439,000, en in 1920, 521,000 gallons. Wat sal dit beteken vir Suid-Afrika as ons drinkers almal brandewyn sou gebruik in plaas van al daardie whisky? Dit sal gesê word, waarskynlik, dat Engeland ons op ons wyn voorkeur gee. Maar ons moet onthou, dat daar in Engeland geen wyn geproduseer word nie. Waar hulle ons ’n voorkeur gee op ons wyn van onder 30 persent proef spiritus, kom dit uit op slegs 1s. 6d. per gallon, dus trippens die bottel. Wat betref die wyn wat van die vasteland van Europa afkomstig is, daarop is die invoerbelasting in Engeland wel hoer as op ons s’n, maar die pryse baie goedkoper. Die wyn uit Frankryk en Spanje word dus in Engeland goedkoper ingevoer as ons s’n. Die invoerbelasting op brandewyn in Engeland is £3 5s. 4d., wanneer in vate en £3 16s. 4d. wanneer in bottels. Die afslag ten gunste van die Kaapse produkte is in hierdie geval slegs 2s. 6d., dus omtrent 3 persent. Dit is niks. Selfs as ons die 3 persent aftrek, is die Engelse invoerbelasting hoër as wat my voorstel die invoerbelasting op whisky wil maak. Ek dink dit is nie meer as billik dat ons die belasting dieself de maak op whisky as hulle belasting op onse brandewyn. Ek wil graag dat die saak tot stemming kom, en ek vertrou dat daar geen beswaar sal wees nie.

Ek sekondeer. Laaste jaar was ek verantwoordelik vir die inbring van so ’n mosie voor die Huis, maar wat moes verdaag word, omdat daar nie genoeg belangstelling was in die saak nie. Die wynboere het rede om te kla oor die houding van lede en met name oor diesulke, wat hulle sogenaamd vertegenwoordig. Dit is ’n ongehoorde toestand dat ons skotse whisky belas met 37s., waar dit in Engeland belas is met 72s., sodat onse wynboere krepeer en die skotse fabrikante floreer. Hoewel ek geen wynboer is nie, voel ek vir hulle belange, want ek is self ’n boer en of dit nou ’n tabaksboer is, ’n koringboer of veeboer, onse belange is identiek en waar die een se belange op die spel staan, moet ons mekaar te hulp kom. En terwyl die wynboere wyn moet laat uitloop om die industrie te red, moet ons, waar verbetering aangebring kan word, dit doen. Die wynindustrie is een van die oudste in Suid-Afrika en word hier ingevoer deur die mense, wat die beskawing hier geplant het. Laat die lede maar ’n bietjie rond gaan in die westelike Kolonie, dan sal hulle die ou stewige geboue wat daar gestel is deur die mense, wat die eerste kerke en skole hier gebou en baie vir opvoeding gedaan het, sien. Dit is ’n treurige posiesie deur dat die produk nie van die hand geset kan word nie. Buitendien gee hulle werk aan ’n groot aantal mense en as hulle ten onder gaan, sal die werkeloosheid ook sterk toeneem. Dit is die plig van die Huis om hulle te help, viral teen die buiteland. Dit is baie karig dat ons net 3 persent voorkeur kry; hoemeer ons die invoer stop hoemeer sal die gebruik van wyn toeneem. Dit sal ’n blye dag wees, as ons volk ook, soas die van Frankryk, Italië en Portugal wyn gaan drink en nie brandewyn nie. Die dronkenskap sal afneem en sulke nonsens as plaatselike keus en dies meer sal nie meer van gehoor word nie.

The hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) did me the honour of alluding to me when moving his motion, and mentioned the fact that when a motion of similar import was brought to a vote some two years ago, the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Stuart) and myself voted for that motion, and asked for my support to-day. At that time I was disposed to support the idea of his motion which then was the total prohibition of the import of spirits into this country. Before I go into the merits of this present proposal, I want to say a word or two on the fact that this matter has been brought before the House for the third time. Hon. members will remember that I was scolded by the leader of the Nationalist Party for bringing up the Local Option Bill after it had been defeated in this House the year previously. [Interruption.] The hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal), who interrupts me, will remember that it was principally through him that it was not brought to a vote in 1922. It was through his nefarious activity that a vote was prevented from being arrived at, but this year, despite the resumption of those nefarious activities on his part, a vote was arrived at. As I was, saying, when interrupted. I was reprimanded by the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) for having the temerity again to bring forward a measure of that sort before the House, but the opponents of local option seem to consider that although it is temerity for us to bring a Local Option Bill before the House a second time—a measure upon which there was such a close division of opinion—still it is not temerity for the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) to bring his motion before the House, following its defeat last year. Personally, I do not think the argument applies either way. If an hon. member thinks the House should adopt a certain principle advocated by him, he should be perfectly at liberty to continue to bring it before the House until he carries it. I hope next year, when we bring forward our Local Option Bill, that we shall not be hindered or impeded by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) from bringing it to a vote.

It was beaten last year.

We were beaten last year by a few votes, and we were beaten this year by two votes, but we hope to be successful next year. Whatever merits were to be found in the motion on this subject which the hon. member has moved in past years, I have been unable to discover those merits in this particular motion this afternoon. In past years he brought forward a motion in favour of absolute prohibition of the import into this country of any spirituous liquor, and it appeared to me at first blush that this suggestion would recommend itself to any friend of temperance in this House, although my hon. friend did not bring it in with that motive. This particular motion, however, says that the Government should take into consideration the advisability of placing on wine and spirit a duty not lower than the excise on those drinks in their country of origin. A more fantastic proposition has never come before this House. I must say I regard the hon. member as being peculiarly happy in his choice of a day for bringing forward such a motion. What does he say, this apostle of “selfstandigheid,” this apostle of “onafhankelikheid”? He says that we are, in South Africa, to place a duty on whisky which shall be the same as the excise duty placed on whisky in England; we are to place, in South Africa, a duty on French wines which is to be the same as excise on French wines in France. In other words, our Minister of Finance is to take his orders as to the imposition of an import duty into this country from the Governments of England, France, Spain or Portugal. So much for the spirit of “selfstandigheid” which animates the breast of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal). Try and imagine what would happen. The right hon. the Minister of Finance, in pursuance of instructions conveyed in this resolution, will put an import duty on whisky of 72s. per gallon, and will base his estimates on that for the current year. A month after this has been done the excise in England is reduced to 60s., and, automatically, I suppose, the import duty on whisky into this country will be reduced to 60s.

Nonsense!

The same thing would happen with regard to the excise on French wines and French brandies. I am not a particular friend of the liquor trade, but I say quite frankly that so long as that trade is licensed by the State, and as long as by popular vote, we do not put an end to that trade in whole or in part, it has the same right to equal treatment as the rest of the commercial community. What would be the position of a person engaged in the liquor trade? He is told that one month the import duty on whisky he has to face, is 72s. per gallon, and that next month or the month afterwards, because of something which happened in England, not in this country, and because of something which this Parliament has no control over, that duty is decreased to 60s., or perhaps increased, if they increase the excise in Great Britain. He is told that he has to face an excise duty on French brandy, which is the same as that applying to-day in France; to-morrow it may be greater, or it may be less, but he has to pay the same. I do not care what trade we take, I am perfectly certain that no kind of trade in the world can stand up under conditions of instability like that, and I am perfectly certain that the estimates of revenue of the Government could never be framed with any degree of accuracy if this motion of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) is carried. I ask the hon. member this question: What is there peculiar to the wine trade to demand this special and this unique form of protection? Why is it only in regard to wine and spirits that we are to impose an import duty the same as the excise in the country of origin? Why should it not be done in the case of cigarettes, or in the case of boots and shoes, if there is an excise on boots and shoes in the country of origin? Why should this particular industry be singled out for this peculiarly unscientific form of protection? I feel that the House has already done its duty this session by the wine farmers. This House passed a Bill unusual in many of its features, and open to grave criticism in many of its provisions, which gave protection to the wine industry in the crisis through which it was then going, and I want to say that those who represent the cause of temperance in this House, studiously refrained from any sort of opposition or obstruction to that measure going through. We held our peace and refrained because we recognise that until prohibition does come in this country, or at least partial prohibition by local option, then the wine industry must be treated as a legitimate industry and receive a fair measure of protection. So I say we held our peace, and allowed that measure to go through unobstructed and practically without criticism from our side. What was our reward for that? Our reward was the tactics of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) and his colleague the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager). They did everything in their power to obstruct the Local Option Bill, not by fair and open debate in this House, but by endeavouring to hinder the second reading of the measure and prevent it coming to a vote.

We came to an agreement.

An agreement I am not aware of any agreement; the only agreement I am aware of is this, that I was told on the resumption of the second reading debate that if I would refrain from replying to the arguments which had been used that afternoon by the opposition, we should come to a vote.

And the hon. member agreed.

