I move, as an unopposed motion, and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Letter referred to Select Committee on Internal Arrangements for consideration and report.

On examining the University of South Africa (Amendment) Bill which has been set down for second reading for Wednesday, I find that it deals with matters of higher education affecting the whole Union that may be regarded as questions of public policy. Clause 2, however, seeks to empower the University of South Africa to alienate property which was donated or bequeathed by private individuals for educational purposes only. The Bill must therefore be proceeded with as a Hybrid Bill. The order for the second reading should accordingly be discharged and the Bill referred to the examiners for report under Standing Order No. 182. Subsequently, if allowed to proceed, the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee after second reading.

Ordered accordingly.

I move—

I think it is necessary for me to shortly tell the House what is actually contained in the motion now before it. To do so it is necessary to refer hon. members to Section 13 of the covenant of the League of Nations. That provides—

And then it proceeds—

You see, therefore, that it is stated here that the nations that are parties to the Pact, when in future they disagree about some matter or other which is of a certain nature, and which they consider suitable to be referred to a court of justice, shall do so; secondly, that certain disputes which are suitable for arbitration shall be settled by the court. The next section, No. 14, provides—

The Council of the League of Nations would draft a scheme for the establishment of a permanent court for the settlement of international disputes. Thereafter the Permanent Court of International Justice was established, and certain provisions were laid down in the constitution. Various states have adopted the provision contained in the constitution of the Permanent Court, but we have not, nor has any other member of the British commonwealth of nations. At the discussion during the Imperial Conference of 1926 we passed a resolution that the time was not yet ripe to sign what is called the “Optional Clause.” But thereafter the Kellogg Pact was made, and signed by us, and by all members of the British commonwealth of nations. We undertake thereby to remove amicably any dispute of whatsoever nature or origin, and not again to resort to war. This, of course, immediately changed entirely the circumstances prevailing in 1926, and it was felt that inasmuch as we undertake not to resort to war any more for the purpose of disposing of international disputes, and inasmuch as we undertake to settle disputes on a friendly footing, we ought now also to be prepared to submit disputes that may arise to a court of justice, because, from the quotations I have made from the provision in the constitution of the International Court, everything is left to the discretion of the power, unless they have signed. Otherwise nothing can compel them to lay a dispute before the court. We were, therefore always still free, but it was felt that after the signature of the Kellogg Pact it was necessary that we should also submit to the settlement by the court mentioned. Consequently, there was made recently in Geneva, officially by our representative, this declaration, of which I am now seeking ratification by this House. A similar declaration was made on behalf of all the members of the British commonwealth of nations except Ireland. The Irish declaration differs somewhat from the others. The others agreed to make the declaration practically in the same way, as follows—

and then there are three exceptions, viz.—

In this regard it would be absolutely unnecessary to go to a, court, and to take the opposite party to the Permanent Court if it has been agreed to settle the dispute in some other peaceable way—

Here it is plain that it is agreed to settle masters mutually on a friendly footing, if possible, on account of the position in which we are mutually placed, and wish to remain, so that goodwill is maintained. The court exists to prevent there ever being such a thing as war. Now, however, it is simply unthinkable that two members of the British commonwealth of nations will seek to find the final solution of a dispute by war. They have the same king, and it is unthinkable that the king will say to one party that it can wage war, and to the other party that it cannot. It is practically unthinkable for such a thing to occur, and the only way for us, therefore, as we see it, is for us to seek the solution on friendly lines. This does not prevent the possibility of our always agreeing to call in the aid of the Permanent Court for the solution of any difficulty. We can also decide to call in someone else to settle our disputes. In this connection we are entirely unbound with the proviso that none of us can take the other party to the court. Ireland is the exception, but hon. members will see that this practically amounts to nothing as Ireland stands alone, and none of the other members of the British commonwealth of nations are subject to the Permanent Court insofar as a dispute with Ireland is concerned. Therefore, if Ireland has a difference with South Africa, she will not be able to bring us before the court, because we are not subject to the jurisdiction of the court. Let me say that Ireland had the fullest right to do what she did, but I think the way we took is the best. The last proviso is—

Here Ireland again differs from us and the other dominions, but hon. members will at once see why. Ireland has not possibly fortunately, to battle with the difficulties which we have. Ireland has no Asiatic trouble, and we must make the proviso, so that we cannot be taken to the court with regard to any dispute that we may have with regard to the admission of Asiatics or others into our country. Ireland has no difficulties in this connection. We had to make a proviso to prevent our being exposed to free immigration from all parts of the world.

Are our immigration laws actually protected ?

Without the slightest doubt. International law has never yet dared to interfere in such matters, and we are quite protected. Then there is still another provision, as follows—

You will see, therefore, that the declaration, which I now seek ratification of, is nothing more than what was considered as far back as 1919, when the League of Nations was established, but which was not yet adopted at that time because the League of Nations did not yet cover the whole world, which it covers now since the Kellogg Pact has been adopted. This has made it necessary that if, in the future, differences arise between us and the other nations, we also shall subject ourselves to the acknowledged court of the League of Nations, the Permanent Court of International Justice.

I second the motion. There is no doubt that this motion is of very great importance from various points of view, not only to South Africa, but in a much wider sense, and, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, the source of this permanent international court of justice is in the League of Nations. I always felt that in 1919, when we took the step of approving the Peace Treaty, that step was a most important one; the step we took then prior to 10th September, 1919, when we appointed our plenipotentiaries from this Parliament to sign that international document, When South Africa and the other dominions of the British commonwealth took the same step, probably the greatest that has ever been taken in our constitutional history. Not only in regard to South Africa, but also to the other British dominions, there have been, since then, international developments; there have been developments constitutionally in the British commonwealth, and those developments were the natural sequence of the step we took in 1919. The Prime Minister has asked us to approve this resolution. Whatever differences there may be in regard to the terms of the peace treaty, there is no doubt, I think, that we were right in saying that, in general, the nations acclaimed the covenant of the League of Nations. What a barren and hopeless future mankind would have had and civilization would have had, were it not for the covenant of the League of Nations after the great world war. The covenant turned the minds of nations towards peace, and since the covenant we have seen various movements towards world peace. In the first place, we had the League itself. Then we had Locarno. Then we had the Kellogg peace treaty. I think those movements would not have been set moving unless we had had the covenant of the League of Nations which gradually prepared the nations for this great and laudable move. Then, at present, we have another important conference which is taking place in London. To my mind the conference sitting in London indicates that the nations’ sincerity for world peace is at present on its trial. All these movements which the different nations have agreed to will get a great setback unless that conference now taking place in London proves to be a success. I am pleased that the Prime Minister sent a message to that conference wishing it every success. I now come to the permanent court, to whose jurisdiction we are now asked to submit. I should like to say, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, that this court has its source in the League of Nations. Still it has got this very commendable feature, that the court is entirely independent of the League. The court, in its decisions and in its deliberations, is not at all, and cannot be, influenced by any member of the League or by the League as a body. That is one very commendable feature. The other commendable feature is that the personnel of the court—the judges composing the court—have inspired confidence right through international life. They are the most learned international jurists and men of the highest integrity and character who form the court. It took years before the different nations realized that they could have confidence in that court. That, I think, was quite a natural aspect. They did not at once submit to the jurisdiction of this court because there was a fear as to how the court might interpret international law. There was one school of thought relating to the continental aspect of international law, and there was another, the Anglo-Saxon view, of international law. That was a very important point. The court, in the course of its deliberations, will be able to lay down precedents which will guide the court in the future. The Prime Minister has rightly pointed out that since 1919, on the nations becoming members of the League, they are asked in Article 13 that, if there should be any international disputes, those disputes should go to an international court. Then Article 14 practically enjoins upon the League to establish this court, and it is very praiseworthy, so far as the League is concerned, that the League did not delay the establishment of that court, but already acted in the following year, 1920, when we find that a statute was passed by the assembly of the League constituting this court. It is Article 36 of this statute to which we are now asked to declare allegiance. Article 36 has been interpreted by the nations as making optional adherence thereto by members of the League and nations outside the League. We were not compelled to declare adherence to that court. That is why it is necessary for us now to take this step as proposed by the Prime Minister. Another very important point in connection with this question of the optional clause is this: that Article 36 makes it clear that we can adhere to that court subject to certain reservations. Well, those reservations have been fully discussed by the members of the commonwealth to which we belong, and eventually they have all agreed, with the exception of the Irish Free State, to declare allegiance to the jurisdiction of this court subject to reservations. The Prime Minister has referred to the three reservations. I wish to refer to two of them. The first is in the case of a dispute arising between South Africa and any other sister dominion. There, I think, I re-echo the remarks of the Prime Minister, and I would almost stress the point more. To my mind the position would become untenable if a difficulty should arise between South Africa and any other dominion, and such a dispute were referred to a foreign court. That would be in conflict with our ideas of co-operation, which is the only basis upon which the commonwealth can continue to exist. There is another aspect, and that is the constitutional aspect which has also been touched upon by the Prime Minister. I think it was also discussed by the Imperial Conference in 1926. That is, that the dominions owe a common allegiance to the Crown. It is very questionable, constitutionally speaking, whether we could have gone outside to a foreign court to decide the matter in the case of a dispute between South Africa and a sister dominion. I have said at the commencement that the action which we take to-day has a much wider significance than that which only concerns our own country. This court, I think, in the course of time, will be a great factor in the cause of peace in the world. By taking the step which we are taking to-day we are assisting in the future the movement for world peace. Another point is that we have the undoubted right—a right which we established in 1919—to make international treaties. It is important, especially for a comparatively young country like we are, that we should have a body such as this Permanent International Court to which we could refer should we have a dispute perhaps with a very great world power, say, a power like Germany with which we have a treaty. In such an event, we could refer the dispute to the international court with every confidence that justice would be done. There is another point. Whatever steps we can take to encourage world peace, such as the establishment of a body like this court, which, I think, indirectly will greatly assist in preventing wars, we should not fail to take. I often think that the millions of money now spent annually on the maintenance of great armies and navies would be much better employed in furthering the arts of peace and in uplifting the poorer classes of the nations of the world. I have very great pleasure in seconding the motion.

