announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committees mentioned, viz.:

Asiatics in Transvaal.—The Minister of the Interior, Messrs. Acutt, S. D. de Wet, Duncan, the Rev. C. W. M. du Toit, Mr. Eaton, Sir Robert Kotzé, Mr. Pocock, Dr. Potgieter, Maj. K. Rood and Dr. Stals.

Unversity of South Africa (Amendment) Bill.— The Minister of Education, Messrs. Bergh, Bowen, Hofmeyr, Roper, Dr. van Broekhuizen and Dr. N. J. van der Merwe.

Subject of Kaffir Corn and Mealie Lands Cleansing Bill.—Dr. Conradie, Messrs. Boshoff, Conroy, Nel, Maj, Richards, Lt.-Col. Terreblanche and Maj. van der Byl.

I move—

As hon. members know, our dairy industry is far behind that in other countries. I felt in 1925 that we ought to prepare a scheme of putting our industry on a better footing. I then asked the Board of Trade and Industries to make a thorough enquiry in connection with our industry. Owing to pressure of work, the board could not go into the matter thoroughly for a considerable time, but subsequently a full enquiry was made, and a report issued in 1927. That report has now been two years before the country, and the public have had an opportunity of studying it, and of expressing their views. Let me say here that the dairy industry has been consulted several times about legislation. Hence this amending Bill is introduced with the object to put the industry on a better footing. I do not wish to detain hon. members with many figures, but to show by a few how far we are behind other countries in this matter. The Union of South Africa has about 11,000,000 cattle, of which about 1,000,000 are cows. Our dairy produce last year amounted to 21,336,000 lbs. of butter and 6,334,000 lbs. of cheese. In Canada, on the other band, which has about 9,000,000 cattle with 3,000,000 cows, the yield in butter was more than 272,000,000 lbs., and 128,000,000 lbs. of cheese. New Zealand, with 100,000,000 cows, has a yield of 190,000,000 lbs. of butter, and 168,000,000 lbs. of cheese in round figures. Holland, with the same number of cows as ourselves, produced last year 203,000,000 lbs. of butter and 209,000,000 lbs. of cheese. If we compare these figures with our production of 24,000,000 and 5,000,000, then it shows that there is something wrong. It appears from the report of the Board of Trade and Industries that there is something wrong in fact. If cows which only give about 2½ gallons of milk a week are still kept, the position need cause no surprise. Such cows are really a burden and not an asset. It does not pay to feed them. I therefore thought that we should try to improve the breed of cow. I then created the noting system. We started by keeping note of about 300 cows, and the number is about 20,000. The people have just seen that it is better to import good cows than to keep a poor class. The test system is applied to-day from one end of the country to the other, and I can hardly reply to all the applications received. It is a welcome sign to me. Where, up to not long ago, we imported butter and cheese, and were an importing country for these products, things have now changed, and we have practically become an exporting country of butter and cheese. The position was, however, such that the prices obtained in other countries, with whom we were competing, were lower than those in our own country. We feel that if we keep the surplus butter and cheese in the country the price will drop to such an extent that no farmer will consider it worth while to keep cattle for these purposes. We must, therefore, try to stabilize the market. Accordingly, two years ago I started negotiations with factories, and they saw the position clearly, and felt that the price of cream or butter should be stabilized. To that end they made a voluntary levy on themselves, and by the assistance of the creameries we were able last year to export a large quantity of butter. If the creameries had not assisted, I think we would have had such a large surplus that the price would have dropped to practically nil. To-day, however, the position is, fortunately, such that the price for cream last year rose from 11d. to 1s. 1d., and, with the help of the levy, we could export surplus butter. We could compensate the exporters so that what they received was equal to the inland market price. This is not a matter, however, which can always be done voluntarily, and we shall have to pass legislation. Various people will object to it. The creameries have, however, been consulted as well as the farmers’ associations and various interested parties. The result is the Bill before the House. It is possibly not perfect in the eyes of some members. Certain points will be objected to, but I merely want us to regard it from a national point of view, and deal with the Bill on its merits. If there are things the House cannot agree to, I will not insist upon them. Let us then discuss it and make the necessary amendments, but let us try to get an Act which will improve the dairy industry in any case, and make it possible for the people to continue cattle farming. I have, on a previous occasion, pointed out how our cattle are increasing, but in some cases they are more of a burden than anything else. A few proposals will possibly be called drastic, but it is sometimes necessary to make such provisions. One of the first provisions is that a board will be constituted to supervize the industry. The board will, of course, have certain powers, such as the question of marketing and other things. It will be composed of four representatives of farmers, who sell their cream to the creamery; of four representatives of creameries, one person who will represent the interests of farm butter, who does not sell cream to factories; of a business man, and a chairman to be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture. Amendments will doubtless be made in select committee, and I shall always take up the position that I am prepared to accept good suggestions, but the board will, in the last resort, have to be responsible to the department concerned, and the Minister, its work must be done under the Minister’s approval. That is the case with other boards that have been established. I do not think there will be any objection to the merits in this connection. As for the time of service, I propose to make it two years, but if a vacancy arises in the meantime through resignation or death, the Minister can fill it up until such time as a new board is constituted. It is not necessary to go into the form which the board will take, with regard to the salaries, etc., but it is possibly necessary to say a few words about the powers of the board. The board will be able to appoint certain officials to be at its disposal. It will have to advertise to encourage the consumption of dairy produce. They will further have to push the keeping of the best cattle, but it will further have the power to impose a certain levy, and