And I was told that if I did not so agree to refrain, the matter would be talked out if we remained here till midnight. This is the only sort of agreement I knew. We friends of local option had to sit quiet in our seats all afternoon and let the opposition talk, and even I, the proposer of the measure, was not allowed to reply to it. The threat held out to prevent me from replying was that the matter could be talked out; and I say that the thanks we friends of temperance got in this House for allowing the Wine Bill to go through, were the thanks meted out by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) who in a moment of airy optimism, thought I would support this motion this afternoon. I want to put a question to the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal), because his friends, particularly the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), were vociferous in asking this question of me: “What are you going to do for the established liquor trade in South Africa if your Local Option Bill goes through?” They said: “You will be closing down hotels and bottle stores wholesale, and attacking vested interests, and you will be perpetrating a measure of the greatest unfairness ever known in this country.” The hon. member for Commissioner Street (Sir Harry Graumann) for instance, used these arguments, but I do not say he used them illegitimately. Now what is the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) going to do this afternoon? He is proposing to bring about a measure of total prohibition on the import of whisky into this country. Does he know that a very large section of the liquor trade in this country, for whose rights he was so solicitous two or three weeks ago, exists because of the importation of whisky into this country? If I attack these interests, I would attack them fairly and openly by means of the people’s vote. The effect of the hon. member’s motion will be to close down all that section of the liquor trade which has built up vested rights out of the import of whisky into this country. When it suits his book, he, the archfriend of the wine industry, is prepared to close down those interests without a penny of compensation. I ask some of the hon. members in this House, who united with the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) and others in opposing the Liquor Option Bill, to put to themselves this question: “Is the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) consistent or right in his attitude this afternoon?” What will happen if this motion is accepted by the Government? If they impose an import duty, instead of 37s. 6d.—as I think it is at present of 72s. per gallon? It will mean virtual prohibition on the import of whisky. If I thought that the virtual prohibition of the import of whisky, whether done by a direct prohibitory enactment, or indirectly by an import duty, would make for the cause of temperance, I would support it, but I do not believe it would. I do not believe that any prohibition of the import of whisky and French wines and brandies into this country, will make for the cause of temperance; I believe its real effect would be to substitute bad brandy for good whisky, and I am one of those who think that if good whisky has slain its thousands in this country, bad brandy has slain its tens of thousands. I believe that the harm done by whisky in this country is infinitesimal compared with the harm done by “Cape smoke,” by fortified wine, and by Cape brandy generally, and I say that the output of the wine farmers of this country is responsible for far more misery, crime, and poverty than all the whisky ever imported into this country. I believe, too, that if we lay a prohibitory import duty on the import of whisky into this country, you would have a large amount of smuggling. You would have a four or five shilling bottle of whisky subject to a tax of 12s. or 14s. a bottle, and that would create such an incentive to smuggling, that I am perfectly certain it would start on a very large scale round our coasts. If the hon. member will do this, if he will clap an excise on to the brandy manufactured in this country, equal to the increase of duty on the imported whisky, I will vote for it with both hands, because I believe it will make it impossible even for the brandy to be sold as it is, but I am not going to vote in this House, acknowledged friend of temperance as I am, for any measure which is calculated to substitute bad brandy for good whisky. I see that the hon. member speaks of this as a measure of protection for the wine industry. Why camouflage the position? Why refer to it as the wine industry, when we know that it is the brandy industry; that three-quarters of the output of the wine farmers of this country is brandy? And bad brandy at that. We who come from the Transvaal know that the brandy they send us up there is responsible for a great deal, if not the major portion, of the native crime there. Furthermore, I am not prepared to support this measure, because I believe it will further entrench the position of the wine industry in this country, and we friends of temperance, when we come forward with the Local Option Bill, will be met with the same arguments as we were met with this year. The thanks we get for not opposing the right hon. the Prime Minister’s Bill for the protection of the wine industry, were the thanks of the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Roos) who got up and said: “It is foolish for the Prime Minister to bring in a Bill to support the wine industry and at the same time for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Black well) to bring in a Bill for local option.” If we friends of local option and temperance in this House support this particular proposal, and entrench the position of the wine farmers, we would then be met with the argument: “The House has agreed to entrench and stabilise the position of the wine farmers, and now you are coming forward with a measure of local option which is in direct conflict with that.” I have said that I do not believe that this proposal will forward the cause of temperance one inch. If I believed it would do any real good, I would vote for it. I admit that I did support the hon. member two years ago, not, according to my recollection, by any speech in the House, but by a vote when the matter was voted on, and I am perfectly clear in my recollection on this point. I do not remember that I made any speech at all, and if the hon. member will look the matter up he will find that I am right in my recollection. Superficially, it does look as if any measure which would impede the entry into this country of whisky would make for temperance, and it was on the superficial view that I supported the proposal when brought forward by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) two years ago. I do not think on further consideration that that view is sound; I do not think, for reasons that I have given, that it will really promote the cause of temperance, and for that reason I propose to vote against the motion.

I want to give a very few reasons why I think the House should not accept this motion. In the first place, it is proposed to increase the duty to an undue extent on whisky, which to some people is one of the necessaries of life—a numerous class who use that beverage, and I may say in many instances they are a very deserving class. We do not want to add to the cost of living in that particular way. Another reason, and an important one, which I say frankly, is that the wine and brandy industry as at present conducted, does not deserve this assistance. I agree with what the last speaker has said that a tremendous amount of the crime, misery, and poverty of this country, is due to the vile quality of the spirits and other intoxicating; liquor which have been foisted on the public. If those engaged in this industry had any proper pride in it, surely they would be satisfied with a duty on whisky three times the duty on brandy. Apparently it has been found that the quality of their stuff will not sell it, so that they must try and find a market by other means. Well. I may say I would gladly support, if I could, any legitimate local industry, but I am not going to be a party to enable these people to manufacture vile spirits, and force it on the public to the same extent as is going on now. I believe it is time for the Government to step in through the Food and Drugs Act and take serious note of the poisonous quality of some of the liquor that is being made, and I am sure the revenue would be greatly benefited, if there was a geometrical method of taxing in inverse ratio to the quality of the stuff. The endeavour to bolster up this industry by the particular means proposed by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) by his motion, is not one that can recommend itself to the House. At the same time those who control the wine industry—and I am drawing some distinction between those who control the industry and the farmers themselves—should take stock of the position. I have the utmost sympathy for the wine farmer, and I would do anything possible to get him out of the present impossible situation, and to continue a policy which was fully explained during the passing of the Wine and Spirit Bill, which is to make stuff called wine and brandy which will eventually be poured into the sluits. This is one of the worst things that could happen in any industry. To protect such bad, evil, and I may say, poisonous liquor, is wrong and we must get away from this practice if we are going to make any real headway. I am one of those who believe that good wine and brandy can be made in this country. Some is produced, and I am almost tempted to give a free advertisement here to the makers [An Hon. Member: “Do so.”]. I do not think the motion before the House is likely to lead to any definite permanent benefit. I hope the wine farmers will look to the future, and see that their products are improved, otherwise it will not be long before the industry is doomed; but before this is completed they should direct their attention to do something better with their grapes than producing bad wine and brandy. My own belief is that three-fourths of the brandy produced in this country is unfit for human consumption. I hope the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) will withdraw his motion, because if it is passed I do not think it will be in the best interests of the wine farmer. I have given my ideas, and I think they will meet with the acceptance of, not only of the House, but also of the great body of the people in this country.

Ek hoop die Huis sal hierdie mosie aanneem, nietteenstaande wat die laaste twee sprekers gesê het. Ek wil nie harde woorde gebruik nie, maar ek dink die voorsteller van die mosie het darem ’n fout gemaak om te reken op die steun van die edele lid vir Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell), waar ons met iets tiepies Suidafrikaans kom om dit te beskerm, wat die edele lid net die kans gegee het om die uitlander-gees, waarmee hy na Suid Afrika skyn gekom te hê, weer te laat uitkom. Wat is die houding van die edele lid? Ek weet nie, of dit feitlik die moeite word is om aandag aan hom te gee nie, maar die voorsteller het ’n fout gemaak en die edele lid vir Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell) het ook gepraat en dus sal ek maar ’n paar woorde aan hom wy. Enige jare agteruit toe die edele lid vir (de hr. De Waal) met ’n voorstel gekom het om die invoer van sterke drank te verbied, toe het die edele lid vir Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell) met ons gestem. Vandag vra ons iets wat feitlik op dieselfde neerkom, net ons gaat nie sover nie, ons vra iets minder en nou kom die edele lid vir Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell) en sê, hy kan die voorstel nie ondersteun nie en hy maak ’n toespraak van onsaamhangende argumente, waarvan die een die ander weerspreek, om aan te wys, dat hy nie byna sover kan gaan nie as hy twee jaar gelede wou gaan. Wat het ons nou van sulke mense? Daar is baie edele lede aan beide kante van die Huis, wat graag wil sien dat ons industrieë, wat inheems is—ek sê nie die bastaard-industrieë nie, maar die industrieë wat hier kan bestaan, wat hier ’n kans het van bestaan-—beskerm word. Die wyn en brandewyn-industrieë word vir ons eie belastingdoeleindes vandag al eintlik te swaar belas. Die aksyns op brandewyn is al te swaar, maar geld is nodig en daar word gesê, dat brandewyn ’n lukse artiekel is. Die groot meerderheid van die mense in ons land is blykbaar vriende van matigheid. Ek erken dat ek ook ’n vriend van matigheid is, miskien nog ’n beter vriend van matigheid as die edele lid vir Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell), want ek dink, dat mense wat so argumenteer as die edele lid onmatig is, om so swak te wees om nie aan een produk te raak nie, uit vrees as jy daaraan raak, dan miskien tever te gaan. Ek dink, dat ons wat die industrieë wil aanmoedig, net sulke goeie vriende van matigheid is as andere edele lecte, wat laat ek sê, afskafíer-dwepers is. Dis juis jou dwepers wat onmatig is; ons is matig. Ons gaat nie sover om te vra vir prohibiesie. Ons erken, dat daar mense is wat lus het vir whisky, veral van die mense wat van Engeland kom. Die edele lid vir Border (Brig.-Gen. Byron) het gesê, dat whisky vir sommige mense noodsaaklik is om te lewe. Ons erken, dat daar mense is wat van oorsee kom, vir wie whisky amper ’n noodsaaklikheid is. Andere mense weer wat van Frankryk kom, hou meer van franse brandewyn as van die Suidafrikaanse produk. Daarom sê ons, laat die mense hulle eie drank drink, maar laat hulle presies in dieselfde posiesie wees as hulle in gewees sou het, as hulle in hulle eie land van herkoms gewees sou het. As die edele lid vir Border (Brig.-Gen. Byron) whisky in Skotland wil drink, dan moet hy baie meer betaal as hy vandag in Suid-Afrika moet betaal. Hy het die reg om te drink wat hy wil, maar laat hy net soveel hier betaal as in Skotland. En dieselfdeargument kan gebruik word met betrekking tot Franse wyn en brandewyn. Maar ons praat van beskerming van plaaslike industrieë. Wat wyn betref is daar geen aksyns in andere lande nie, maar ons is daarvoor dat as wyn weens oorsake, wat ons nie kan kontroleer nie, in andere lande soveel goedkoper is, dat die int ons eie land met ons eie produk kompeteer, dat ons die artiekel moet belas, sodat ons eie artiekel ’n behoorlike kans kry. Pie edele lid vir Border (Brig.-Gen. Byron) sê, dat brandewyn en whisky beskou word as noodsaaklik vir baie mense om te lewe. Ek denk, daar is mense wat dat nodig het. Ek wil hulle die genot nie wegneem nie, maar ek sê, dat die matige gebruiker van sterke drank hierin Suid-Afrika net so goed brandewyn kan drink, wat in ons eie land gestook word en dat dit hom net so min kwaad sou doen as ingevoerde whisky. Ek dink verder, dat as daar iemand is wat dertien of veertien sopies per dag wil drink, dan kan hy miskien ’n ingevoerde drank kry wat hom minder kwaad sal doen as Kaapse brandewyn. Ek sê nie dat dit so is nie, maar dit kan miskien so wees. Die man is net so onmatig as die edele lid vir Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell) onmatig is. As die edele lid sê, ek is te swak om iets te drink en as sy vriende ook so swak is om te drink, dan sê ek is hulle net so onmatig in hulle argumente as die man onmatig is in sy drink. Aan die man wil ek sê: “Drink ’n bietjie minder.” Maar daar is een ding, wat die edele lid vir Border (Brig.- Gen. Byron) gesê het, wat ek nie onbeantwoord kan laat nie. Hy het gesê dat die brandewyn wat in ons land gemaak word oorsaak is van ’n hele boel ellende en misdade. Ek dink die edele lid vir Border (Brig.-Gen. Byron) is ’n man waar ons na kyk as iemand met ’n taamlik gesonde oordeel, ek sê taamlik, maar die man met so’n reputasie, moet nie hier kom en sê, dat die kwaliteit van die drank wat in ons land gemaak word oorsaak is van soveel misdade nie. Dit kom daar nie op aan nie, ’n man wat ’n misdaad wil pleeg, kan jy die beste Skotse whisky gee en hy sal die misdaad pleeg. Dit het niks met die gehalte te maak nie. Miskien is dit ons drankwette, wat oorsaak is van die misdade, waardeur dit moeilik word om ’n gesonde artiekel in hande te kry. Die meerendqêl van brandewyn wat in ons land gemaak word, is ’n gesonde artiekel, maar die groot gros van die publiek het moeite om die gesonde artiekel in hande te kry. Dit maak, dat dit die moeite word is vir skobbejakke om die goeie artiekel te vervals. Dis nie die skuld van die gehalte nie. Ek erken graag dat daar enkele wyne is, wat beter is as ons wyn. Daar is enkele soorte van brandewyn, wat beter is as ons artiekel, maar te sê dat die meerendeel van die brandewyn wat in ons land gestook word, sleg is, is onwaar en élke dag word die beter. Dis byna so as meneer Coué gese het: “Elke dag en in elke opsig word ons drank beter en beter.” Ek wil nie langer praat nie, maar ek hoop dat die Regering hierdie mosie sal aanneem. Al wat die mosie vra is dat die Regering “ten einde een grotere mate van bescherming aan de wijnindustrie in die Unie te verlenen in overweging behoort te nemen de raadzaamheid om dit Huis voorstellen voor te leggen welke het effekt zullen hebben de invoerrechten op whisky en andere alkoholiese dranken te verhogen tot bedragen die niet lager zijn dan de akzijns op die dranken gelegd in de landen van herkomst.” Hoe kan enige Regering of land wat sy eie industrie wil bevorder die beter beskerm dan weer te bepaal dat op die ingevoerde artiekel minstens dieselfde invoerregte betaal word vir aksyns as in die land van herkoms?