I do not think there is anyone in the House who will not rejoice that it now looks as if a commencement were really being made with the international court. The House will, therefore, I think, unanimously vote for the principles. There is, however, one point about which I must say a few words, although I feel that we are here faced by a fait accompli, about, which we can do no more. In the first place, the High Commissioner, our representative at Geneva at the time, made a declaration on behalf of our Government, and we can now, therefore, not object to it. Then there are also members opposite who welcome this step, and we on this side can, therefore, not object toit. The point on which I want to say a few words even if I am a “voice crying in the wilderness,” is about the second proviso. I feel sorry that South Africa did not stand by Ireland. I know hon. members opposite will laugh.

We expected it.

It seems to me that the second proviso, which lays down that differences between the dominions, or between the dominions and Great Britain, cannot come before the court, rests on two false premises. The first premise is that if such a thing were brought before the international court it would mean that we were allowing a foreign nation, or foreign nations, to interfere in the family disputes of the British empire, and this, for the sake of the family unity of the empire, cannot be allowed. To my mind, it is a disparagement of the dignity of that court to say that it would amount to an interference in the family affairs of the British empire. It is a reflection on the impartiality of that court. It means that we cannot, or will not, acknowledge the inpartiality of the international court of justice, a court which, according to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), is worthy of our confidence and fully competent. If the hon. member is right, why cannot we, with the fullest confidence; take our differences to the court.

We willingly do so.

But suppose that one of the parties to the dispute is not satisfied, why then can we not take the matter to the court? My first objection is that it looks as if we have insufficient confidence in it. The second is that we assume that the British empire is such a family unity that the court may not be permitted to decide upon its differences. I know there are those who are in favour of the existence of some such unity, and who, therefore, welcome such a step. But is the empire actually such a unity? Is it a fact that conflicts will never arise between us? The continuous competition between ourselves, Canada, Australia, and the other parts of the empire is becoming acute. It is possible to foresee that serious differences between us may arise. What court will settle those differences if we have not the right of appealing to the international court? Will it be the Imperial Conference? Will it be a British court? A court of imperial court of justice? Will it be an impartial court for us or for Ireland ?

The declaration says how it is to be done.

The declaration states that we have the right to go, but that we will not go. But my difficulty is that serious disputes may arise between us and the other members of the British commonwealth of nations. South Africa, at any rate, as a part of it, has already been at war with what is to-day the British empire. It is not impossible for such a thing to happen again, and the old matter is then excluded, owing to this provision, from the world court, because it is a so-called family quarrel. War may possibly take place within the British empire, notwithstanding all the difficulties in connection with a common king. Other nations will then take sides without the cause of the trouble having been before the court. If we have confidence in this court, then we must have the confidence of the ordinary person who is involved in a family quarrel. Difficulties often arise in a family, and the persons concerned have a right of going to court. Why then are Great Britain and the dominions so frightened that they do not want to appeal to the international court of justice? It surely cannot be that Great Britain, as the strongest in the British empire, adopts the point of view that she is master as long as such a dispute does not go to the international court? Are we then afraid of the competency of the court? No, it is distrust of the court. We may have machinery within the empire to settle our differences, but if we cannot solve them we ought to have the right to appeal to this international court. If we do so, we shall be taking a step to bring world peace about in reality. As for South Africa, this proviso is the fly in the ointment.

May I say a few words in reply? I am glad of what the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) says. I thank him for his support. It is, indeed, a pleasure to me to see the unanimity which prevails about this declaration; nor do I think that there is a single member who does not feel that the nations have actually made an amazing advance in the interests of world peace, viz., to get international disputes settled by a court amicably. I must say that I am sorry that the court was spoken of as "foreign.”

You spoke, yourself, of a foreign court.

That court already existed for some time before it was made permanent. It is wrong to speak of the foreign court, because that court does not belong to any nation in the world. It is the result of the joint creation by the nations of the world, in which we took just as great a part as any other country. I think it belongs just as much to us as to any other nation, and we must regard it from this point of view. I want to point out to the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) how he errs in objecting to the second proviso. It is a court on which Great Britain, as well as we, have a seat, and if we ever get another court hereafter which will solve our mutual disputes within the empire, then I think it will merely amount to the same thing, and the position will be no more favourable. I just want to point out that the hon. member spoke as if it would be wrong if one of the states belonging to the British commonwealth mutually settled its dispute instead of going to the court The attitude which I, and my Government, have always taken, is that every dominion can go to the court, and, as far as I know, even Great Britain has no objection to it. We have the fullest right of doing so, but we enquired whether it was in the interests of South Africa, or no. In other words, is it in the interests of that good co-operation which ought to exist between the members of the British commonwealth so long as we co-operate by saying: “Look, if we should have a difference, then we shall oblige ourselves to lay it before that court for decision”; it would be interpreted as distrust in ourselves, and in the good cooperation between the members of the British community of nations. It may, e.g., occur that one of the members says: “Perhaps we can settle it in this way, and then it would be unnecessary to go to court.” If we ask with whom we might most probably have a difference, in other words with Canada. Australia, Ireland or Great Britain, then I don’t think there can be any doubt that there is more chance—100 per cent, more chance—of a difference with Great Britain than with any other member. We must, therefore, assume that should a difference ever arise it would, in the first place, be with Great Britain. But now I ask what it would mean to us if we went to the court, and we said, as does Ireland, that we submit the settlement to the court, and England refuses, then there would be no improvement in the position at all. I want, moreover, to ask my hon. friends to suggest a practical instance of a dispute between ourselves and Great Britain, if such a dispute should arise. This whole treaty is intended to stop war. England has not bound itself to submit a dispute to the international court, and will, in consequence, be able to say: “No, we are not going to submit it to the court’s decision.” And then, if England does not want to agree with us in a reasonable way, we shall be powerless. As soon as we examine the fact hon. members will see that the only sound way is the one we have taken. Look at the position I referred to at the start, such as the common crown, i.e., our king being the king of England, what would be the position if the king said to us: “Go to war with England, I will give my consent.” If that happened, all connection with the British commonwealth would, ipso facto, stop. If that state of affairs ever arose, both immediately leave the British commonwealth of nations. Imagine the king giving us the right of attacking England. We would then surely say at once: “We are finished with the British empire; we are free.” I want to ask my hon. friends to think that our position is now different to that in the past. At various times hon. members on this and the other side of the House make the mistake of not being able, or wishing, to see that we are a free people, as free as any other nation. If they will accept that, it will assist us in stopping that shouting we always see in the newspapers, which does no good, and only leads to erroneous ideas. We ought all greatly to appreciate our having made this declaration as a free people.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