this is probably the most important provision in the Bill. Hon. members know that we do not like levies very much, unless we know that they are necessary in the interests of the industry. We can only make such a levy when we are convinced that it will be the salvation of an industry. I think the voluntary levy has taught us that the remedy is to get reasonable prices, and that it is justified for that reason. The levies now, however, go further, and are not restricted to the creameries. We propose that the levy of ½d. per lb., the same which was voluntarily made, and which the creameries have again agreed to, should also be imposed on farm butter. The reason for that is that, if factory butter is exported and sold abroad, it assists the farm butter to get a better price on the inland market. Without the levy we shall not be able to export the surplus butter, and then the farmer will not get 9d. or 1s., but probably 3d., 4d. or 5d. a 1b. I say, therefore, that a man will be prepared once more to pay this small fraction to be assured of a better price. But, as I have said, this is a matter on which the House must decide, and I hope that no attempt will be made to abuse it for any kind of propaganda. Let us look the matter in the face, and see what would be the best for the industry as a whole. If the House therefore thinks that it is better to leave out the levy on farm butter, I will leave it with the select committee, to which I will refer the Bill after the second reading. If the select committee think that the levy should not be applied to farm butter, then I do not intend to insist on it. There are many difficult circumstances to-day which we must consider. The economic condition of the country, as a whole, is not of the best, and we do not want to put more difficulties in the people’s way if they think that it will have that effect. Personally, I do not think that it will be a difficulty, because a better market will be assured in that way. I will, however, leave the matter to the decision of the House. Then it is further provided that the butter must be marked with the name of the person when it goes to the market. I hope no one will object to this, because I do not think there is a single farmer who will be ashamed to put his name on his butter. Those who sell good butter, will be glad of the advertisement got in that way. Now it may possibly be said that this will mean that there are people who can ill afford to spend the extra money on the paper. Let me point out that that paper is very cheap, and it is so important to the farmer that it will pay him to pay 16s. a 1,000 for it, because how much more will he not get for his butter when his name is once established in the market. The Bill makes it necessary for us to know what is farm butter and what is creamery butter. We must know when butter is first, second or third class. Hon. members will agree that it is necessary. In the past the consumer often did not know what he got. He buys so-called first class butter, but finds that it is very poor. I therefore hone that there will be no objection to our providing that the butter must be graded. When we speak of farm butter, and of creamery butter, I should like to mention what has already taken place. A case was brought to my notice where butter came on to a market not made by Europeans. The European gives his name and address which appears on the packet, but the butter is actually made by a native. We must see that this does not take place, and therefore we must take care that we know precisely where the butter comes from. The Bill further protects our dairy farmers against imitations. There are substitutes for butter such as margarine, and it is laid down that these imitations must be marked as such. As for margarine, I want to point out that there are new discoveries which give margarine the same colour as butter, so that one cannot see the difference, and margarine is sold as butter. The representative of the dairy farmers in the House will doubtless be satisfied for the dairy farmers to be protected against this imitation, because, if we do not do so, margarine may have a great effect on cattle farming. I hope, therefore, that hon. members will assist us in obtaining this protection for the cattle farmer. If the public want margarine, let them buy it, but if they want butter, they must know what they are getting. I mention this point because it is quite probable one that would be debated. It is laid down in connection with the dairy factories that after two years the work of the factory shall be supervized by a competent person, who will be thoroughly able to supervize the work of the dairy factory. It means that not only natives may work in the factory, but there must also be a white man to control them. I think this is a sound principle. We are not merely excluding natives, but we say that there must be a white man to supervize them, so that everything will be properly done in the factory. It it is found that the European supervizor is not competent, the Minister can refuse him a licence. Then there is another point in connection with a number of factories, and the new factories which will be started. The enquiry of the Board of Trade and Industries shows that one of the evils of the dairy industry is that there are too many factories in different parts of the country. A dairy factory is put in every village, and in some villages, more than one. In some places a dairy factory arises within a few miles of an already existing one. This makes the cost higher. There must be more officials, and consequently it becomes necessary to pay less for the cream. For that reason the Bill provides that if it appears that there are too few or too many factories some can be closed, of course on payment of proper compensation. As for new factories, the Board of Trade and Industries can, on enquiry, recommend that the new factory should not be allowed, because they are practically unnecessary, and will increase the cost of production so that it will injure the industry as a whole. The powers here given are very far-reaching; but they are powers which we ask for in the interests of the dairy industry. If there are any hon. members who do not desire us to build up a strong industry, then they have only to refuse these powers. But for those who are anxious to build such a strong industry up, it will be plain that these powers are necessary, just as they have appeared necessary in connection with other industries. I would like to quote Clause 44 (3), because I think that it is about this clause that there may possibly be trouble and discussion. [Clause read.] I quote this clause because it will be commented upon. But still, I feel that it is necessary in the interests of the dairy industry. I hope hon. members will express their views on it, so that we may know in the select committee what the feeling in the House is about it.