The hon. member who has just spoken is to be congratulated, because there is much joy in Heaven over the one poor sinner who repents.

Ek is vrind van matigheid, maar ek is nie ’n dweper nie.

I understand that my hon. friend is one, but he is the most moderate man I have ever met in politics, and on all subjects. [An Hon. Member: “Remember it is the 1st April.”] The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) has jumped into the breach to defend the quality of South African wine and brandy, and we have apparently his personal explanation, that South African brandies are getting better and better. I am not really prepared to accept this, but it may mean that his palate is becoming more and more used to it. Without having personal experience, I believe that sometimes it has a little bite. I only want to say that I have a great deal of sympathy with a legitimate reasoned attempt to control the wine industry. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has assumed facts a little unfairly and a little harshly. I do not know whether these debates just before we have the Budget are of much use, and I do not know whether the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) is trying to get secret information as to what the Government is going to do. Under the circumstances I cannot help doubting whether the motion is a suitable one to go to a vote, but the amendment which I have, may express the feelings of the hon. member more plainly, effectively, and a little more honestly, although I know he is quite honest. My simple little amendment is—

The hon. member is supporting the wine industry. He will be able to sell all the wine he wants to, without running it down the gutter. People need it, it must be so, because I have it on the evidence of hon. members who support the wipe-drinking habits of the country. They say repeatedly that men must have this particular luxury, or whatever it may be, and it must be given to them. Not once, but a hundred times in this House have we heard declamatory members lying down the golden rule that if you would let the wine of the country get to the people of the country, you would cure all its ills. I do not wish to move any amendment which will decrease any revenue, as Mr. Speaker would then move me out of order, but this is just a suggestion to the Government. Let us go to work with a stiff upper lip and cut out the sale of spirits, for, as the hon. member says, he does not want to support the spirit industry, but the wine industry. Well, here is the chance of his life, and I should like him to get up with that candour which he has always displayed, and say that he accepts this little amendment, or else that he was not wholly candid when he said the wine industry. Let us give an opportunity to light wine, and if the hon. member wishes to help the wine industry, he might put up a little amendment that anything over 17 per cent. of proof spirit, shall be regarded as spirit. I want to congratulate his seconder. I have a hazy recollection that the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. P. G. W. Grobler) introduced a motion closely resembling this some time ago. I can only say, that he must have changed his mind, because nothing more fatal could have been done than by dropping his own introduction to-day, and putting it into the hands of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal). Did the hon. member think that the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) was the person to introduce it? However, I have co-operated in the past with the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal), and I hope he will co-operate with me now to get rid of the sale of spirits, and give the opportunity to our wine industry, for which we have been waiting years and years.

There being no seconder the amendment dropped.

Ek wil graag net in ’n paar woorde die Regering se houding uitlê met betrekking tot die mosie. [Een edele Lid: “Praat die edelagbare die Minister in Hollands?”] Ek sal in Engels spreek as edele lede daar dit liewer wil hê. [Edele Lede: “Nee, nee.”] In die eerste plaas, Mr. Speaker, lyk dit vir my weer een van die mosies, wat gebruik wil maak van private lededae om die Begroting vooruit te loop, om met ’n saak te kom wat absoluut ’n Begrotingssaak is, wat op die Begroting behoor en wat in verband met die Begroting behoor behandel te word, en wat gebruik word om die saak vooraf te behandel en die Regering voor te skrywe hoe met die Begroting voor die Huis te kom. By vroeëre geleenthede het ek dit afgekeur en ek doen dit nogmaals. Waarskynlik is dit wel binne ons reëls, maar ek beskou dit heeltemal onreëlmatig en seker ’n baie moeilike saak om behoorlik op die wyse te behandel. Deur die indiener van die mosie word gevra waarom ons nie hier in ons eie land die invoerregte op dieselfde skaal stel, as wat die Engelse aksyns is nie? Dis die eerste maal dat ek hoor van vriende aan die oorkant dat ons Engeland moet volg.

Dis nou ’n bietjie “cheap”.

Edele lede daar argumenteer altyd dat ons hier in Suid-Afrika ons eie lyne moet volg, maar vandag sê die edele lid en sy vriende: “Handel net soos Engeland doen.”

Ondersoek alle dinge eft behou die goede.

My edele vriende skyn werklik getref te wees deur die punt. As jy feitelik wil handel na die Engelse model en die invoerregte in Suid-Afrika wil stel op dieselfde punt as die Engelse dan wil ek vra, waarom ons ons inkomste belasting ook nie op die punt stel waar die Engelse inkomste belasting is nie? Dit sou baie goed wees vir Suid-Afrika. Met betrekking tot die mosie self wil ek sê, dat ek my sterk maak dat daar niemand is wat kan ontken dat die teenwoordige Regering—wat ook al sy foute mag wees—altyd ’n goeie vriend van die wynindustrie gewees het. Ons het in hierdie sitting ’n maatreël deurgesit wat deur baie mense, ook deur edele lede Van alle kante van die Huis beskou word as ongesond, naamlik om mense te forseer om aan ’n ko-operasie te behoor, om in te gryp in die private mense hulle eie besigheid en te sê: “Julle pioet so en so handel.” Ons het gevoel dat dit ’n buitengewoon ding is, maar ons wil probeer om die wynindustrie te help en daarom is dit gedoen en ek glo die maatreël gaat ’n goeie effekt hê op die toekomstige voorspoed van die wynindustrie. Maar nou kom my vriend, die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. de Waal) met die verdere voorstel en ek wil net my beskeie opienie te kenne gee. As te werk gegaan word met die kortsigtigheid van die edele lid ten aansien van die toekoms, dan sal ons vandag op die basis die wynindustrie in Suid-Afrika ’n groot slag gee, ’n oneindige kwaad doen in plaas van goed te doen en ek sal probeer om die Huis aan te toon waarom. In die eerste plek—ek wil die Huis nie plaag met baie syfers nie, maar ’n paar syfers sal darem van nut wees—in die eerste plaas sê ek is onse beskerming alreeds ’n grote beskerming. In die jare vóór die oorlog, in 1913 en 1914, was die invoer van spiritualieë van oorsee omtrent 550,000 gallons, die vry-aan-boord waarde was 9s. per gallon, die belasting, die invoerregte was 21s. per gallon. In 1922 was die vryaan-boord waarde 23s., dit wil sê 2½ maal so groot as in 1913 en 1914. Die belasting vir 1922 is 37s. 6d., byna twee maal, 1¾ maal so groot as in 1913 en 1914 en die gebruik, die invoer het gedaal en afgekom van 550,000 gallons tot 330,000 gallons en die syfer van 330,000 gallons vir 1922 is min of meer dieselfde vir 1923. Dit lyk of ons nou op die punt gaan staan en dit be wys, dink ek, dat soas die belasting vandag is met betrekking tot die invoer van whisky, die invoer geen verdere belasting sal staan nie, of jy gaat die whisky feitelik uitsluit. Ek dink, dis ’n punt waarop ons moet let. Met betrekking tot onse wyn is die posiesie die—ek dink ek het dit al by vroeëre geleenthede gesê—dat onse wyn vandag feitelik die hele mark van Suíd-Afrika in hande het, daar is maar net ’n konkurrensie van omtrent twee of drie persent van ingevoerde wyn. Die res behoor aan die Suidafrikaanse wyn, net ’n bietjie sjampanje, ’n bietjie Franse claret en port word ingevoer, maar die wynboer kan sê dat hy feitelik, wat dit betref, die hele mark van Suid-Afrika in hande het. Die spiritualieë-mark het ons op 10 of 12 persent na, jy kan sê dat tot 88 persent van die brandewyn wat in Suid-Afrika gebruik word is Suidafrikaanse brandewyn, maar die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. de Waal) wil nou hê dat die andere 12 of 15 persent, of wat dit sy, ook vir die Suidafrikaanse brandewyn gekry word.

Wat is die konsumpsie van Suidafrikaanse brandewyn vandag?