We have passed legislation in this country for the proper control of the export of our produce, but there is nothing which gives the Minister power to exercise supervision on our inland markets; in other words, we have looked more to our overseas markets being properly regulated. We have given attention to the overseas buyer and consumer, but have neglected our own affairs a little. Hence I come to-day with the motion for exercising proper supervision over our markets, so that our own producer and consumer shall have the benefit thereof in future. I think that everyone who knows the market in our country will admit that something must be done. The Bill does not propose, drastic action. We do not wish to make it difficult for the producer, but where it is necessary the Minister must have the necessary powers of control. Take, e.g., packing of wool, we all know that in the past it has not always been quite satisfactory. I think that there should be proper supervision. Another difficulty that occurs to me is the packing of lucerne. The dairy farmers constantly complain that they suffer loss, and have lost good cattle through there being wire in lucerne. That is possibly the reason why many dairy farmers have to-day resorted to other fodder, because they are afraid of lucerne which is not properly packed and which contains wire. The price of lucerne is very low to-day, and we must try to effect an improvement. The farmers will then be able to expect a better market for their lucerne, and I think we must do everything to obtain this. The other day I heard a manufacturer complaining that he could not use our inland products for manufacture because they were so badly treated by the producer, and that he, consequently, had to import them. This is a very unsound state of affairs, and it is the duty of this House to improve matters. Hon. members will possibly think this Bill a bit drastic, but the powers which are granted to the Minister are the same as those in other Acts, such as with reference to the export of produce. It will, further, not be applied to agricultural produce before the producer has been properly consulted, and only to products when it is necessary.

What products?

I cannot precisely determine, but there are other laws here where the same powers have been granted to a Minister. From time to time circumstances may arise under which it is desirable to apply the law, and we cannot always come to Parliament. I am thinking primarily of the marking of wool bales and the packing of lucerne, but it is possible that it may appear that other products should come under it. The Bill provides that certain products can from time to time be brought within its provisions; further, the way in which they shall be packed, and that the Minister can issue regulations with regard to the packing. In conclusion, there is the further provision that the Minister can fix fees for the inspection of produce to which the Act applies.

Everything by regulation ?

That is the method in many Acts. Has there ever been an objection to the regulation which is made applicable to the export of produce? I do not think that there has ever been one. The Minister is always responsible to this House.

What about the east coast fever regulations, which are ruining us?

Without the regulations there would possibly not have been a single animal left. Even Natal will yet be cleared of east coast fever, and then be thankful. It appears to me that the hon. member is only agitating for a special purpose, but I do not think he has any serious objection. The hon. member knows that we will not issue any unreasonable regulations, but only those that are in the interests of the country.

The hon. Minister has said that this is a very short Bill; I say that whilst it is short, it is a very drastic one; it goes very far. It is the sort of Bill a dictator might introduce, and the powers given under it are tremendous; they go altogether too far. The hon. Minister has not explained the Bill fully, and the far-reaching obligation it imposes on the farmer. The hon. Minister is proposing to make regulations that the farmer will have to pay for weighing and inspection, of his produce. We have too many inspectors. We cannot get rid of them, and they are interfering with almost every phase of our farming. It is time members on both sides of the House and the farmers should call a halt.

The only farming industry which is really paying in South Africa to-day is the wattle industry, and the reason is there has been no interference from inspectors. I want to know, and the Minister has not told us, if that industry will come under this Bill. The wattle industry its an agricultural product, and I take it it will come under this Bill. There is no definition of an “agricultural product” in the Bill, I want to go further and say that the Minister has not told the House that some poor unfortunate farmer who has not complied with these drastic regulations of this drastic Bill, will be subject to a fine of £30. If he is found guilty on a second occasion he will be fined £50. I submit that that is a very heavy fine to impose. I should like to ask the Minister how many farmers behind him support the Bill, or if the farmers in the country support the Bill. I should like to ask what farmers’ associations have requested that the Bill should be placed upon the statute book, and also if the farmers in the backveld have approved of the Bill? What will happen if the farmer sends his produce to Durban or to Cape Town, and it is not up to condition, and it is perishable produce?" What will happen to it? Will it be thrown into the streets, or will it be sent back to the farmer? To-day, if perishable articles arrive on the market and are not up to condition, you can sell them at the highest price you can get for them. Under this Bill you can’t sell them to anybody. The producer will have to destroy such articles, or have them sent back to him. That, I think, is a bit drastic. It is going altogether too far. I think the Bill will benefit three classes of people. In the first place, it will benefit the inspectors who will be appointed. The second lot of people to be benefited will be the printers, who will reap a real good harvest. They will print labels by the million. If an article is not labelled as the Minister has dictated, he will be liable to a fine of £30. Then there is another set of people who will score here, because every farmer will be subject to the regulations, and his produce will have to be very carefully weighed. If it is not up to the measure, there will be a £30 fine. Under the provisions of this Act it will mean that every poor farmer will be made to buy a set of scales, and the scale manufacturer will benefit. I should like to ask in what way will the farmers benefit under the Bill? Is the Minister prepared to guarantee a better price for the farmers’ produce? If the Minister is out to assist the farmer, let him see that we have more consumers to buy our produce. Then we want properly-organized markets. I object to a Bill of this sort with all these conditions. It may be very excellent in a highly-developed country where, there is close settlement with large markets that have not the heavy fluctuations in price that we have in South Africa. In some cases, the unfortunate farmer sends his produce to the market and he does not even get the equivalent of the railage charge, and, if this Bill goes through, he will have to pay for the cost of the labels and the containers. He will also have to pay for the cost of inspection and weighing, in addition to the loss he may otherwise have on the railways. The Minister has not told us in what way the farmer will benefit under this drastic Bill. If he had told the farmers that this Bill will be of great benefit to them, and that he would see that they got better prices and that new markets were opened up, and that there would be a greater consuming population in the country, I submit then, that there might have been something in support of the Bill. The Minister has not brought forward one statement to the House in support of the drastic powers he is asking for under the Bill. I will go further and say that the farmers today are facing bad times. Imagine a farmer who is making a loss on his farm being compelled to buy labels and comply with the other conditions of this Bill. Does the Minister think that this is the time to introduce such legislation? I submit that every farmer to-day is looking at every penny. And to ask us to vote for a Bill of this sort, which will hit the poor farmer, and for that and other reasons stated I cannot support this Bill.