May a native continue to milk a cow ?

Yes, if the hon. member does not know that, I cannot assist him. I have not dealt with the clauses of the Bill seriatim, because I think that this matter has been under consideration by members of the House for the last four or five years. Last year I sent certain extracts from the report of the Board of Trade and Industries to members of Parliament. Several members asked me what I intended doing and I made it clear to them. I have consulted the representatives of the farmers in this industry, and they are prepared to agree to the Bill provided certain amendments are made which they will have to move in the select committee. They agree that legislation of this kind is absolutely necessary in the interests of the industry as a whole. It is no use our speaking of cattle farming if we do not face this matter, help the farmer, and assist the dairy factories to put the whole industry on a proper and sound footing. It is my sole object with this Bill to put the industry on a sound footing, and to assist the farmer to build up a sound and strong industry. We produce millions of bags of maize and much lucerne, and the farmers complain that they get an uneconomic price for it, while the dairy industry does not buy the fodder which is produced. When the industry has been put on a sound footing, it will be able to buy a very large part of the maize and lucerne produced to feed the cows. It is no use farming as we do at present. To-day it is the custom to milk the cows in rainy seasons, but in the winter we do not buy green forage for them, because the price of the products are too low, and we merely let the cows run, with the result that we get practically no milk. The result is that the creameries have to shut down for six months, which considerably increases their cost of production.

It pays the farmer better.

Yes, it may pay the class of farmer to which the hon. member belongs, but I challenge anyone to tell me that it is a sound state of affairs for us to milk our cows for six months, when it rains, and then for the remaining six months let things slide. I am very sorry that there are still farmers in this House who say that we must wait until the Lord sends rain. I hope rather that we have the class of farmer who will see to it that the animals entrusted to his charge are properly treated. If we go to work as the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) suggests, we shall never have good cows in the country, and never build up a strong dairy industry. I hope that that is not the spirit in which hon. members are going to discuss this matter. We have gone thoroughly into the matter, my department has investigated it, as also have the Board of Trade and Industries, and the industry as a whole has been consulted. I have mentioned a few points which are important, and, as I have said, I am quite prepared for the matter to be debated in select committee. The putting of butter in packets will be discussed in the select committee. Then there is the levy on farm butter, and the question whether we ought now to start with it, and if we will not get sufficient money from the levy on creamery butter alone. Do not let us now quarrel about these matters. The select committee can go into everything and enquire whether conditions are such that we can have a lower levy, and whether we can manage with part of it. That, in my opinion, is the right way. I hope the Bill will be passed in the spirit in which it is intended, viz., to assist the dairy farmers. I want to take this opportunity of praising the dairy factories in South Africa, who were told this year to see that the surplus butter is exported, and also South-West Africa and Rhodesia, who have assisted in the matter. If that had not occurred, the position of the dairy farmer to-day would have been terrible. It is not necessary for me to detain the House longer. I have mentioned the chief principles in the Bill. After the second reading, I will move that it be referred to a select committee, so that we can make proper enquiries as to how the Bill should be amended so as to be absolutely in the interests of the dairy industry. Then there is the difference in price between first and second class butter, another matter I wish to touch upon. A difference is made between first and second class butter of 2d. a lb. I want to say again that we can leave it to the select committee to ascertain whether that is best or not. There are still other cases, such as the fat contents, which are all dealt with in the Bill, but I do not think it is necessary to go into them now, because it will all be fully discussed and considered by the select committee to find a satisfactory solution. I think I have now given a complete review of the Bill.