Ek kan dit op dié oomblik nie sê, ek kan die syfers van produksie gee, maar die kom nie ooreen met die konsumpsie nie, want ’n groot gedeelte word nie vir drank, maar vir andere doeleindes gebruik. Dis duidelik genoeg om te bewys dat wat wyn betref die hele mark, en wat brandewyn betref, ook die hele mark op 10 of 12 persent na deur die Suidafrikaanse produk voorsien word. Ek weet nie of ons moet dink dat ons hier te doen het met ’n eleksie mosie nie, maar ek is seker die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. de Waal) gaan dit nie kry nie. Sit nou die invoerregte op die basis van die Engelse aksyns, wat gaat gebeur? Ons sal nie kry dat daar baie meer van onse brandewyn m Suid-Afrika gedrink sal word nie. Wat ons sal kry is, dat whisky uitgesluit word, ten minste in grote mate. En nou wil ek vra: “Wat gaat sy plaas neem?” Brandewyn miskien tot ’n klein gedeelte, maar groteliks sal ons die mense drywe om bier te drink. Die konsumpsie van bier gaat nou al in ons land baie op en die klas wat vandag whisky drink, sal ons tot bier drywe. En dan is daar iets wat nog ’n baie groter gevaar is en dit is dat ons weer Suidafrikaanse whisky gaan kry. Deur die hoë invoerregte sal ons whisky van oorsee feitelik uitsluit en in plaas daarvan sal miskien die gebruik van Suidafrikaanse brandewyn met ’n klein persentasie toeneem, maar groteliks sal ons hier dan Suidafrikaanse whisky kry. Baie mense sal ons dryf om bier te drink en verder sal ons kry soos ons dit in Transvaal gehad het, ’n industrie van Suidafrikaanse whisky. Wat word dan van die wynindustrie? Ek beskou die moontlikheid, die gevaar van so iets as gevaar baie meer dreigend, as die posiesie waaronder vandag ons te doen het met die invoer van whisky van oorsee. Dan is daar ’n andere punt. My edele vrind moet weet wat die posiesie sal wees as whisky uitgesluit word. Sê dat ons 330,000 gallons ingevoerde whisky uitsluit. Ons sal ons inkomste van omtrent £425,000 verloor en wie sal dit goed maak? Sê dat ons ’n seker persentasie meer brandewyn konsumpsie sal kry, ons sal miskien £125,000 daar uit kry. Sê dat daar miskien een half miljoen meer bier uitgedrink sal word, ons sal daar miskien £10,000 uitkry; met die informasie wat ons het kom ons tot die konklusie dat ons omtrent £300,000 op ons doeanes sal verloor. Sal die edele lid ons toelaat om dit weer op die aksyns te sit? Want dit moet opgemaak word. Nee ek is seker, dat ofskoon my edele vrind gedink het dat hy die wynindustrie goed sal doen deur sy mosie, dat daar niks as euwel vir die wynindustrie uit kan kom as ons dit aanneem en as die Regering daarop moet handel. Die houding van die Regering is darem dat ons die mosie nie kan aanneem nie. Ek het my insigte nou uitgedruk op die meriete van die saak omdat ek die Huis wil laat weet wat ons redes is, en ek wil die land en die boere en die wynindustrie laat weet wat ons redes is, wat grondige redes is vir ons houding. Dan maak ek beswaar teen die mosie op dieselfde grond as in die verlede, dat dit die Begroting wil vooruit loop en ek meen dat dit baie ongesond is dat ons nou op een Dinsdag en dan weer op die volgende Dinsdag en dan miskien weer in 14 dae hierdie saak sou bespreek. Dit is baie onregelmatig en dit is ’n formele beswaar wat ek teen die mosie maak. Ons posiesie is dit, en ons het ons praktiese simpatie teenoor die wynindustrie in alle opsigte bewys van ons op hierdie banke en ek dink ek kan ’n beroep maak daarop dat ek sedert die begin ’n goeie vrind van die wynindustrie gewees het. My edele vrind mag dink dat ek verkeerd is, dat my opvatting verkeerd is, maar ek sê, dat ek dink dat dit verkeerd sou wees, dat dit kwaad sou doen aan die industrie, dit kan nie goed doen nie, en dit sal ons in ’n onmoontlike posiesie laat met ons doeanes.

Dis nie my bedoeling om op die sogenaamde argumente in te gaan nie wat die Minister hier vanmiddag opgebring het en waarin hy sy best gedoen het om te bewys dat die Huis feitelik uit die orde is deur instruksies aan die Regering te gee op private lede dae. My vrind en leier, die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) het die Minister; alreeds daarop gewys dát dit bespottelik sou wees, want as die Huis nie die reg het nie op private lede dae om instruksies te gee aan die Regering met betrekking tot wat die sienswyse van lede is op belastings voorstelle, of op belangrike kwesies soas die, wat die wynindustrie raak, wat is dan die regte van die Huis? Die Minister weet net so goed as ek, dat wanneer hy sy Begrotings rede eenmaal ingevoer het, dat dit dan ’n bloot party kwessie word en dat lede aan daardie kant dan by die Regering staan, want die Regering behoef dan maar net te sê: “Dis ’n finansiële maatreël, julle moet dit ondersteun.” Ek is verbaas, dat die Minister nou weer met die argument het kom aandra as of die Huis nie die reg het nie, en ek sou die Minister wil vra om nie weer met die argument te voorskyn te kom nie. Die Huis het die reg om by wyse van resolusie instruksies aan die Regering te gee. Welke regte het die Huis anders?

Ek het die reg nie ontken nie.

Ja, maar die Minister sal die effek erken van wat hy sê; die gevolg sal wees, dat as die Huis dit nie kan doen nie, dan sal die Regering sy Begroting inbring en lede sal nie die geleentheid kry nie om die Regering te laat weet wat die gevoelens van die volk is nie. Die Minister het gesê, dat die Regering die beste vrind van die wynindustrie is. As ons daaraan dink hoe die Regering die aksyns op brandewyn voortdurend vermeerder het, dan is dit eienaardig om die Minister te hoor sê dat hulle sulke wonderlik groot vrinde van daardie industrie is. Maar wat doen die Minister? Ek glo nie, dat hy dit ernstig gemeen het nie toen hy gesê het, dat die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. de Waal) dit het laat lyk dat hy gewens het, dat ons die Engelse model sou volg. Die Minister het self ’n skyf opgesit, maar die skyf het nie verteenwoordig nie wat die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. de Waal) gesê het, en daarna het die Minister die skyf self onderste bo geskiet. Die Minister het gesê, dat ons aan hierdie kant die model van Engeland wens na te volg, maar die Minister het, ek wil nie sê nie, opsettelik, maar met voorbedagheid, die hele punt gemis; hierdie industrie is ’n binnelandse industrie en dis ’n industrie wat beskerm moet word teen die invoer van uit Engeland of van enig ander land. Hy vra of ons die aksyns net so hoog wil opsit as dit in Engeland is, maar dis nie die punt nie. Die punt is dat die industrie moet konkureer met die ingevoerde artiekel en dat die ingevoerde artiekel hier beter behandel word dan in die land van sy oorsprong. Dis die hele punt en die Minister kan nie die saak anders voorstel nie. Ons het niks te doen met die Engelse belasting as belasting nie, maar ons sê, dat ons hier ’n eie binnelandse industrie het wat duisende mense aan die lewe hou en ons sê, dat die industrie geregtig is op proteksie; ons wil nie onbillik vees nie en sê: “Sluit daar die drank totaal uit.” Ons sê, dat as mense daar die drank wil drink, laat hulle dan tenminste betaal wat die drank sal kos, as dit dieselfde belasting sou dra as in die land waar dit geproduseer word. Die Minister wil ons laat verstaan, dat die Regering deur die introduksie van die Wyn Kontrôle Wet aan die hele posiesie tegemoet gekom het. Maar wat is die oorsprong van daardie Wet, so goed en so gesond as hy mag wees—en die Minister het op die Wetsontwerp die ondersteuning van hierdie kant van dit Huis gekry. Wat was die oorsprong van daardie Wet? Het die oorsprong nie in die oorproduksie gelê nie? Dit was net omdat die oor-produksie daar was, dat ons die industrie in die hande van die Ko-operatiewe Vereniging geplaas het om die hele posiesie te kontrôleer. En ek sê nou, dat die logiese konsekwensie van die Wyn Kontrôle Wet hier in die mosie van die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. de Waal) lê en die toepassing daarvan is om uitvoering te gee aan die politiek van die Regering in die Wyn Kontrôle Wet vervat—namelik om die binnelandse markte vir ons eie produkte te bestendig. Die Wyn Kontrôle Wet is deur die Minister as ’n ongesonde maatreël beskrywe. Ek noem dit nie ’n ongesonde maatreël nie. As ons die binnelandse markte vir ons eie produkte kan verseker, dan sal ons tot ’n gesonde posiesie terug keer. Dis juis omdat ons binnelandse markte oorstroom is deur die artiekel wat van buite af kom, wat nie in regverdige kompetiesie met ons eie artiekel is nie, dat ons die bestaande toestande kry; ons het hier onregverdige kompetiesie met ’n artiekel wat van buite af kom, ’n artiekel wat hier kom en wat ons eie artiekel dood druk—

Waarom onregverdig?

Om die eenvoudige rede, dat in die land van sy produksie, in die land van sy oorsprong die artiekel 72s. 6d. per gallon moet betaal en hier is die doeane regte net 37s. 6d. per gallon.

En brandewyn?

Ek praat oor spiritualieë. Op ons eie brandewyn is dit natuurlik laër; maar dis nie die punt nie, die punt is dit: wat is die posiesie van ons eie artiekel teenoor die ingevoerde artiekel? Die Minister sê, dat as ons die mosie aanneem, dan sal ons whisky grotendeels uitsluit en dan sê hy, dat hy dit as sy plig beskou om die wynboere teen sekere gevare te waarsku; hy sê, dat die gevolg sal wees, dat die invoer van whisky sal ophou en dat die mense dan in plaas van whisky, bier sal drink. Waar is die bewys dat dit so sal wees? Dit mag waar wees of dit mag nie waar wees nie, diegene van ons wat iets van die wynbou afweet, weet, dat die man wat ophou om whisky te drink, nie gemaklik daartoe oorgaan om bier te drink nie. Vir die Minister om ’n losse verklaring te maak, dat die mense dan bier sal gaan drink—wel, dit hou nie steek nie. En dan sê die Minister dat ons dan ’n industrie hier sal gaan kry om whisky te produseer, en wanneer ons whisky produseer, dan sal dit meen dat ons wynindustrie in gevaar is. Wel, ek sou liewer ’n whisky industrie hier sien, ek sou daar nie op teen wees nie, om die industrie hier te sien ontwikkel en te konkureer met die wyn en brandewyn industrie. Waarom nie? Waarom sou ons hier nie whisky produseer nie? Dis ’n buitegewoon soort van argument om te sê, dat ons nie ’n whisky industrie hier moet hê nie. As die wynindustrie nie kan konkureer nie, wel, dan moet hulle te niet gaan. Die Regering moet net die nodige mate van proteksie gee. Die Minister behoor nie hier te kom nie en te probeer die wynboer bang te maak deur te sê, dat as ons ons eie produkt beskerm, dat ons dan miskien ’n whisky industrie hier sal sien ontstaan en dat dit die wyn industrie skade sal aandoen—dis ’n bewering wat absoluut ongegrond is. Dan is daar nog ’n ander punt. Die Minister het verklaar, dat die wynboere van hierdie land 80 persent van die drank handel wat betref brandewyn in hulle hande het en dat daar net van 12 tot 15 tot 20 persent in ingevoerde spiritualië verbruik word. Ek het die Minister toe gevra wat ons verbruik is van brandewyn, maar die Minister was nie in staat nie om die syfer te gee. Ek het die syfer ook nie, maar ek twyfel daar ten sterkte aan, of die Minister reg is wanneer hy sê, dat die verbruik van Suidafrikaanse brandewyn 80 persent van die totaal is teen 15 of 20 persent van die ingevoerde artiekel.

Die Minister het gesê 12 persent.