The hon. Minister tells us that he has precedents for this Bill. He may have, but bad precedents cannot make good laws, and the fact that this sort of thing may have been done before is no argument to encourage us to do it again. There seems to be a good deal more in this Bill than the mere question of the marketing of the wool clip. The Minister comes to this House and says: “I want a free hand to deal with the marketing and the labelling of all agricultural produce in South Africa. I want power on my own authority to compel all agricultural producers to prepare their goods for marketing exactly as I, in my peculiar wisdom, may direct.” Ho says: “I am the Minister of Agriculture; Parliament need not worry about these matters; give me a free hand and leave me to do the rest.” Now we know that the work of the very huge department under the hon. Minister’s control is directed towards assisting all farmers to produce sound goods which can be sold at a profit to the farmer, and the point at which those goods become ready for the market is the point when they are labelled and marked, so that the hon. Minister, under this short Bill of 40 lines, is asking us to give him complete control over the disposal of the whole of the agricultural produce of this country. Well, we all know that there are times of emergency when the Government may be compelled to act urgently, and later on may be compelled to come to this House and ask for an Act of indemnity to condone its actions, but it seems to me that in this case the Government, in the person of the hon. Minister, is coming to this House and asking for an Act of indemnity before he begins to deal with the crisis, the very existence of which has not yet been established, and which he himself has made no attempt whatever to make clear to this House. If the House is prepared to delegate its authority in a most important matter of this kind, to the hon. Minister and his department, I see no reason why each Minister, in turn should not present a short Bill to the House empowering him to make such regulations as he may think fit for carrying on affairs in his own department, and adjourn the House sine die. That is the logical conclusion if we go on with a Bill of this kind which briefly admits the existence of a problem which requires attention, and hands it over to the Minister to deal with as he thinks, fit, If Parliament accepts this, principle, as we shall be doing if we pass the Bill as it stands, we shall be deliberately shirking our duty, and we shall be admitting that in practice the theory that the Minister is responsible to Parliament is dead. Surely if there is a problem in regard to packing and so on, it is our duty in this House to consider whether legislation is necessary, and, if it is necessary, we should lay down Very: carefully the lines along which the Minister should deal with the situation. If all we are here for is to accept the brief statement of the Minister that there is a problem, and then hand the problem over to him to deal with as he sees fit, we are merely wasting our time and the public’s money, and the sooner we admit that parliamentary government has ceased, to be effective, and has been usurped by an autocratic Government, governing by regulation, the better. That is the principle at stake, and I hope Parliament will realize the challenge made to its authority, and will face the issue. I daresay the Minister will try to shelter himself behind the co-operative farmers’ associations, and will probably give an undertaking that he will not apply the measure except in cases where responsible co-operative associations ask him to do so, but even that does not justify us in approving of the principle contained in the Bill. If the Minister merely wants power to give statutory effect to regulations drawn up by co-operative associations, why does he not say so? The co-operative movement among farmers must be encouraged wherever possible, but so far from protecting co-operative associations in this Bill, we are handing them over lock, stock and barrel to the irresponsible control of the Minister. I am not referring specifically to the present hon. Minister, but how long will the Minister retain his portfolio? We know that old soldiers never die, hut Ministers, politically speaking, are liable, like anybody else, to fade away. How can the Minister answer for his successor? There are cases of new Ministers even in the present Government full of novel ideas taking over a department with the real working of which they may have practically no knowledge. Armed with powers given in this Bill, what harm could not such a Minister do in a few months? Take, for instance, the fruit industry. I represent the district which is the pioneer of the deciduous fruit industry, and of the fruit export trade. I refer to Constantia, the fruit farmers of which have by their own initiative, established their own brands both here and overseas. In the course of years their brands have acquired a definite goodwill both here at home and overseas, and command more than the average price. What is to prevent a Minister, who, perhaps, having been a lawyer or a sheep farmer, is full of new ideas as to the marketing of fruit, issuing regulations compelling all the Constantia fruit farmers to alter their method of packing, or to compel them to abandon their own particular brand or trade-mark, and to adopt a standard one to be used, say by the whole of the Western Province? It is no argument for the Minister to say that he does not intend to use his powers drastically. If he does not intend to exercise them, why does he ask for them? In this Bill we are asked to give him unfettered authority to do anything he pleases in regard to the packing and marketing of agricultural products. I oppose the second reading of the Bill because it will perpetuate the vicious principle of government by bureaucratic regulation, instead of by registration, and because it seeks to give the Minister autocratic and quite unnecessarily wide powers to deal with a subject which the farmers themselves are better fitted to handle.

I think it must be clear to everyone that the Bill before us may have a very far-reaching effect if it is administered drastically. Those of us who know the Minister of Agriculture know that he has the best intentions with the Bill. Of that we have not the least doubt. But when we introduce a Bill like this, then it is not for us to judge the interest and devotion to farming of the Minister, but, as a matter of fact, in what way that Bill may be interpreted and with what results it can be made applicable to farming. I am here speaking on behalf of the smaller farmers, who live from hand to mouth, and, in spite of the fact that I am aware of the interest of the Minister in facilitating the marketing of our products and obtaining better prices for the producer, I say I hope that the Minister, notwithstanding this, will give us an opportunity to freely criticize the proposed provisions, and I hope that he will be able to meet us on various points. In the first place, the first clauses of the Bill mention all agricultural produce, those provisions cannot apply equally to all agricultural produce, e.g., the provisions about wool and lucerne cannot be equivalent to those regarding fruit and dairy produce. In the first case it cannot involve much additional expense, but in the case of fruit and dairy produce it may cause the producer considerable additional expense. I feel particularly for the smaller farmers, the producers of fruit and dairy produce, and poultry farmers, and, therefore, I want to ask the Minister to bear their difficulties in mind. It is a pity that the Minister has introduced the Bill at the present stage of our economic existence. We are in the depth, or in the hollow, of a depression. Even the Minister will not feel justified to increase the costs of production and marking of the grain farmer. The same applies at the moment to the wool market. In his opening speech he referred to certain provisions. When he says that his intention is to improve the market no one doubts it, but when it is in the position it is in to-day, we must be very careful about causing misunderstanding with provisions like these. Prices to-day are lower than they have been, I think, for the last fifteen years, and we must be very careful before passing a Bill which will cause further worry to the producer. They can hardly make a living at present. Take the fruit farmers, formerly they obtained prices which were encouraging, and a large number of farmers planted a considerable number more fruit trees; to-day the prices are such that those persons do not know whether they ought to send their fruit to the market or not. I handled peaches only to-day, and the owner assured me that they are graded 1st class. He had, however, to sell them at 4s. a paraffin case. Those of us who produce will feel like that farmer, who had to sell his produce at that price. I, myself, had to sell good fruit at 2s. a basket. I ask the Minister, therefore, in all earnestness not to cause misunderstanding.

But if we were to restrict the provisions.

That is my objection, and if the Minister agrees with it, then he meets me to a considerable extent. He will appreciate that where we are proposing new provisions with reference to packing, an official may go so far that the stipulations will contribute to a considerable extent to the cost of production. We want to extend our market, but we must be very careful about adding to the difficulties of those who produce the article. It will cause the smaller farmer very great trouble. The Minister, in opening, said that no objection had been received with regard to the regulations made in connection with the export of fruit to the overseas market. The principle is sound. One day it will come to it that a similar regulation will affect much more than the export market. We want to produce the best articles, and build up a market with the best class of produce. I have no objection to that, and if the Minister intends only to apply the provision to the larger market that we want to develop, I shall have no objection to the measure. But, taking the Bill as it stands, it goes too far, as I will illustrate. Take the case of the fruit farmer at The Paarl. If the provision in the regulations applies to all fruit, that it must be packed in a certain way, it will mean that the fruit which that farmer sends in to Jones, Limited, must also be similarly packed. The Minister will say that no one will be so foolish, but that is stated in the Bill. I am not only thinking of The Paarl, but also of other parts of the contrary, as e.g., the producers along the Orange River. I am thinking that the Minister has permitted us to give these hints, and that he will meet us with reference to restricting the application of the Bill. If we pass the principle, we must have the assurance that the measure will be restrictively applied, and if the Minister gives us that assurance, he will remove a great objection. In the second place, when it is necessary in future to extend the provisions of the Bill, the Minister must give us the assurance that the farmers’ organization, which delivers the produce in question, e.g., a body like the Wine Farmers’ Association, or the Tobacco Farmers’ Association, will be properly consulted beforehand. I hope the Minister will realize that we are not hostile in making, but we have to guard over the interests of the less privileged farmers, and in doing so I want to prevent people being involved in further difficulties in this difficult time. We want to support the Minister if we know that the measure will only be of restrictive application.