As the hon. Minister says, it is now two years since the Board of Trade and Industries presented their report on the dairy industry. I should like to say one word of appreciation of that report. There has been enormous work put into it. There has been a tremendous amount of investigation, very fully undertaken, and I think it is one of the most valuable documents that the Board of Trade and Industries has ever presented to the country. It constitutes a good foundation on which to build future dairy legislation in this country, and I think, therefore, it is only right that we should express our appreciation of the work the board has done. We have waited for this Bill for a long time. Ever since the report was presented the dairy industry has pressed the department and urged the Minister to bring in a Bill to give effect to, at least, some of the recommendations contained in that report. There is no doubt that the dairy industry is in a very difficult position. In the past it has had a sheltered and remunerative market in South Africa, but now it is producing a surplus of butter and cheese and it has to look to the markets of the world to absorb that surplus. Only through exports can we hope to build up a real dairy industry and to save the existing industry, although a great many farmers would rather limit production than venture forth into the world’s markets. But if we have any faith in the future the primary producers must realize that their objective must be the vast markets of the world. We have had a fall in the price of wool and sheep, and this has given tremendous stimulus to the milk production and to improved methods of handling cattle, and the result is an enormous increase in production. In my opinion, we are only on the fringe of big developments in the dairy industry, and I believe that with proper organization and control we can establish it on a firm basis. Of course there will be difficulties. When we talk of difficulties we should look at the history of Denmark. At the start of her agricultural development she lived on the export of slaughter stock to Germany; then Germany closed her doors, and Denmark started to build up her dairying industry from the bottom. Denmark surmounted all difficulties, until to-day she stands supreme in the export of butter. Surely what Denmark, New Zealand and Australia have done South Africa can also do. But do not let us forget that there is only one export market in the world for dairy produce. We can welcome German trade treaties and trade agreements with other countries as much as we like, but they will not help the dairy farmer one iota, because Great Britain is the only country in the world absorbing dairy produce from outside its borders. England offers us the only market for dairy produce. The dairy industry is going to do tremendous things for this country; it will bring about more and closer settlement and relieve the position as far as lucerne and mealie growers are concerned. As we expand the dairy industry so we shall build up a bacon industry, and I hope that we shall put the dairy industry in a position second only to the sheep industry, and that it will help to replace the slowly waning mining industry. But we must have organization and control, and it is for that reason we dairy farmers welcome the Bill, as it will give us an opportunity of controlling our industry. There is one safeguard, however, that we must adopt, one watchword we must have, and that is any legislation must give as much power as possible to the industry to manage its own affairs, and there must be as little state and departmental interference as possible. Let us work out our own salvation, and I am convinced that we can do it. We do not want to be subject to the veto of the Government or of the Agricultural Department in all our actions.

But that is what the Bill asks for.

But it does not follow that it is going to get it. We have too much departmental interference as it is. Let us bear our own burdens—we do not want to put them on anybody else’s shoulders. As the Bill is going to a select committee it is unnecessary to criticize it in detail, but there are a few big principles in it which should be alluded to at this stage. The first is the question of the constitution of the control board, which is to consist of the superintendent of dairying and eleven other members, one of whom is to be a public servant, four to represent farmers supplying cream to creameries or milk to cheese factories, four to represent the owners of creameries or cheese factories, one to represent the makers of farm butter and one to represent the distributors of butter and cheese. One of the powers of the board is to impose certain levies. Who is going to pay the levies? The producer.

The consumer.

There speaks the town and here speaks the country. Let us hope the consumer will pay, but in any case it will come back on the producer and he should have a bigger representation on the board. We do not want to be under the power of creameries, although they have done very good work in the past; all the same, we do not desire their methods to be engrafted on the dairy industry. A little too much authority is given to the Minister. For instance, when a dairy association has nominated a member the Minister has the right of veto. Surely that is going too far ?