My edele vrind sê, dat die Minister 12 persent gesê het. Wel, ek sou graag sien, dat die Minister ons die juiste syfers sou gee sodat ons kan weet wat die verbruik is van brandewyn en drank wat hulle oorsprong in andere lande het. Wat is die standpunt van die Regering en wat is die moeilikheid, en waarom wil die Regering of die Minister hierdie mosie nie aanneem nie? Kom dit nie hierop neer nie, dat die Minister nie bereid is nie om £450,000 te verbeur in inkomste? Dis die groot punt. Die Regering is nie bereid nie om die £450,000 wat deur die doeane gein word op te gee. Die Minister vra: “Hoe sal ons dit opmaak, en wat moet ons in plaas daarvan belas?” Die Minister weet net so goed as ons wat die antwoord is, n.m., dat as ons ’n meer welvarende toekoms aan die wynboere verseker deur hulle proteksie te gee teen invoer van buite af, dan sal ons mense kry wat in ’n beter posiesie sal wees om meer vir die Staat te doen deur middel van die betaling van belastings dan hulle vandag is. Kan die boere vandag deur middel van inkomste belasting of ander direkte belastings soveel aan die Staat bydra as hulle anders sou kan doen? Ek sê derhalwe, dat as die nodige mate van proteksie aan die wynboere gegee word teen onbillike kompetisie, dan sal ongetwyfeld ’n groot deel van die £450,000 deur die Staat teruggekry word in direkte en indirekte belastings en die Staat sal eventueel nie verlies nie. Vir díe Minister om hier te kom en te verklaar, dat die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. de Waal) ’n euwel vir die wyn industrie wil skep of dat hy iets sou beoog waarvan die gevolg sou wees, dat die wynboere of die wyribou skade sou ly, dan sê die Minister, met alle respek vir hom, iets wat hy self nie glo nie. Die beginsel wat aan die grondslag van die mosie lê is proteksie vir ons eie industrie en al die sogenaamde argumente van die edele lid vir Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell) en die edele lid vir Border (Brig.-Gen. Byron), dat hulle nie ’n goeie artiekel produseer nie, dat hulle ’n “vile, poisonous” artiekel produseer, soos die edele lid vir Border (Brig.-Gen. Byron) verklaar het, is bespottelik: ons sê: “Gee die wyhboer sy reg van bestaan, gee hom sy eie binnelandse markte, beskerm hom teen onregverderige kompetisie van buite af, dan sal hy die kans kry om vooruit te kom.” Ons moet die les leer, wat hulle in ander lande geleer het, namelik dat wanneer ons gesonde binnelandse kompetisie kry, dan sal ons die betere produkt kry. Maar die onbillike kompetisie maak dit onmoontlik vandag vir die boere om hulle industrie behoorlik te ontwikkel.

Waarom is dit onbillike kompetisie?

Die edele lid moet erken, dat dit onbillik is in Skotland, in Engeland betaal hulle 72s. 6d. in aksyns, maar hier is die doeane regte 37s. 6d. Ek het met groot belangstelling geluister na die toespraak van die edele lid vir Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell), en as ek ooit die minste twyfel gehad had oor die korrektheid van my stem op die Lokale Keuse Wetsontwerp dan is die twyfel nou verdwyn en is die juistheid van my stem daarop nou bevestig deur die houding van die edele lid. Ek wens nie om die edele lid hier onnodig aan te val nie, maar ek het nog nooit na groter huigelagtigheid geluister nie. Die edele lid gee voor, dat hy ten gunste van onthouding is en wanneer hy die geleentheid kry om die gebruik van sterke drank te beperk en die gebruik van suiwere wyn te bevorder in ons eie land, dan hardloop hy daarvan weg en dan pleit hy vir ingevoerde whisky. Dis nie my plan nie om op sy argumente in te gaan, maar mense soas die edele lid kom hier met “fads”, met allerlei soorte van ideës en dan loop hulle daarvan weg sodra die werklikheid getoets word. Die edele lid vir Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell) het deur sy toespraak meer skade aan sy saak gedoen dan enig ander toespraak ooit gedoen het. Laat edele lede wat sê, dat hulle ten faveure van onthouding is, konsekwent wees, en as hulledie gebruik van natuurlike Suidafrikaanse wyn kan bevorder deur die uitsluiting van whisky, dan behoor hulle dit te doen en trou te bly aan hulle beginsels. As ons whisky uitsluit, dan meen dit, dat mense die suiwere Suidafrikaanse drank meer sal gebruik, en namate die gebruik daarvan vermeerder sal die boer aangemoedig word en op die manier sal daar ’n verbetering tot stand kom van ons Suidafrikaanse industrie. Ek betreur dit, dat die Regering die mosie nie wil aanneem nie, want ek is oortuig, dat as hulle dit sou doen, dan sou dit die wynbou help om op ’n meer gesonde basis te raak. Ek wil nie op die industrie self ingaan nie, ek glo nie, dat dit nodig is om die Minister daar op te wys nie, dat kongresse van wynboere herhaaldelik hierop aangedring het en besluite geneem het om hierom te vra. Die Regering is nie bereid nie om hierop in te gaan, en al wat ons nou kan aanneem is, dat die Regering niebereid is om die wynindustrie, die oudste industrie van die land, te beskerm nie.

I do not propose to enter into the merits of the motion, except to say that in spite of the eloquent speech of my hon. friend opposite, I think this motion is thoroughly bad. I do not think that it will help the wine industry, but on the contrary, I think it will do it much damage. This sort of vote-catching motion will not do the Wine industry any good. It will put peoples’ backs up, and it will make enemies. I think it will stop the importation of Whisky. If it were to stop the importation of whisky in order to make people sober, one would have seen some sort of method in it, but it will not do that; it will stop good whisky from coming in and make people drink other spirits, probably worse liquors. It will stop the importation of whisky, which will mean a loss of revenue to the State to the amount of £450,000, and notwithstanding what the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. C. W. Malan) has said, I do not think that that amount of money will be made up from the wine farmers.

Why not?

It is quite evident. If we are going to ask them: “Are you going to make good £450,000 if we allow you to sell say 20 or 25 per cent. more than you are selling to-day?” The answer will be: “No, we cannot make up that £450,000.” I do not think it is going to make that difference. Well, for myself. I say I am not going to take away a source of revenue from the Treasury, arid I do not think this House should put other taxation on the people of the country, and try and find this money in another way. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. C. W. Malan) took very great exception to what the right hon. the Prime Minister said about the irregularity of these motions, but I think that this House should certainly follow the same course with this motion as it did in regard to the motion of the hon. member of Durban (Greyville) (Mr. Boydell) in his medicine tax. I consider it irregular and undesirable for the House to deal piece meal with taxation proposals.

Hear, hear!

For these reasons I am going to move an amendment, as follows—

Ek sekondeer. Ek moet sê, dat ek verwonder is oor die edele lid vir Humansdorp (de hr. C. W. Malan). Hy wil die skoen, wat horn pas, aan die voet van die edele lid vir Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell) sit, maar hy moes dit liewer vir die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. de Waal) aantrek, want hy is nou regtig soos ’n verkleurmannetjie; hy was die man, wat eers gepleit het vir meer fasiliteite vir die drank, en Vandag stel hy totale prohibiesie voor. Hy maak presies soos ’n verkleurmannetjie en as mens hom op die rooi vlag van die Arbeiders Party sit, sal hy rooi word. Ek sou graag wil weet van die edele lid vir Humansdorp (de hr. C. W. Malan), welke deel van die bevolking drink whisky en wie drink die brandewyn.

Almal.

Die edele lid sê almal, maar dit glo ek nie: die feit is dat die meeste Engelse mense en die kapitaliste die drink whisky en die invoer belasting van sowat £500,000 betaal hulle en die boere drink brandewyn, welk een koloniale produk is. En nou Wil hulle, dat ons die mense sal forseet om brandewyn te drink, maar hulle sal whisky gaan kry of hulle sal dit hier maak. Dit word reeds vroeër in Transvaal gemaak, en as dit net tyd kry om oud genoeg te word, sal dit net so goed wees as die wat in Skotland gemaak word. Wat sal die posiesie van die wynboer dan wees? Ons moet die saak goed deurkyk en die edele lid, wat die mosie ingedien het, kom die een dag met die een ding en die ander met iets heeltemal daarmee in stryd: hy dink net aan sy kiesafdeling. So het hy voorgestel, dát daar geen invoer belasting gelê sal word op kunsmes nie, omdat sekere fabrieke op koste ge jaag moes word.

Hy pleit vir sy boere.

Nee, dit is’ kapitaliste wat dit produseer in belang van die boer en hulle moes benadeel word deur opheffing van die invoerbelasting. Van tyd tot tyd is die invoerbelasting op drank verhoog en die op whisky is tans 6s. per bottel. Die edele lid vir Humansdorp (de hr. C. W. Malan) wil nog nie tevrede wees nie en wil dat die Regering so’n aksyns op ingevoerde whisky sal sit, dat dit onmoontlik word om dit in te voer en ek wil hom vra, waar moet die geld vandaan kom, wat nou uit die aksyns op whisky verkry word? Hy sal sê, van die myne, want dit is die posiesie wat gewoonlik van daardie kant ingeneem word.

Ja, ek wil dat die wynboer welvarend sal word.

Ek het baie goed geluister na die debat en kan die edele lid die versekering gee, dat die wynboer hom nie dankbaar sal wees nie en dat, as die mosie deurgaan, hy die setel van Humansdorp nooit weer sal sien nie. Die inkomste door invoerbelasting op whisky moet dood gemaak worde, en die bedrag door hoger aksyns belasting moet verkry worde. Die Regering is nog op die regte pad. Lede aan die ander kant wil maatreëls voorstel, wat grote inkomste sal laat verlore gaan, maar hulle sê nie waarvandaan die geld gehaal moet word om die plek op te vul nie.

Hulle is voor ’n aksyns op die wynboer.

Ek kan die edele lid dié versekering gee, dat hier die kant van die Huis sal nooit daardie beginsel ondersteun nie.

I must say it is always refreshing to listen to the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. C. W. Malan) who is always unreal and semi-theatrical when he comes here with no desire to assist the Government, and only to make political capital out of any motion. I think he has taken up the position of political trainer to the Pact. I think that is his position in life. But what the hon. member does not seem to understand is that it is not every country that drinks the same drink, every country has its national beverage. In England they drink beer, in Scotland whisky, in France wine, in Germany beer, and now you want to compel the people in South Africa to drink wine and brandy. Personally I drink whisky, and I will tell my hon. friend why I do not drink Cape wine. I was dining one night with a wine farmer here, I could mention his name, and we sat down and he drank whisky. I said to him: “Why do you drink whisky, you make wine, why do you not drink it?” He said: “It gives me rheumatism.” I said: “By jove, that is what gives me rheumatism.” I drank wine on my farm for a week, and I could hardly walk afterwards for rheumatism. My hon. friend opposite now wants to bring in a measure to compel me to drink South African wine. I saw the other day that the war has given the Americans one thing, and that is total prohibition, and all I can say is that if the agitation of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) succeeds, he is not going to benefit the wine farmer, but injure the industry. Many men who support the wine industry will support local option and total prohibition when compelled to drink Cape wine, if the hon. member pursues his endeavours of trying to help the wine farmer in the visionary way that he is trying to do. That will be the result.

Before bringing in such a motion one should carefully consider whether it is in the best interests of the wine industry. Three or four sessions ago, I voted against a similar motion for the prohibition of imported spirit, because I am not a prohibitionist, and I do not think as one of the wine farmers representatives, that I am going to do them any good by voting for the prohibition of imported spirit. I think it most unfortunate that the member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) should have brought in his motion, when ethers are trying their best to improve the quality of and popularize South African spirits and wines. The hon. member has made a party question of it. Now he proposes this motion; but when the right hon. the Prime Minister, at great trouble, brought in a measure which he thought, and the wine farmers generally thought, would be a considerable benefit to them, there was no one who tried to do more to wreck the measure and retard its progress through this House, than the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal). It would have been better to have dropped any further discussion on wine after the right hon. the Prime Minister had introduced his measure, when he persuaded this House that we had to give immediate help to the wine industry, and at the same time to make provision, by legislation, to improve the quality of our wines and spirits. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) has just told us that he is a whisky drinker, and no legislation will convert him to taking brandy. Well, I take spirits, brandy, but if you were to try and stop me by any legislative enactment from taking brandy, I would not take whisky, but would go without spirits. You are not helping the wine farmer at all by trying to bring about this prohibition. The hon. member is trying to stop the importation of a little whisky, but if he does stop it, it is not going to have the effect that the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. C. W. Malan) thinks—that those people who now take whisky will turn to wine and brandies. You will make them hostile and a great many of them will not take anything at all. By such an attitude you are alienating the sympathy and good-will and support of those who are trying to foster the wine industry, and making instead illwill.