I hope this House will have no hesitation in throwing out this Bill, because it is a very good example of the grandmotherly legislation which has been filling our statute books for the last few years, and which has gradually been subjecting the details of the businesses of the producers of this country to control and interference by a horde of Government officials; and also because it is a very good example of the tendency, in a good deal of the legislation that has been put through recently, to do the most drastic things by regulation. The Minister asks the House to give him power to pass regulations subject to no control by anybody, and some of the powers he asks for are of the most drastic description. For instance, he asks for powers to prescribe the materials with which the farmer is to pack his own products. One would think that the people best able to judge what materials to use for packing are the farmers themselves. Many farmers carry a very heavy stock of materials for packing, and if this Bill goes through, the Minister will be able to make all the stock of materials which these farmers have on hand useless to them or to anybody else. He also wants power to prohibit private marks, or to substitute one mark for the whole of the country or for one area. He wants powers to discriminate between different areas, and to lay down one set of regulations for one area, and a totally different set for another. He asks for the most amazing powers. An army of inspectors will be required to carry out these regulations, and the ranks of the civil service have already been swollen by legislation of this character. I would like to draw particular attention to that part of the Bill which prescribes criminal penalties. I understand from the Minister’s speech that the object of the Bill is to extend markets for goods, but it appears to me that the main thing that will be extended by this measure will be the recruiting ground for our gaols, because every farmer who packs his goods for sale will be a potential recruit for Roeland Street. For instance, the Minister may prescribe that peaches are to be packed in boxes of a certain size, and are to be labelled in a certain way, and, in that case, it will be a criminal offence for a farmer to sell a basket of peaches to a man who goes to his farm for them. If a farmer has a surplus of fruit, or runs out of packing materials, it will be an offence for him to send his surplus in bulk to the nearest jam factory. If one of his servants makes a mistake, and a wrongly-marked box gets on the market, the farmer will be liable to a penalty. I would ask the farmers of this House to think very seriously before they put themselves and their fellow farmers in a position of danger of this sort. Furthermore, the Minister, in this Bill, proposes absolutely to prohibit the selling or exposing for sale of goods which have not been packed, labelled and marked in the manner prescribed by his regulations. Should a farmer sell a consignment of fruit which he happens not to have marked correctly he may be in the unfortunate position of not being able to recover the price of the goods he has sold. If the Minister has not considered that aspect of the matter, I suggest that he should take legal advice with regard to it. I think that if a case of that sort came into court the court would hold that the sale of wrongly-marked produce being prohibited on grounds of public policy the seller could not recover. I have found no evidence of any demand by the farmer of this country for a Bill of this kind, and it appears to me amazing that the Minister should ask for such powers. It would be much more amazing if his followers were prepared to give them to him. He asks for a blank cheque to do absolutely what he pleases in these regulations. He has assured us that he is not going to use these powers drastically, but he is not in his present position for ever, and whatever his intentions may be, one does not know what may be the intentions or the views of his successor.

I am thankful that the Minister has introduced a Bill to put an end to the fraudulent packing of wool. Our experience is that producers suffer very much by the action of a group of speculators who fraudulently pack wool, and the producer of wool welcomes the provision that a bale should have put on it what it contains, and if that is false, then that those who packed the wool should be punishable. I do not agree with the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) that only the printers should be benefited by the Bill, but I am opposed to the farmers having to pay the costs of this measure. Let me give the Minister and the House the assurance that the wool growers’ associations have been properly packing the wool of late. We have, ourselves, instructed how to pack, and it is the speculators who pack fraudulently. I do not think we can allow the farmer to pay for the sins of the speculators, because I think that it is the intention of the Minister to prosecute those people. Another objection of the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) was that the producers would have to bring their produce to the inspectors at a definite time. That cannot be the intention, and the Minister would never introduce such a Bill, but Clause 3 (c) does not read quite clearly, and I want to ask the Minister to make it clearer, so that there shall be no doubt. If, e.g., a quantity of wool has to be examined by the farmers’ co-operation in Durban, then the inspector will come to the supply depots of the farmers’ co-operation, and the wool will not be taken to the inspector’s office. That we all know, but not to give people like the hon. member for Newcastle a chance to stampede the farmers, we can lay it down clearly.

Clause 1 of this Bill gives the Minister power to make any agricultural product come under the regulations which he asks power to frame. I wish to point out that not a single agricultural product is exempted or can be exempted. At the mere whim of the Minister any agricultural product can be brought within the provisions of this Bill, which will, in my opinion, cause great inconvenience and loss to the producer. I must warn the Minister not to play too deeply into the hands of the capitalistic class. The measure interferes not only with agricultural products, but also with the person who sells or exposes such products for sale. Mussolini himself would have blushed to have asked for such powers; yet the hon. Minister, the idol of Wolmaransstad, very calmly and complacently, with a piousness that would have done the Pope credit, asks us to give up the birth-right of every farmer and producer in the Union. If this Bill were to apply to agricultural products for export, then I would advocate supporting the Minister, but I cannot understand the proposal that it should apply to local products and markets. It is iniquitous. If legislation of this type is to be placed on our statute book, people outside will have the indisputable right to say that the legislature of this country is suffering from legislative mania. Clause 3 will give the Minister the right to interfere with any label on a package or container, and a fine of £30 will await the negligence of the poor farmer. It is the small producer, of course, who will be very hard hit. The Minister says it will not be his intention to apply this Bill to all agricultural products. He will proceed very slowly. I appeal to every farmer and every farmer’s representative here not to be misled by that statement and never in life to be misled by the advances of the wily and hardened sinner for the unmistakable and unintentional approaches of the youthful lover. The injustice of the whole measure is reflected in the provision that the Bill can apply to different areas, and that different regulations may apply. Clause 4 should be viewed with suspicion. It seems as if the hon. the Minister of Railways and Harbours has had a hand in the framing of the Bill. If not, I fail to see why the levy should be payable to the Railways and Harbours Administration. The farmer will feel the effects of this measure the most. He is in a bad way now, and it is unnecessary to harden his lot still further. If we pass this legislation, he will have a right to say: “How have the mighty fallen ?

I am sorry to have to oppose the Minister to-day, but as a representative of farmers, I cannot agree to the Bill. We all know the Bill, and I need not say much about it, but as the market has collapsed to-day, and the farmers cannot sell their produce, we ought not to proceed with such measures. When a farmer has despatched his produce to-day he is afraid to examine the statement he receives about the sale. If then the further restrictions with regard to packing and marketing are laid down, then it will hit the small farmer badly. A small farmer, who, for instance, sends off a case of peaches without wood-wool, even if it is to a friend, who said he could send it in that way, may fall into the clutches of an official and be punished. The officials are not always sympathetic towards us. We know the Minister to-day in office, but do not know who we shall have to-morrow. His successor may possibly be a man who is not sympathetic, and then fault may be found with all sorts of things. I ask the Minister to allow the Bill to stand over until the farmers have been consulted. I know the Minister is sensible, and he has always pointed out that he does not insist on anything the farmers do not want themselves. If the Minister came with me to address meetings, he would find that everyone was against the measure. They do not want fees to be exacted, and difficulties to be made in connection with packing. The position is bad enough already. There is a levy on wool, the seller gets a large percentage, and we cannot levy further taxes. If I have small bales of straw pressed, which cost sixpence, and I am present when my boy packs a piece of wire in it, then I may get into trouble, according to this Bill.

I wish to put another nail into the coffin of this Bill. I protest against the grave tendency to govern by regulation; it is a method of slipshod legislation which has been carried far enough. I further criticize this Bill as slipshod because there is no definition as to what is meant by agricultural produce; it is difficult to criticize the Bill without some reference to specific products. Had the Bill been intended to control the methods of packing and marking for export, it would have received general support from both sides of the House, but that is not the case. The powers sought by the Minister under this Bill, if they were given him, would warrant the description of being an undue interference with the rights of a producer to sell his products as he likes in his own country, and, in my opinion, such interference can only be justified if applied to goods for export.

I also urge that the Bill should be dropped. The intention is good, but the time is quite unsuitable for such legislation for our farmers. They are saddled with thousands of tons of stuff which they cannot sell, and I appeal to the Minister to drop, for the present, all legislation involving new levies. Unfortunately, quite a number of Bills have been introduced with some levy or other on farming produce. If the farmers had money I could accept the principle, but the farmers cannot pay the working expenses, and now a further levy is demanded. The farmers do not know what to do with their wool, and it is not much better with fruit. I, as a fruit farmer, have five or six years been paying the levy on export fruit, and we have not yet had any benefit from it. If there is a shortage on the overseas market we get good prices, but last year many members of my association had to pay in on their fruit, in spite of the export premium which was levied to look for markets. To-day there is an over-production of everything, and all the levies will not compel the public to buy things they do not require. I ask the Minister to withdraw the Bill.