It is ridiculous.

Again, when a member vacates his seat on the board, instead of the body he represents nominating his successor or the board doing it, the Minister nominates the successor.

Mussolini.

Then, if a member cannot attend, the Minister appoints a deputy. New Zealand has made a wonderful success of dairying, and its control board consists of two representatives of the Government, nine of the producers and one of the manufacturers. Those producers’ representatives are elected by ballot, the districts are all demarcated, and no power is vested in the Government there to veto such nominations. In that connection, the department can improve this Act very much if we decrease the departmental influence on the board and increase the producers’ representation. The next thing we come to as regards the power of the board—the principal power —is the levy. I am sorry the Minister of Finance is not here. I do not speak as an expert lawyer, but to my mind this levy brings up almost a constitutional question. We propose a levy to give powers to the board to impose on all butter imported into this country. [Clause 12 (c) read.] To give a body of this sort this absolute power is going a very long way. If it said, “butter sold in this country,” I would stand by the Minister, but not to give power to the board to interfere with customs duties, because it is nothing else. Further, the question arises—I ask, I do not criticize—are we entitled in view of the customs agreement with Rhodesia, Bechuanaland and Swaziland, to impose this levy on imported butter. I want to know whether we are not violating the arrangements with these other countries, and I would like the opinion of the law adviser on this. I rather think we have gone a bit too far here, unless we have made the necessary agreement with these countries. When we read further in the clause, I am really amazed. It seems to me that this board can put 6d. a pound on imported butter, with the consent of the Minister, and I, as a farmer, must say it is going a little bit too far, and is a question we must look into very closely when we go into it in select committee. The powers are drastic in the extreme. With regard to cheese, I am very interested in the cheese business, and that industry very much appreciates the levy which has already been permitted under the Agricultural Industries Advancement Act by the Minister, who certainly saved a very difficult position; we have exported 190 tons, and another 200 tons were to go last month. The levy has gone a long way to stabilize the local cheese market, and I think it is going to have the same effect as regards butter. In Australia, they have the Patterson scheme, voluntarily accepted by the dairy industry there, under which there is imposed a levy of l½d. on all butter produced there. The figures show an increased return annually to the dairy farmers of approximately £14 per ton, and the total amount, in round figures, was £1,500,000 annually. That, I think, is a very good argument in favour of accepting the principle of a levy here because, after all, we can stabilize our local market only by exporting the surplus. Nobody is going to export butter and get a 1s. a pound for it, when the local market is 1s. 8d., and it is only by raising enough money by a levy that we can pay a bounty to the exporter to bring up his returns on a parity with local values. I think the Minister is wrong in imposing only an half-penny on farm butter, and I think it ought to pay exactly the same as creamery butter. Are the makers of farm butter not going to get the same advantage in stabilizing the market as the creameries? You cannot expect creameries to bear the burden and let farm butter get the whole benefit of the stabilized market without its contributing its fair share towards it. I shall give my vote when the time comes to placing farm butter on exactly the same plane as creamery butter. With regard to the power of closing down or refusing licences to creameries, I think it is a very dangerous right to give the board. Here I take my figures from the Board of Trade and Industries. The lowest cost of production of butter is that of Darling, 2.65d. per pound, and the highest is that of the Natal creamery butter, 8.74d. per pound. Costs may be less now, but these are the only figures available. You are going to prevent anybody coming into the areas served by a creamery operating on the higher scale of costs, and starting their own creamery, and probably manufacturing at a lower cost. If this power of veto is given, you are going entirely to prevent competition—competition which is going to operate in the direction of lowering costs. If this is adopted, it must be done very carefully. There are many details I want to pass over, but I want to come to Clause 38, where power is given, at the request of a certain number of suppliers, for the Minister to make it compulsory that the milk sold shall be on the basis of its butter fat content, or on milk solids not fat content. It is very easy to fix your butter fat content, but it is absolutely impossible for the ordinary farmer to ascertain the solid content, unless he is a trained analyist. If you are going to have a milk solid