Who are they?

I would like to give a few figures to the House. If we could replace the spirits imported into the country by spirits manufactured in this country from South African wines, you would thereby use between twelve and thirteen thousand leaguers of South African wine, but you are not going to attain your object by force, you should improve the quality of the South African article, as you have been doing in the past, and slowly substitute the South African product in place of the imported. That would be about 7½ per cent. of the entire wine production. If you were to replace all the spirits imported to-day by South African spirits manufactured from South African wine, you would thereby absorb 7½ per cent. of the wine produced, and to gain that little advantage the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) wants, in his own easy way, to stop the import of spirits, and thereby force many of those who take imported spirits to take South African spirits. He will not succeed and will create opposition and illwill. I think it has been most unfortunate to have introduced this motion, as has been plainly demonstrated by the discussion which followed. I know there are some wine farmers and others who think that prohibition of import would help them a great deal; but they are being mislead, it is not going to help them at all. It is going to do them more harm than good, both immediately, and in the near future. We cannot afford to make enemies.

Ek kan my nie verenig met die dikwels gehoorde bewering nie, dat as mens iemand se drank wegneem, hy sonder drank sal bly. In die algemeen geneem is dit byna onmoontlik, want ’n sterke roker sal, as hy geen goeie tabak kan kry nie, kaffertabak rook, maar rook sal hy. Met iemand wat drank gebruik is dit net dieselfde. Die rede van die edele lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers) het my meer as iets anders oortuig, dat die mosie reg is; want as daar enige iets van hierdie kant afkomt, wat goed is vir die land dan moet dit geoppeneer word, want daar kan dalk stemme mee gevang word. Die houding oortuig my, dat die mosie goed is. Die edelagbare die Minister beskou die saak net van die finansiële kant af; of daar inkomste van te verwagte is, maar ek gaan met die edele lid vir Humansdorp (de hr. C. W. Malan) saam: maak die boer welvarend en die Regering sal inkomste kry van hom deur inkoms belasting, ens. Die mosie van die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. de Waal) is reg en hy vra net, dat mense wat whisky drink, soos die edele lid vir Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey), dieselfde daarvoor betaal as die mense in Skotland. My oortuiging is, dat ons die wyn industrie moet beskerm.

Ek denk dat die Huis daarvan oortuig is, dat ek steeds sterk onse eige industrie voorstaan en meermaal geseg het dat waar ek dit kan opwerk, ek dit steeds sal doen, maar terselfdertyd is ek ’n groot voorstander van die vryheid van die individu. Laat hom gebruik wat hy wil en dit is verniet vir die edele lede hier om mekaar aanstootlik te behandel. Die edele lid vir Humansdorp (de hr. C. W. Malan) het lede hier huigelaars genoem en dit het niks met die saak voor die Huis te doen nie. Die edele lid laat my baie denk aan ’n minorkahaantjie, wat stof opskop en grassies omkrap maar hy sal niemand aan hierdie kant daarmee bang maak inie—my sekerlik nie. Maar die lid is miskien self so huigelagtig as waarvoor hy ander uitmaak.

Dankie.

Die edele lid kan dankbaar wees, want dit is goed as hy getref word soas die mosie self getref word. My moeilikheid is dat die land kry jaarliks £400,000 tot £500,000 aan invoerbelasting op whisky en as ons dit feitelik gaan stop, waarvandaan moet dit dan kom? Daardie geld moet op iemand verhaal word, maar op wie? Dit skyn my vanselfsprekend, dat die wynboer die man moet wees en dit sal nie meer as reg wees nie, rant dit is om hom te bevoordeel, dat die whisky moet belet word. Dit kan nie verhaal word op die skaap of beesboer nie en dit sal die wynboer dubbel tref. Stel, dat ons die mosie aanneem, sal die man wat nou whisky drink, dan wyn gaan drink? Sover as ek die mens ken, sal hy hom nie deur wetgewing laat dryf om wyn te drink nie; as hy whisky wil hê, sal hy liewer daarsonder bly, naar nie iets anders in die plek neem nie. Maar die mosie is om hier dieselfde belasting op whisky te laat betaal as in Engeland en ek denk, dat die edele lid die bal daar heeltemal misslaan. Laat ons neem wat hulle in Engeland betaal op ’n gallon whisky en dit is 21s. en die belasting in die Unie is 37s. Dan kom daar nog by skeepvrag, dokkoste, wat die verkoper op na by 80s., die gallon te staan kom en ek verstaan, dat hulle dit hier verkoop vir sestien shillings die bottel; dit is baie, maar dit is duidelik, dat anders die verkoper nooit al daardie vrag en koste kan terugkry nie. Alhoewel ek ’n sterk voorstander is van plaaslike industrie, kan ek nie gaan stem vir hierdie mosie nie, omdat dieselwe meer kwaad as goed sal doen. Ek vertrou daarom, dat die edele lid dieselwe sal wil terugtrek.

Ek het ook ernstig geluister na die debat, maar kan nie instem met wat edele lede aan die oorkant gesê het nie. Hulle motief is ongetwyfeld goed, maar ons sou te ver gaan, as ons nou die mosie sou aanneem. Ons kan voorlopig tevrede wees met die Wet in verband met die bevordering van die wynindustrie, welke onlangs deur die edelagbare die Eerste Minister aan die Huis voorgeleg is en welke ons aangeneem het. Laat ons eers wag en kyk wat die uitwerking daarvan is en as hierdie mosie blyk nie in stryd met die beginsel daarvan te wees nie, dan kan ons verder gaan. Ons het feitelik ’n monopolie verkry vir onse wyn en ek sou nie sover wil gaan om die mense te forseer om ons artiekel te gebruik nie. Op die oomblik is die whisky drinker nog ’n vriend van die wynboer, maar as die mosie aangeneem word, sal hy gou verander in ’n vyand; daar sal gou geagiteer word vir plaaslike opsie en dan gaat dit oor tot totale prohibisie. Die aanname van die mosie sal meer kwaad doen as die bietjie whisky wat daar nog ingevoer word. Ek neem aan, dat die vriende geen partyoogmerk met die voorstel nastreef nie, dit is vir niemand tot voordeel nie en ek sal bly wees, as hy dit liewer terugtrek.

Ek is baie teleurgesteld met die ontvangs wat my mosie van die anderkant van die Huis gehad het en dat van die anderkant nie een woord vir die proteksie van die wynboer gekom het nie. Hoe anders was hul houding die vorige keer, toe die mosie voor die Huis was. Maar ek het in die lug ’n vooltjie gehoor fluit, dat daar ’n kaukus gehou is en dat die lede van die Regeringsbanke die muilband omgeset is—hulle mag ons eenvoudig nie ondersteun nie. Dis treffend dat etlike edele lede, wat verlede jaar die mosie gesteun het, vanjaar sterk daarteen is, maar dit sal die wynboei wys wie sy ware vriende is. Die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies het verklaar, dat ek die Begroting vooruitloop en hy wil my stop. Die edele lid vir Barberton (Lt.-Kol. J. C. Fourie) sê ook: “Wag tot na die begroting.” Dit sou beteken, dat ek op die laaste dag van die sessie, na die kalf reeds verdrink is, aan die Minister moet aan die hand gee hoe hy die kalf moet red. Dit is die manier waarop die Regeringsparty sy plig wil ontduik. Ek is bly dat die edele lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers) weer in sy plek is. Dis merkwaardig dat hy ons dit kwalik neem dat ons die wynboere wil help. Dan noem hy hom nog ’n boerevrind. “Julle moet nie die koringboere help nie,” lui dit ook nou; “julle moet nie vra om misstowwe goedkoper in die land te laat inkom nie!” Daar is twee industrieë in botsing—De Beers aan die ene kant en die groot koringindustrie aan die andere kant. Die edele lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers) wil hê dat ons die De Beers moet help en nie die boer nie.

Wil die edele lid die misstowwe industrie doodmaak?

Dieselfde De Beers Maatskappy waar die edele lid so baie begaan oor is, het onlangs 25,000 ton superfosfaat ingevoer van die ander kant van die water. Hulle maak so min, dat hulle 25,000 ton invoer. Wat sê die edele vriend nou? Die edele vriend is meer begaan oor hulle as oor die koringboere, wat soveel meer per ton moet betaal vir die allernoodsaaklikste artiekel.

Het De Beers belasting betaal daarop?

Ek hoop so. Om terug te kom tot die edelagbare die Minister van Finansies, hy sê: “Wat het ons nie al vir die wynboere gedoen?” Ek is al ag jaar in die Parlement en ek het drie keer gesien dat die Regering oorgegaan het tot verhoging van die belasting op brandewyn, nie met ’n 6d. of ’n 1s. nie maar elke keer met 2s. 6d. Solank ek in die Parlement is, is die aksynsbelasting op die beste klas brandewyn opgegaan van 5s. tot 12s. 6d. [Een Edele Lid: “En op dopbrandewyn van 10s. tot 22s. 6d.“] Ja, van 10s. tot 22s. 6d. Die edelagbare die Minister sê dat die invoerregte van whisky 1¾ maal so hoog geword het. Ek wil daarop wys dat dit oneweredig is met die opslag op brandewyn van 5s. tot 12s. 6d. en van 10s. tot 22s. 6d. Die Minister sê dat my voorstel ’n eleksie mosie is. Dis die ou storie. Elke maal as ons ’n mosie voorstel, dan is dit ’n eleksie mosie! Ek kan die Huis die versekering gee—en die edele lid vir Worcester (de hr. Heatlie) en ook my vriend die edele lid vir Ladismith (de hr. Jordaan) sal dit kan bevestig—dat die wynboere nie alleen van my distrik, maar ook van hulle distrikte daarop aangedring het om so’n mosie voor te stel. Die kontrôle-wetjie wat ons gemaak het, help nie genoeg nie. Die 7½ persent meer brandewyn wat die mense meer in plaas van whisky sal gebruik in ons land sal baie meer help. Ek het opdrag gehad van koöperasie-lede om met hierdie voorstel voor die Húis te kom. Die edele lid vir Barberton (Lt.-Kol. J. C. Fourie) sê: “maar kyk, wie sal die belasting betaal, as ons die £400,000 moet verloor? Dié sal op die wynboere geplaas moet word.” Waarom dan iuis op die wynboere?

Op wie dan?