I have not come across anything quite so drastic as this Bill. If it is made law the farmers will become the vassals of clerks of the Agricultural Department. That is the actual position. I congratulate the drafter of this Bill for one thing, namely, the skill he has shown in being able to, in a Bill of some 40 lines, bind the entire farming community of South Africa hand and foot. A great statesman in England the other day warned the country against the danger of government by regulation, that is, the power being taken out of the hands of Parliament and put into the hands of the civil servant, and he stated that this tendency was rapidly growing. I do not know much about England, but in South Africa this is certainly the case. Every day it is becoming worse and worse. I want the hon. the Minister to realize that we all appreciate that he is trying to improve the good name of our products abroad with a view to getting markets. We realize and appreciate the fact that without our wool being properly marketed, we could not compete against Australia. But we are contesting this Bill on a question of principle, and on these grounds we object very strongly to it. We object to handing ourselves over, lock, stock and barrel to the Agricultural Department. In Clause 1, the Minister takes complete control of the disposal of our products. But by the term “minister” here we may read “civil servant of the Agricultural Department,” because we know that neither the Minister nor his senior officials have the time to deal with all these things personally. It is impossible for him to do so; he is much too busy. This means that you will have some clerk in the Agricultural Department whose knowledge of farming might have been gathered from reading an advertisement folder of Nestle’s milk, and thereby becoming a dairy expert. He is to tell us exactly how to sell our products. That is so far as Section (1) is concerned. The hon. the Minister proceeds in Section (2) to make it clear that no other law whatsoever can be appealed to should the farmer feel he is harshly treated. He says—

There can be no possible relief to the farmer. Further, we cannot sell any produce whatsoever unless it is packed according to the regulations of the Agricultural Department. A farmer might be financially embarrassed, and have a low-grade product for sale which does not warrant packing according to regulation, in a pretty carton and tied with blue ribbon, which he can sell and make something out of it, but he is absolutely forbidden to dispose of it under this regulation. The worst feature of the Bill is that it defines nothing. We are to be governed by regulation, and by regulation compiled from time to time by the Agricultural Department as the spirit moves them. Clause 3 would do credit to Mussolini, I think. It is really one of the most drastic things you could possibly have. It deals with the manner of packing, and size, description, quality and weight of the materials to be used in the packing, etc. It deals with the manner in which the receptacles containing such products shall be labelled, marked or branded, and the manner in which, the place where, the time when, and the person by whom any such products or receptacles containing them shall be inspected, examined or weighed. The whole Bill is a proposed law which any European dictator might have drafted, for there could be nothing more drastic. If this hon. House could only pass a Bill filled with regulations for the government of Ministers, then South Africa might have some rights. But, seriously, every day we notice how the public service becomes stronger and stronger and gathers to itself more cowers for controlling the farmers. I admit it is largely our own fault. We run to the Government and the department asking them to help us, and the Minister has his difficulties in doing so, but at the same time the farmers cannot hand themselves over body and soul to government by regulations as would result if this Bill passed the House. As I have said, the Minister has the best of intentions, and in certain ways this Bill does fill a want, but the whole principle is bad, and we must protect the farmers against this tendency of taking the power out of the hands of Parliament and placing it in the hands of the Agricultural Department. We are not prepared, as the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Boner) said, to sign a blank cheque. Let the Minister lay down definite powers he requires for the purpose of this Bill. If he is not prepared to do that, let him give the right of veto to organized agricultural bodies who are interested in the particular kind of produce concerned. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has said that there is a fine of £30 for contravention of the Bill, and thinks this is excessive. We need not worry so much about this fine for first offence. It is the amount of £50 for second offences, as there is no doubt that every farmer will be convicted at least once in the first year. It is the £50 fine for subsequent offences that worries me, as I realize how many times we will be fined that amount if the Bill becomes law.

I have listened to the ingenuity of hon. members opposite. It is admirable. If they were to try to apply it to the improving of the position of the farmers “instead of producing a farce, it would have a good effect. My hon. friend asked who asked for the Bill. The agricultural unions of the provinces. If we look at the speeches we notice that all express the fullest confidence in the Minister, but then they say that he will not always remain in office. He will remain there for quite a long time yet, but, apart from that, this is a step in the right direction. No, one is a greater supporter and propagandist of the co-operative movement than this Minister. His department holds its finger more and more on the pulse of the farmers and gives them a chance of developing on progressive lines. The co-operative system is built up to improve the position of the farmers. Do they now think that such a department, when it has these powers, will act like Mussolini? If Mussolini used his power as the Agricultural Department uses its powers, then Mussolini is not a malicious man, hut a very good fellow. The difficulties that may arise are referred to. We live in an age of co-operation. In a country like America £1,000,000 has been made available for the purpose, and President Hoover has appointed a special board to push the cooperative movement. This Minister has advanced the co-operative movement further, and will still more do so. The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) dealt with the proposal under quite a wrong assumption. No law is perfect, and regulations are necessary. There has been contravention of the law from the first law-giving on Sinai, and there will always be, but our co-operative societies have arisen, and we have had for years to do with very bad packing of wool. The example of these societies has shown the farmers what they can do, and people no longer send wool to the large wool associations in a dirty bale which has previously been used for chaff, but pack it in the most scientific manner, so that to-day our wool need not take a back place, even to a country like Australia. We must have proper packing of our produce. My hon. friends say that if the Minister only wants powers with regard to export produce, they will welcome it. Are we then to be satisfied in the interior with poor packing; are we, without protest, to accept the green peaches which we cannot eat ?

Our farmers can pay no more.

My hon. friend so quickly becomes afraid. For seven years he has paid a levy on export produce, but now that the yield was not good last year and the Empire Marketing Board has referred exporters of citrus to Germany, he has become terribly frightened. Our farmers, in the first place, must put their hands in their pockets to obtain anything. The farmers will not get a good price if they are not protected against things which damage the market. The Minister has already told the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) that he is prepared to protect the farmers in certain directions, and we trust the Minister. The department will not abuse the position. What is the position now? The hon. member for Wynberg asked whether reasonable notice would be given of a change in the regulations. He said that it might be done over-night, and quoted the case of a man who would then be obliged to scrap his cases of fruit still in stock. Regulations have already been issued in connection with other produce, e.g., in connection with the packing of wool, and notice was given for a long time. After the time had elapsed the wool had to be packed into 11¼ lb. sacks. The regulation was enforced, and our wool was well packed. We do not allow a man to use any old bag. I think it is absolutely necessary for something to be done to give powers of this kind to the Minister. I am agreeable to this power being given him of publishing regulations. Proper standardization of produce is becoming more and more necessary in connection with other produce, and if the Minister has to come to Parliament every time with regard to each separate product, we shall always be having a repetition of this debate and of the arguments we hear from the opposite side. Let us co-operate and support co-operative societies to get proper grading and packing, so that we need no longer be ashamed of our produce. The Agricultural Union, which represents farmers—not K.C.’s from Wynberg

He represents large farmers.

They are exceptions. The Agricultural Union has asked for this legislation, and I should be glad if the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), in his higher status as Leader of the Opposition, would help us to also get a higher status for our produce.

The Minister has told us that in introducing this Bill he is carrying out the wishes of the argicultural industry. I agree with that, but I search in vain for any specified direction in which the Bill will assist us. We ask that regulations be brought in regarding wool packs and their marking, but there is nothing in the Bill about it. What we do find is a very small but comprehensive measure which will lay up trouble for us in the future. I agree that the Minister is honestly endeavouring to meet the wishes of certain producers. Are we going to allow ourselves to support any measure that is going to give that unlimited power to the Minister to which previous speakers have referred, and of which we are so afraid in the future? I am quite assured of one thing, which is that everyone who has the interests of South Africa at heart would be prepared to support the Minister in the right direction to put the products of the Union on a proper market, but to have drastic regulations like these for our smaller producers and our internal market is going to have a paralyzing effect on those producers. It is the duty of the Government to assist the producer in every way, but not to come down with a heavy hand upon him, which will do away with any initiative there may be. If we look at the idea of the export of articles the Minister should have specified definitely in which directions he wanted the assistance of the House, and had he conveyed; that to us, and had it been in the right direction, we would have been able and willing to support it. But I feel that I am placed in this impossible position that it, is absolutely impossible to support the Bill as it is placed before us to-day.

I should like to know on what grounds hon. members opposite disapprove of the Bill.

Whom do you represent?

I represent for more farmers than the hon. member for Wynberg. And when I think about the matter, then I claim the right to speak on it. But what is the objection of hon. members opposite.

Why did you not listen ?