content provision of this kind, you will produce absolute chaos. Then I go on a little further to this question of the difference in price that has to be paid between the different grades of butter. The Minister alluded to it, and I was very glad to notice that he was rather non-committal about it. Under the provisions of the Bill you have got a range of 8d. per lb. between first grade and under grade cream. Now in 1921, a year of serious depression, the price of butter fat in most districts fell as low as 8d. a lb., and in one instance as low as 5d. per lb., so with a range of 8d. per lb. fixed by law, what will the producer of below grade get? I do not know what is going to happen to the poor man on the land if be is to be bound down in the way proposed in this Bill. To fix an arbitrary price is going a good deal too far. You had better leave that to the creameries, the board and to the industry itself. The price will be fixed with more fairness than by attempting to fix it at an arbitrary figure as this Bill does. I look on all these clauses, particularly the last two I have referred to, as being probably inserted through the promptings of the experts, and I have a grave charge to bring against the Agricultural Department in connection with some of the expert advice, the results of which we have got to put up with. I asked the Minister a question as to whether a regulation has been issued with regard to the milk standard, providing for 8.5 per cent, of solids not fat, and the reply was that the department had issued such a regulation, that it was to the interests of the dairy farmer, and that the department had carried out investigations on the matter. The Minister said the results of the investigations do not justify the lowering of the world standard. These regulations first appeared in the Food and Drugs Bill, and subsequently in regulations issued a few months ago, and now we have the position that milk must not be sold containing less than 8.5 per cent, of solids. There have been several convictions under that regulation. A dairyman of Durban has been fined twice for selling milk containing less than 8.5 per cent, of solids. I have a pamphlet here with reference to the Pan-African agricultural conference, which took place in 1929. The Minister attended that conference, and a paper was read at that conference by Dr. B. J. Smit, of the Stellenbosch College of Agriculture, in which he gave the results of experiments carried out by the department bearing on this subject. The experiments show the individual records of solid fat content of milk from pure bred Jersey and Friesland herds. There you have experiments made with cows under Government supervision which received the very best treatment. What was the result? Out of every 1,000 Jersey cows, only 320 gave milk which was in every instance above the standard. Only 320 Jerseys could comply with the regulations which the Minister issued, and yet the Jersey breed notoriously produces higher testing cows than any other breed. Out of every 1,000 Friesland tests, 350 were below 3.5 per cent, butter fat, and as many as 900 below 8.5 per cent, solids. The Minister’s department has proved conclusively by experiments carried out under their own eyes that cows treated as well as they could possibly be treated failed to the extent of 90 per cent, of the Frieslands to come up to the standard, while only 320 out of 1,000 Jersey cows came up to the standard fixed by the Minister. Yet every farmer and milk seller who dares to sell milk which does not contain 8.5 per cent, of solids can be fined for doing so! What sort of legislation is that? I don’t blame the Minister. The Minister cannot be expected to have expert knowledge of all these matters, but I blame his experts for this anomaly. The blame attache to the experts in face of the results of their experiments for the issue of regulations making every farmer a criminal who sells his milk. I think that is going a great deal too far. You have certain clauses here based on expert advice, and I say that that expert advice is of no more value than the expert advice which brought about these solid fat regulations. I hope the Minister is going either to explain that these experiments are not what they purport to be, that they are incorrect, or that he is going to withdraw these regulations. There can be no half measures. These regulations start by saying that no person shall sell milk to which any substance has been added. They then go on to provide for 3.5 per cent, of butter fat. They put the farmer in the position of having to come up to an impossible standard, and then, under the same regulations, prohibit him from adding enough butter fat to bring the milk up to standard. I hope practical experience will talk on this Bill in committee, and that we shall not be guided so much by experts only. As a Bill, I think I voice the view of dairy farmers when I say they will welcome it, and we further welcome the opportunity of giving the Minister our ideas in select committee. A dairy Bill is badly wanted; the dairy industry is asking for it. As a last word, I ask the Minister to allow the dairy industry to manage its own affairs without undue restrictions.