My liewe tyd! Toe die Regering die beskermende belasting gehef het op die invoer van superfosfaat, het iemand toe met dieselfde argument voor die dag gekom? Toe hulle die skoenfabrieke ’n bietjie meer beskerm het, het die Regering toe gesê: “Kyk, julle kry nou die voordeel van die beskerming en ons gaan die invoerbelasting verloor, dus moet ons julle swaarder belas ’? Nee. Waarom dan juis die wynboere pak? Wat betref die toespraak van die edele lid vir Tembuland (de hr. Stuart), hy was een van die persone wat laaste jaar die eerste opgespring het aan daardie kant van die Huis om ’n dergelike mosie as wat ek nou voorstel, te steun. Wat is nou sy argument? Ons vra hierdie keer slegs dat die aksynsbelasting moet verhoog word, ons vra nie om totale prohibiesie nie! As hy en die edele lid vir Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell) dit ernstig meen, waarom stel hulle dan nie ’n amendement voor om ’n totale verbod van invoer van whisky in ons land te kry nie? Ek sou dit aangeneem het met blydskap. Hier sien ons die ihkonsekwensie van die edele lede. Hulle het laaste jaar die mosie ondersteun op grond dat die gebruik van drank deur verminderde invoer verminder sou word, of dit nou whisky is of brandewyn of wyn. Die edele lid vir Border (Brig.-Gen. Byron) gaan nog ’n bietjie verder, en sê da whisky vir die whisky-drinker ’n gedeelte van sy lewe is, hulle het dit net so nodig as voedsel. Dis niks anders as ’n argument teenoor die lokale industrie nie. Ek verwonder my of die edele lid vir Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell) met hom op daardie punt verskil. Ek het gedink dat ons vanmiddag iets sal hoor van die edele lid vir Ladismith (de hr. Jordaan). Hy is so’n knappe wynboer. Hy het verlede jaar 300 leer wyn gepars, al moes dit alles vernietig word. Ek het gedink dat hy vandag iets daaroor ten gunste vir die wynboer sou sê. Maar al wat ons van hom moes aanhoor was: “Julle gaan te vér, te ver, te ver!” Hy het dit tien keer herhaal. Te ver, as ons die wynboer wil tegemoet kom! Ek wil nie langer praat nie. Ons moet nou tot stemming kom. Ek moet alleen nog sê dat ek flouer argumente as wat vanmiddag teenoor hierdie mosie gebruik is, in my lewe nog nie gehoor het nie. Ek hoop, my vrind die edelagbare die Minister van Mynwese en Nywerheid, wat in die verlede so’n kampvegter vir die wynboere was en getoon het dat hy belang stel in die wynindustrie, met ons sal saamstem vir hierdie mosie.

Ek wil hulle nie van die wal in die sloot help nie.

moved—

1. (1) The petition of W. Runciman, Mayor, and 8 others, Councillors of the Municipality of Simonstown, praying for relief in respect of the non-rateability of Imperial Government property;
2. (2) the petition of W. Runciman, Mayor, and 8 others, Councillors of the Municipality of Simonstown, praying for relief in respect of the cost of providing drainage, roads and other necessary works on certain land disposed of by the Railways and Harbours Administration at Glencairn; and
3. (3) the petition of C. H. Miller and 35 others, licensed traders of Simonstown, praying for an enquiry into the effects on the trade and welfare of the community brought about by the operations of naval and military canteens and for relief in respect thereof

the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers, and to consist of Messrs. Giovanetti, Fitchat, Christie, Smit and Bisset.

He said: This motion is that certain three petitions which I presented to the House on the 13th February last, be referred to a Select Committee for consideration. These petitions cover three grievances, three separate and distinct grievances of the inhabitants of Simonstown, which have formed the subject of years of correspondence, representation, and complaint. After exhausting every possible means of obtaining redress, the municipality and the inhabitants of Simonstown came to the conclusion that the only thing they could possibly do was to come to this House and put their case before it so that these grievances about which they feel so strongly might be remedied. I propose to say a few words on the nature of these three petitions. The first one deals with the exemption of Imperial Government property from rateability, and that exemption is effected at the expense of the local ratepayers. The second grievance is the effect upon trade, and the welfare of the town and community, brought about by the operation of naval and military canteens; and the third asks for relief in respect of the cost of providing drainage, roads, and other necessary works, on certain land disposed by the Railways and Harbours Administration at Glencairn. The first grievance is this. The position is that Imperial Government property in Simonstown and elsewhere, is exempt from rateability in recognition of the services rendered by the Imperial Government for the protection of the trade and communications of South Africa, The people of Simonstown will be the last to deny that recognition of that sort is a just and fitting tribute to pay to the Imperial Government, but their complaint is that the burden should not fall, as it does to-day, on the shoulders of a few, and not too opulent, ratepayers in Simonstown. They say that this burden should be borne by the country generally, and not be placed on the shoulders of the members of a small community. The position comes to this: according to a valuation which the municipality had made by an official valuator, of the Imperial Government property in 1923, the value was assessed at £572,000. The general rate prevailing in Simonstown of 4d. in the £ would yield on this amount £9,500 in rates. The town as a whole has a revenue from rates of £7,000 a year, so that this exemption is a very substantial matter indeed, from the point of view of the inhabitants. This question has been a subject of contention between the various Governments and the people of Simonstown. At one time an arrangement was come to by which the Cape Government put up £350 per annum in consideration of that exemption of the Imperial Government property from rates, if the Imperial Government did the same. The Imperial Government did so, and then the Cape Government with a good deal of skill, deducted the rate on Cape Government property so that the Cape contribution was almost negative. That arrangement came to an end in 1921, and then the municipality took the matter up again, and made representation to the present Government on the subject. After a great deal of discussion and representation the Government on the 26th November, 1921, said that they would be prepared to make a contribution of £2.000 in consideration of the exemption of this property from taxation. But a little later on, in May, 1922, it was intimated that this must be taken to be in lieu of rates on Union Government property, as well as on Imperial Government property. The rates on Union Government property would be about £650 per annum, so that really the exemption in lieu of rates on Imperial Government property comes to about £1,350. Now the municipality says, and pointed it out at the time, that that was wholly inadequate, and that it was not in a position to carry on properly the services of the town unless some more substantial consideration was given in lieu of the rates on this particularly valuble property The position at Simonstown to-day is, that including, this contribution of £2,000. the total amount raised in rates is about £7,000 a year. It has got to raise another £8,000 a year by other means of taxation and there is this amount which would come to about £9,500 a year, if the whole of the Imperial Government property were rated, and which is entirely lost to the municipality. It says that an undue burden is thrown on a small community of that sort in making it bear the total cost of this exemption, which has always been made, and accordingly it has come to the Government to ask it to recognize its claims; and inasmuch as the Government has refused it any further redress, the municipality has felt that no other course has remained open for it but to come to this House and ask that its claim should be taken into consideration, and given just and reasonable treatment. The second one is a petition for an enquiry into the effects of the trade and welfare of this community in Simonstown, brought about by the operations of the naval and military canteens, and the case there is, that the effect of these institutions is becoming ruinous to long established businesses in the town. Some of these businesses have been established for many years, in one or more cases for a period of over 80 years, and they have got to rely entirely on the trade of the town, because Simonstown is purely a naval and military station. It has got no back country at all; traders there rely on no back country, but are thrown on the population of the town. The town has no longer any mercantile shipping trade. At one time it used to have a certain amount of trade of that sort, but in 1898 the harbour was handed over to the naval authorities, and since then mercantile shipping has ceased to come to that port, and with that source of revenue, that portion of the livelihood of the people has gone. In 1922 the Defence Act was passed by this House, and under section 11 of that Act naval and military canteens are exempt from licences, taxes, duties, or fees, other than customs and excise duty where leviable by law, and under canteens is included any mess, or garrison, or regimental institute, or any premises, whether temporary or permanent, used for providing recreation, refreshment, or articles of necessity, solely for the members of the Union defence force or His Majesty’s naval forces, or for the families of such members. Now there is no very large number of people in Simonstown who cannot be said in one way or another to have some connection either with the Union of the Imperial forces, and the burden of the complaint of the traders of Simonstown in this matter is that, to all practical intents and purposes, the population can in one way or another draw the supplies it requires through these canteens for the purposes of members of the two canteens; two classes of canteens, first of all what is called the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute, and there is also a Defence Force canteen for the purposes of members of the Defence Force, but the main complaint has been with regard to this Navy, Army, and Air Force Institute. This is an institute which came into existence shortly after the outbreak of the war. The Imperial Government at that time formed what were called army and navy canteen boards for the purposes of supplying men who were serving, with articles which were not included in their rations, and were not obtainable privately owing to the dislocation of trade, and it was not then anticipated that those boards would continue to trade after the war. As a matter of fact, by virtue of the practical monopoly they had, and the wealth accumulated while the war was going on, these boards got into such a strong position that after the war was ended, it was decided to register them in the guise of an incorporated trading company, under the name of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute, and members will appreciate the magnitude of the operations carried on by these boards when I tell them from the information I have, that the nett profits for the year ended December 31st, 1918, was £1,350,000.

Simonstown alone?

No, all over the world. Simonstown is a branch, and one could not get £1,350,000 in Simonstown, we have no access to their figures there. I am giving those figures to show that this concern, of which Simonstown is a branch, a mere fraction, is clearly a trading institution, and also to show that it is a concern on a big scale, with which it is not easy to compete. Hon. members will appreciate that it is a powerful institution. The profits are all dealt with by this concern, they do not go in any way to the Imperial Government, but are dealt with oy the board of control, for the benefit of the members of the forces. Precisely in what way that is done, I am not able to say. This institution opened a branch aí. Simonstown, and the municipality at the instance of the local traders’ association sought to compel it to take out a trading licence. But on one plea or another the municipality was never able to force this concern to take out its licence It was said, first of all, that it was a department under the Crown. That was dealt with and conclusively disproved. It was clearly not a department under the Crown, because the Crown got none of the benefits of the profits. Then it was said by the local revenue authorities here, to whom representations were made by the municipality, that this institution was in the nature merely of a storage warehouse and as such need not take out a licence. That was also proved to be an impossible contention, and at the time a Select Committee was appointed in this House to deal with the private trading by mining companies, representations were made to the Minister of Mines and Industries to deal with this question at the same time. But this was not done, and I think at the instance of the right hon. the Minister the matter was again taken up by the revenue authorities. Ultimately, they requested the magistrate to take proceedings to insist upon a licence being taken out, but that request was postponed and the matter was held in abeyance in order to enable the Defence Department to deal with the matter. Ultimately the Defence Department dealt with the matter by introducing into the Act passed in 1922, section 11 of the Act, which, as I have said, made provision for the exemption of institutions of this sort from liability to licence, rates and taxes and so forth. That section provides as follows—