I did listen. There is not a member opposite who dared to attack the principle of the Bill. The principle is that standardization of packing for our inland markets can also be made compulsory. Hon. members dare not oppose it. They then go against the policy of their own Governments, if they do so. I do not blame them for the principle, because it is something the previous Government ought to be praised for. They laid down that mealies should be well graded for export. Where would our mealies have been, and what would have been the position of our citrus market if there had been no such provisions? The same applies to wool, as the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. Bekker) has explained. I repeat that not a single word has been said against the principle of the Bill. What will be its effect? I quote the illustration of the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals), and I think that the cases be mentions as arguments against the Bill are actually arguments in favour of it. He mentions the case of peaches sold at 4s. a paraffin case. Well, here in Cape Town we pay 4s. for a very small case of peaches. Why is it, because the case of peaches is packed nicely and tastefully, and not in a paraffin case. The same applies to other arguments. He spoke about wheat. He knows that the price of wheat is particularly low. There are various causes. But there is one cause I want to mention which is possibly one of the most important, because bad wheat is delivered with the good.

No.

Yes, it is so. I also know what is going on. It may be different in Hopetown. At other places bad wheat is delivered, and the price for bad wheat is then paid for good. If the wheat were graded the farmer would have got better prices for the good wheat. I only ask once more of hon. members opposite where is their courage in disapproving of the principle of the Bill? Arguments have been introduced which show that it is the application of the Bill which will be injurious. The hon. member for Wynberg (Maj. Roper) spoke about the Minister’s stroke of the pen. Now we know that the stroke of a Minister’s pen is powerful, they say, however, that they are not afraid of this Minister of Agriculture, therefore possibly of a South African party one. They can, however, take protective steps. They can even take the right of leaving Parliament to decide every case. I should like to know what the Minister thinks of it.

nodded.

The Minister states that he is prepared to allow Parliament to decide what steps should be taken. Why are they not prepared to take that right? The law is in our hands. No member can object to the principle of the Bill. There is, indeed, objection to its application owing to the carefulness of hon. members. Well, let them then take the power of approving themselves of proclamations by means of resolutions of Parliament. If they do so the farmer will be greatly benefited, because even if they are distrustful in the matter, they surely do not distrust themselves.

The hon. member who has just spoken is interesting when he is trying to explain to farmers how it is in their own interests to accept the principles of this Bill, but he is a good deal more convincing when he tells us in the “Railways and Harbours Magazine” of his experiences in London, and how, when he got the girl in a dark room she shouted murder when he struck a match. He had more knowledge of his subject then than he has this afternoon.

The hon. member must speak to the motion.

Yes, I was trying to pay the hon. member a small compliment by recalling his experiences. I want to know to whom we are indebted for this perfect spate of legislation from the Minister of Agriculture during the last few days. I don’t think it is the Minister himself; because I think this form of State control is just as objectionable to him as it is to the farmers on both sides of the House. When you get the heavy weights, in fact the Carnera of the Nationalist party, on the other side of the House opposing this Bill, it is evidence of how deep-rooted the objection to the Bill is. The only support it gets is from two members who stressed the tremendous advantages wool is going to get under this Bill, and how we are going to get honest marking and packing and so forth, but you can leave the wool question altogether, as the Minister has already all the powers necessary to deal with it. The objection I have got to this Bill is that it is like other measures now coming before the House from the Minister’s department. It gives absolute power over the farmer, in every one of his operations, to the officials of the department. We have got a Bill already which is going to give complete control as to how the farmer is going to sell his produce. Now he is to be controlled as to how he is to pack his produce. If ever I saw an illustration of the old proverb: “Dilly, Dilly, come and be killed” it is the invitation to the farmers to accept these Bills. Farmers don’t know what restriction is going to be placed upon them next. It cannot be the Minister who is behind them. The Minister is a hard, dyed-in-the-wool, crusted, old Tory, and it is foreign to him to bring forward or approve of legislation of this sort to take the initiative out of the farmers’ hands. I would like to know where the request for this Bill has come from. Has any organized body of public opinion put up a request for it? Have the consumers complained about the packing? I don’t think so. If the Minister were to take a little further power, and deal with the retailer when he is distributing the farmers’ produce, there might be something in it. If he goes into the back streets of Cape Town he will see meat delivered wrapped up in old newspapers, with the effect that the customer is able to get an imprint of the Minister of Agriculture’s latest speech on his meat. For the Minister to ask the farming members of this House to give his department carte blanche as to how we are to market our produce, and how we are to pack it, is entirely foreign to him, and absolutely unnecessary in this country. The Minister calls this a Bill for packing and marking, but it goes a good deal further. Regulations may be made as to the manner in which receptacles are to be labelled, marked or branded, and provision is made for inspection which seem to indicate a right on the part of the inspectors to grade or reject the contents of such receptacles. Where is this kind of thing going to end? We shall have regulations yet under this Bill as to what coloured shells fowls are to lay their eggs in. I do not think the Minister realizes that the feeling of the House is against him in two directions. It is against him as to the manner in which this Bill will operate, and it is opposed to granting to his department or to the State, the power to deal by regulation with every act of the farmer. If the House accepts this Bill it is only a question of time before commercial men will be subjected to the same thing. I take it that the Bill means an acceptance of the principle that we are going to organize the whole of our daily lives by State regulations and State control. I think the Minister will realize that the farming community is against him on this matter, and I hope he will withdraw this Bill. The powers he seeks under the Bill are not only anathema to the farming community, but also to every other section of the community.

I have listened with a good deal of pleasure and a certain amount of amusement to many of the speeches. During the debate we have had diversified opinions and comments of hon. members representing farming interests, and it occurs to me it might be a welcome change to have the opinion of a member representing one of the larger towns. I would particularly refer to the clause which deals with the packing of produce, and have been trying to visualize what size and shape of case he would order to be used for the packing of pumpkins and watermelons, especially when these commodities are a glut on the market. Something of the size of a piano case or even of larger dimensions would be required. I can try to imagine the arrival of these cases on our town market, but am not so much concerned as to the disposal, say, of the pumpkins as to what will happen to the cases. Then again the inspector would tell the producer how to pack, say, pork and beef, and the farmer would require to pay the charge laid down. On arrival at the market the M.O.H. or his assistant would in some cases have to condemn the meat as unfit for consumption and the farmer would not only have his meat confiscated, but would also have paid for the inspector’s advice re packing. Municipalities with up-to-date abattoirs would turn that discarded meat into bone or meat meal and would be the only people to be benefited. During the discussion on the Bill it has never occurred to anyone to think of the small farmers in and around our cities and towns. In my own constituency the market gardeners get together their products on Friday so that they may be enabled to place their goods on the market on Saturday clean and fresh. If you are going to dispute methods of packing I can see grave difficulties arising. Those market gardiners who at present have to struggle to make ends meet, will find their lot still harder. It supports the suggestion that the Minister will withdraw the Bill until such time as he can give the matter further consideration.

The member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost), contends that no one objects to the principle of this Bill. We do object to it and very strongly. President Coolidge and Mr. Baldwin both said some time ago in different words that the ideal form of government was that which imposed the minimum of interference upon the subject. Now the hon. the Minister is proceeding along the directly opposite road, the direct antithesis. We are gradually drifting into a condition of State control in this country, and the people primarily responsible for it are the farmers on both sides of the House. I do not blame the Minister so much, whose position is difficult. Farmers on both sides of the House have approached him with regard to certain commodities, for instance, butter, cheese, wool and the packing of fruit. The Minister has been urged from time to time to take control in regard to these matters. We are fast drifting into a system of bureaucracy, a love of classification of which it was said of France that it was the curse of the country. We are on exactly the same road. When it was proposed to impose a levy of one penny a lb. on cheese and butter, which incidentally was urged from Griqualand East and other parts, the New England Dairy Company stood out against it. We started off this season by giving 6d. a gallon for milk. As soon as the levy of one penny a lb. was imposed, the directors of a company of which I am a member notified the suppliers that they could no longer pay 6d. but only 5d., a direct hit to the producer of a penny a gallon. The idea of the levy was to try to provide markets both here and overseas, especially the latter. Now if we cannot supply the demand in South Africa to the exclusion of imported cheese which is coming in very freely in spite of a duty of 2d., how can we expect to compete on equal terms in the world’s market? I think it is going to bring no benefit at all. If our cheese is right, it will get a ready sale. If it is not good, then we have no right to impose it upon the public. With regard to the levy on wool, we have a shilling a bale imposed for the purpose of research work. Now I think the amount of wool produced in South Africa represents about one-ninth of the wool that is consumed here, and any benefit which may accrue to the wool industry in this country will be in that proportion. Therefore, the shilling a bale is going to benefit the overseas countries to that extent. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. Bekker) mentioned the great progress and advance that has been made in wool packing during the last eight years. That improvement did not take place under any compulsory regulation; it was voluntary. It is a totally different principle when the government steps in and dictates how products should be packed and marketed. A most objectionable policy which is robbing the farmers of that self-reliance so to be admired in a people. I cannot believe that farmers who have these instincts of self-reliance and freedom implanted deep within them will submit to be drilled like soldiers. But when the farmers themselves come with urgent appeals such as we have been having in regard to these matters, they themselves are to blame more than the Minister, who is simply giving them what they are asking for.