The municipality protested very strongly to the hon. the Minister of Defence against this section of the Act, and put the position, before him. He at the time told the municipality that effect would not be given to this Act in respect of this particular institute, but subsequently further representations were made to the hon. the Minister and in the end a certificate was granted, and the result is that it is entitled to carry on its operations in Simonstown. This certainly is a canteen under section 11 of the Act. The net result is, one has these institutions carrying on operations in Simonstown and in this position: that the great bulk of the goods that the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute imports and sells is free of duty; and, in addition to that, the premises on which the business is carried on, in the dockyard, is used free of rent and free of provincial or municipal taxation; and, further, this board is exempt from ordinary trading licence, turn-over tax, and income-tax, and traders say that they find it impossible to compete with institutions of this character—both this institution and the ordinary canteen provided for under the Defence Force Act. In view of the nature of the population of a place like Simonstown—the great majority of whom can get a great deal of what they require through the medium of this canteen, which possess these privileges— it makes it impossible for the ordinary private trader to compete. There is no doubt that the traders are in earnest in their view that their business is being steadily ruined, and that if this thing goes on, the majority will have to shut up, for, as they say, they cannot compete. That is the case which they make, but I ought to point out that it will be denied. For instance, it will be denied that this institution deals with anybody outside the messes on the ships and in the station; it will be denied also that the public gets any benefit of the operations of the institution. This is a matter of bringing evidence for investigation by the Committee. I can only use the information put before me, and I can only tell the House what the traders in Simonstowm say. They say that, being compelled to meet the competition of an institution of this character, as well as the ordinary military canteen, they might as well shut up their shops; they say there is no reason why an institution of that sort should carry on there. Neither in Canada, Australia, New Zealand or on the China Station are such canteens allowed to compete with private-enterprise. I am informed that it is allowed only in Malta and South Africa. That is the sum and substance of the second petition, and what the traders of Simonstown ask is that this matter should be made the subject of enquiry by a Select Committee; that the facts should be gone into; and they ask that they should receive some relief from Parliament in this respect. I have given a mere outline of the matter, but there is an immense amount of correspondence between the municipality and the various authorities concerned during the past three years. I do not think it is necessary to go into further detail now, and I have only given an outline of the complaint as to what the position is. The third matter is also a grievance which is much felt, and relates to certain land at Glencairn. The position sets out that in 1900 the Simonstown Municipal Council made application to the Government for a grant of certain Crown lands within the municipal area, for the purpose of laying it out and extending that locality as a seaside resort. It is just beside Glencairn railway. The Government referred it to the Railway Department and the Imperial Military Authorities to know whether they had any objection. The Railway Department said that they wanted about half the ground, the most valuable part, for railway purposes, and consequently that ground was reserved for the department for such purposes. The Imperial Government also wanted firing rights reserved over the remainder. Subsequently, without any intimation to the Simonstown Municipality, and without their knowledge, the Government had the land sub-divided, the land reserved for railway purposes, and sold it in building lots. The land was sold by auction, and the profits appropriated to general revenue, and the result is that we have a number of these lots at Glencairn on which houses have been built, and no provision was made for roads, no provision was made for drainage, and no provision was made for other services in connection with the township. The land was simply sold and the money appropriated. The municipality of Simonstown who had asked tor the land and who did not get it, are now being charged with the obligation of finding these roads, drains and other services for the area—they have to bear the burden of the expense, and they have even been asked by the railway to give £400 for a subway for the benefit of the people who have built on this particular land. They complain very bitterly, and say that this land was reserved for railway purposes, and the proceeds of the sale ought to have been handed to the municipality so that they might be able to provide the proper municipal services for the locality, and that it is not fair to expect that the municipality should bear the burden when the benefits of the sale of the land have gone into general revenue. They recognize they have no legal right, but they consider they have a strong moral and equitable claim in the matter. They have appealed to the hon. the Minister of Lands to whom all correspondence has been addressed, on the justice of their claim, but as there has been no result they have no option in the matter but to come to the House and ask for redress. That is the sum and substance of the three petitions I have presented, and in respect of which I ask that the House may grant a Select Committee to enquire into the actual facts and the nature of the grievances, and that the municipality of Simonsdown may receive such redress as the Committee may recommend and as it thinks equitable in the circumstances of the case. I hope I have made the matter sufficiently clear.

I second, and I hope the hon. the Minister will see his way to accept the suggestion, but I do not say that I concur in all the case as put forward. As far as the matter of the Glencairn township sites is concerned, that can be designated as clear an example of double shuffling between the two departments as it is possible to find. In those days there were a few fallings from grace. As far as the question of the rateability of Imperial property is concerned, it would seem there is a very strong case put for the exemption from local taxation. In fact it would be an extraordinary stubborn person who from impure motives of hostility to the navy, would assert that it should be taxed. But it does seem that when the navy served its purpose for the whole of South Africa, that it is wrong that the liability should fall upon a particular section of the people, and I should just like to accentuate what the proposal said with regard to the absence of any hinterland there. Hon. members who have gone riding out to Cape Point have been attracted by the view, but the people who benefit by that are not the people of Simonstown, but the taxi-cab drivers of Cape Town. The case put up by the tradespeople of Simonstown is indisputable, and I do hope that the hon. the Minister will see his way to accept the motion, which was brought forward in such a moderate way, and that he will promise relief.

The Government looks upon this matter with a considerable amount of sympathy, but the question is not so simple as it has been represented to be. The hon. the mover has not referred to the fact that throughout South Africa, we have always exempted from local rates property occupied by the Imperial Government, and in most of the provinces certain property also occupied by Union Government and buildings such as these which we are occupying here, and others, are also exempt from municipal rates. If I understand these petitions aright, this petition No. 1, which refers to the rates of the municipality of Simonstown, states that the municipality wished to rate the property belonging to the Imperial Government at Simonstown; that includes the docks, warehouses, storehouses, as well as the buildings occupied as dwellings or residencies. Now the Government has always taken up the attitude that, apart from other considerations we ought not to tax property belonging to the Imperial Government. That property is occupied at Simonstown partly for Imperial purposes and partly for South African purposes, and it seems to me, that it would not be a right policy to start taxing Imperial property, when the dominions are being urged at the present time to contribute more than they are doing, to maintain the navy in which they are interested. The Union Government in the past has recognized a responsibility in the matter, and, as the hon. member has stated, agreed to pay a subsidy of £2,000 per annum to the municipality, so as to exempt from taxation, or to represent some return for the exemption from taxation, of Imperial and Union Government property. I am willing to undertake on behalf of the Government that this matter should be considered afresh. It may be that the sum of £2,000 is inadequate, and we will go into the matter anew and consult the municipal authorities with a view to ascertaining whether it is not possible to make some further reasonable provision. I want the House to understand, however, that I am not promising to make any further payment, but that if the House desires it, the whole matter shall be gone into afresh. I move that the matter in the first petition be referred to the Government for consideration, and not to a Select Committee. With regard to the second point, that is the grievance which the storekeepers at Simonstown have against the operation of the naval and military canteens. I think that is a matter which might be referred to a Select Committee, and on behalf of the Government I quite agree to that being done. Of course, I understand that everywhere the goods imported for naval and military purposes are imported duty free, and I do not think the traders of Simonstown wish to increase the cost of living so far as the naval men at Simonstown are concerned. At the same time, I admit that it seems very hard that the traders of Simonstown should be compelled to compete with these canteens which pay no duty, no licence, and no rates. That is if it can be made out that the goods are supplied to the general public. The contention, I understand, is that the goods are not supplied to the general public. This is a matter which I said might be referred to a Select Committee for consideration. With regard to the third petition, the sale of the land by the Railway Department looks, on the face of it, as if it had not been strictly in accordance with the intention which animated the Government, at the time that the land was handed over to the Administration. It was then believed that the land would be used for railway purposes, but the Railway Administration found that all the land was not suitable. The Railway Administration will be able to state their case if a Select Committee is appointed. In saying that this should be referred to a Select Committee, I do not wish it to be taken that I admit all the statements in the petition, as the Railway Administration will probably have a different version. With regard to the first petition, I hope the House will agree to refer it to the Government for consideration, and with regard to the other two, to refer them not to the Select Committee as suggested by the hon. member, but to a Select Committee in accordance with Standing Order No. 222. Hon. members will notice that the hon. the mover has inserted certain names of members whom he wishes to see on this Committee. Now I think it is better that a matter of this sort ought to be decided by an impartial body like the Standing Rules and Orders Committee, because, as far as I am concerned, I think that the hon. members whose names are mentioned largely represent municipalities. The municipalities are no doubt rather interested in this matter, but the general taxpayer is also interested, and I think we ought to have a Committee which is a little more representative. I therefore move as follows—

seconded.

I am sorry that the hon. the Minister prefers this first resolution to go to the Government for consideration. Personally, I did not intend to speak on this motion, but it is a principle which affects every municipality in South Africa. All the municipalities on the Witwatersrand have been fighting for years for the right to tax Government property. We have thought for a very long time that the Government has no special claim for exemption from municipal taxation any more than any other building in that municipality.

That is another matter. May I be allowed to explain?

I know. It is a question in connection with the Imperial Government property, but the hon. the Minister also stated that this subsidy was given to this municipality in respect of Imperial and Union Government property. That is my point, and I think, perhaps, we might have an enquiry into the whole principle of that, although this was taken as a specific instance in connection with this exemption from taxation of Government property in various municipalities. The Government have adopted in Pretoria and, I think, Durban and Bloemfontein, the principle of giving contributions towards the upkeep of the fire brigade as some compensation for the fact that these particular buildings are not paying rates and taxes to the municipality. Other municipalities are also paying for the upkeep of fire brigades in connection with post offices, magistrate courts, etc., and yet they get no contribution from the Government, and I think that principle is wrong. There is another point in connection with the case put up by the hon. member for some refund from the railway department in connection with the sale of this land, owing to the fact that the municipality are now faced with the cost of making roads, and providing water and light, reticulation, and all the other necessary sanitary and municipal services after the land has been sold. That case can also be put up with equal force against the land companies and the land owners who have offloaded their land at a profit and left the municipalities to face the cost, and if the municipality of Simonstown have a moral or legal claim against the Government for refund of money from the public purse, then I want to ask the hon. the mover if he would be prepared to support the claim put forward against the land companies in connection with a similar position, where they have offloaded the land and left the municipalities to face the cost. At Benoni we had a land company who offloaded land at a profit to themselves, and we had to put in a subway under the railway line and go to enormous expense for light and water reticulation. That is one reason we feel we should have a taxation of site values on improved land, so that these people would not be able to hang on to the land year after year and then offload on the public when it has increased in value, and leave municipalities to bear the full cost of services. However, that is by the way, and I am exceedingly sorry that the hon. the Minister has not allowed this matter also to go to a Select Committee. Probably we can put forward a case for the other municipalities of South Africa, who are suffering under a distinct grievance in regard to the same question as that raised by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset).

I shall be very happy to accept the amendment which has been proposed by the hon. the Minister. I do not think it is necessary now to add anything to what has been said; beyond this, that I want to make it clear that I do not think the Simonstown municipality wishes to see the Imperial Government property rated or taxed. What it really is asking for is, that it should receive a subsidy in lieu of the exemption given, and very properly given, to Imperial Government property.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz.—

1. (1) The petition of W. Runciman, Mayor, and 8 others, Councillors of the Municipality of Simonstown, praying for relief in respect of the cost of providing drainage, roads and other necessary works on certain land disposed of by the Railways and Harbours Administration at Glencairn: and
2. (2) the petition of C. H. Miller and 35 others, licensed traders of Simonstown, praying for an enquiry into the effects on the trade and welfare of the community brought about by the operations, of naval and military canteens and for relief in respect thereof.