This Bill is probably not quite as good or possibly not quite as bad as it has been painted this afternoon—it is like the curate’s egg—good in parts and bad in parts, unfortunately we are unable to separate the good from the bad before we are asked to swallow the whole egg. Speaking personally as a sheep farmer I welcome the Bill in its attempt to standardise the get up, packing and selling of wool, again as a purchaser of lucerne I welcome the Minister’s intentions in the direction of standardising the sale of lucerne, but speaking as the representative of a constituency where a large number of small farmers and market garden producers have a bard job to make a living I assure the Minister that if he imposes any further burdens on the shoulders of these men he will put them out of business for good. The Minister’s department for which I have the highest regard and whose activities I try to assist is today preaching one doctrine as a remedy to the prevailing depression and that doctrine is “lower your costs of production” and I ask the Hon. Minister if he considers the present an opportune time to bring in a measure, one affect of which will be to increase the cost of production? If the Minister will withdraw the Bill and bring it back in an amended form specifying just what particular articles of agricultural or farm produce he intends to control I am sure he will receive a far greater measure of support from both sides of the House than he is receiving to-day.

We have heard much wisdom from the other side this afternoon. I am very sorry that when an agricultural question is being treated, attempts are always made to get party capital out of them.

No.

The hon. member says no, but I want to point out that this Bill has been introduced by you, at the special request of the Agricultural Union of South Africa. Not only of the Free State and Natal, but also of the Transvaal. My greatest reproach is that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. Hockly) was elected as a member of the Advisory Board, by his Agricultural Union, and that the hon. member approved of it, but what does the hon. member come and say here this afternoon? He says that the Minister must amend the provision about regulations.

We put forward a specific request to the Minister, and I fail to see any acknowledgment of that request in this Bill. That is, just briefly, the position so far as the Agricultural Union is concerned.

Let me say expressly that the Advisory Board of the Agricultural Union gave its approval to this Bill in Pretoria, and specially requested that it should be put through this year. And now the hon. member, who is a member of the board, comes and objects. His objection is to the regulations to be issued by me. He fears that they will be too drastic and will injure the farmers. I want to point out that there is a precedent in various acts, and this is nothing new. I just want to quote a few cases, Act No. 10 of 1919 grants the Minister of Agriculture powers to restrict the planting or cultivating of citrus in certain areas. That Act was passed by the opposite side. Act No. 5 of 1924 (the Wine Control Act) in Section 4 gives the Minister the right by way of regulation to prescribe the forms for the convenience and effective administration of the Act, and—

Act No. 16 of 1922 makes provision for the inspection and grading of agricultural produce, and articles prepared, manufactured or derived from such products, etc. Section 2 (i) provides that the Minister can by regulation prescribe the standard for hides and skins, and appoint officials to make the necessary inspections and gradings. Section 6 authorises the Minister to make regulations which provide—

1. (a) Standards of composition and quality for any agricultural product which is to be inspected and graded under this Act;
2. (b) the place and manner of inspection, storage, conveyance or treatment of such products;
3. (c) the manner of packing and the size, description, quality and material of receptacles to be used for any product inspector or grader under this Act;
4. (d) the fixing of grades, the place and manner of grading of such product and the manner in which different designations or grades of such product shall be branded, whether on the receptacle or on a certificate of the inspector, or otherwise;
5. (e) the manner in which receptacles containing such product shall be labelled, marked or branded.

The Act even goes still further and permits the Minister to make regulations generally for the better attainment of the purposes and objects, of the Act. Neither in principle, nor in content is there the least difference between that Act and the Bill now proposed. The regulations under that Act can even provide punishment for a contravention of a delay in observing; the regulations properly. Further, various regulations can be made for different products. Act No. 35 of 1917: The Act of 1922 (above quoted) is actually based on the Act of 1917. Section 5 of this Act provides that the Governor-General can make regulations in reference to agricultural produce intended, for export, viz., inter alia—

Does that not refer to produce for export

Is the hon. member sorry that the farmers get good produce? I could’ go on quoting Acts passed by the House which give unlimited powers to the Minister. Before I say what I intend doing about the Bill I want to say a few words with reference to objections made by hon. members. It seems to me that hon. members merely want to make political capital out of agricultural matters.

No.

The hon. member has asked whether the Minister intends to appoint a crowd of officials as inspectors. I do not intend to do such a thing, but it was done by the South African Party. When this Government came into office there were in one district, Zoutpansberg, not less than 127 inspectors; to-day there is only one-fifth of that number. That was in one district.

And doubtless they were all Saps ?

Hon. member? opposite know better about that. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) says that it is now going to be precisely prescribed where the bales are to be marked. If we do not take precautionary measures there may possibly be people who put the directions on such a place so that no one can see them, thus causing more expense. The hon. member further says that the wattle bark position is very good to-day, and that that is the only product with which the Government does not concern itself. He does not know what is going on in his own province. We not only have investigation officers there, but the people in Natal have now asked me if I cannot arrange to grade the wattle bark for export, inasmuch as otherwise the whole market will tumble to pieces. There are two kinds of wattle, the green and the black. The black produces half the amount of sap for tannery. Now people mix the two with the result that the market is spoilt. Then the hon. member comes and talks about the position there. He further referred to the severe east coast fever regulations; I can tell the hon. member that the Agricultural Union of Natal has repeatedly said that it is quite satisfied, and asked for the regulations not to be made less strict, but to be carried out to put an end to the plague in Natal. Is the hon. member not co-operating with the Agricultural Union? He has possibly noticed that the wheat farmers and millers have met, and what is the chief thing everybody is appealing for? That wheat shall be graded so that the farmers shall get a just price. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost) has rightly referred to rust in wheat. The wheat is also mixed up and the farmers do not get a proper price. I do not want to force legislation on the farmers, but the Agricultural Union of the two provinces asked for this legislation which the members of the Sap want to oppose. Their great objection is that the Minister was getting too much power. I am prepared to accept an amendment in committee, that certain produce, where desirable, should be mentioned in this Bill, and that if in the future other produce should have to be included the approval of both Houses of Parliament shall be required. I want to see if the hon. members are honest, or are making party propaganda.

Ask your own people.

The old running away policy. As soon as they are faced with an accomplished fact they commence to run away. Are hon. members satisfied now? They remain perfectly quiet Where is their love for the farmers? Was I not right that they saw but little chance of making party capital? That they will not succeed in doing. The farmer will not permit it. We are, moreover, going to the tobacco farms. Do you think we shall succeed to build up trade for the tobacco farmers unless the tobacco has been properly graded. I am prepared as soon as the tobacco farmer asks for it, to leave it to the judgment of the House whether regulations ought to be issued. Are hon. members opposite prepared to decide about it? Why then are they so frightened as not to want to reply? The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) spoke about the levy on wool. We approached by letter so as to ascertain what his views were. He did not reply, and it is clear what his object was. If things went well then he would not have been an opponent, and if they went wrong then he had nothing to say. He also complains about the levy on butter. Let me tell him this that if it were not for the levy the price of butter would probably have been very much worse. The levy enabled us to export 1½ million lbs. of butter. It assisted in stabilising the price. The dairy farmer will deal with him if he opposed the levy. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) said that he felt that it was necessary for certain things to be regulated. We shall mention certain articles in the Bill and others will be controlled by a resolution of both Houses. There are several things that I want to look into which the farmers have asked me to put under control, and as there are further points which I would like to deal with I should like the debate to be adjourned.

On the motion of the Minister of Agriculture, debate adjourned; to be resumed on 29th January.