It is perhaps not out of place that I should recall to the Minister of Agriculture that I was the first member of this House to ask him to take measures for the re-organization and development of the industry. My representations to the Minister were made as far back as April, 1926, and on that occasion I drew attention to the example of New Zealand and pointed out that the development of the dairy industry in that country has so responded to the enterprise of the Government, and the dairy community, that it has made a notable contribution to the permanent upbuilding of the prosperity of the country. I hope the Minister realized that he can do the same for this country. He realizes the magnitude of the enterprise to which he has set his hand, and I hope he will take a broad view of his task. In the words of one of the dairy experts of New Zealand as to what the dairy industry did for that dominion, I quote these words—

I assure the Minister of my wholehearted support in the effort he is making to improve the dairy industry of the Union, but I wish to point out how much he can do to build up the population of the Union by promoting this industry. The figures from Australia show that the dairy industry absorbs more people than any other form of farming. The dairy industry absorbs or carries, per square mile, 9.24 population, whilst the best form of agriculture carries only 4 per square mile population. The dairy industry differs from other primary products in this, that the products of Natal throughout the whole course of manufacture, were improved when the dairy industry improved, and the effect should be, therefore, to absorb a larger number of people in employment owing to the added value of manufactures. I sympathize with the Minister in the difficult task he has before him. He is called upon to build up the dairy industry in a country insufficiently provided with dairy cattle. One of his own experts has made a survey of the position of the Union. On a map of the Union he has marked, in varying shades, the percentage of improved breeding stock to be found in the different areas. Although the matter is a small one, I want to represent it to the House because it shows, in miniature, what the position is to-day. That spot in the south-eastern portion shows the one in which there is 75 per cent, improved breeding stock. The other areas shade away to 10 per cent, breeding stock, and a glance at that map at closer quarters will show that 25 per cent, of the Union area is provided with less than 10 per cent, improved breeding stock. Only one-half the Union carries 50 per cent, breeding stock. The black spot, in which so high a proportion is found, represents Natal and East Griqualand. The Board of Trade, in their valuable report of August, 1927, show a state of affairs which calls for drastic alteration if progress is to be made. I ask the Minister to translate this report into practice. There is one other point of importance in that report, which perhaps the Minister has overlooked. On page 6 the Board of Trade makes this remark—

The Minister does not appear to have recognized that it is the London market that we must seek. The whole of the Bill is barren of any provision which will enable the Dairy Industry Control Board to deal with the London market. In that respect the Bill presents differences from the provision made in the New Zealand and Australian Acts. In New Zealand provision is made for the establishment of a London agency—

There is similar provision in the Australian Act, and I have before me the recent reports of New Zealand and Australia, which teem with information as to the usefulness of the London agency. The usefulness of this agency outweighs the usefulness of the board itself, so manifold are the activities of the London agency. It has become indispensable to the success of the dairy industry. It deals with the quality of the product on arrival in London. It deals with such matters as advertising, propaganda, selling, and the making of contracts. In the making of one contract alone, I think the Minister will be able to gauge the enormous good done by that agent. The report on New Zealand says—

We apparently are to cut ourselves off from this fruitful source of propaganda and content ourselves with having a board in South Africa which will deal with a market 5,000 miles away through the ineffective medium of the Trade Commissioner and his rather limited staff. I think that more efficiency is bound to come about in the High Commissioner’s office now that it is under the able control of Mr. te Water. We hope that more publicity and propaganda will now be undertaken in those efficient hands. I believe that if the Minister will take his courage in both hands he can build up an industry with which in future years his name will be associated and which will bring him more kudos than any other act he has done in the past. I hope the Minister will be persuaded to visit Great Britain himself. I feel sure that a visit of that sort would return him to this country a convinced believer in the future of our dairy industry being largely in the London market. I feel that some such visit as that is needed to convince the Minister of the value of that market to this country. In Australia, the report of the board shows again that the London agency deals with the question of quality and distribution of the products, and the particular brands to be used. One brand has now been decided upon, namely, the “Kangaroo Brand,” to popularize the brand with the consumers in Great Britain. It deals with the organization of marketing and the establishment of out-ports such as Liverpool and Glasgow, when the London market is not available, and through that agency £28,500 was contributed by the board for publicity purposes, and the agency in London is in touch with 262,000 distributors in that country, and bends its energies to popularizing the product from Australia. There is another point which I wish to impress upon the notice of the Minister. That is the constitution of the board itself. The producers in this country remain dissatisfied with the method of selection of this board. In Australia it is definitely set out that the board shall be controlled by the producers. In New Zealand that principle was well established before they consented to the establishment of the board. The matter went to a referendum and by the popular vote of the producers 72,824 voted for and 9,255 voted against, and a dairy control board was established. There is a preponderance on that board of men elected by the co-operative societies who naturally represent the producers, and who take very little part in the manufacturing side of the business. Now, the Minister, in his provisions for the constitution of this board, proposes to give representation to four producers and to four manufacturers. We object to such an equal division between the producers and the manufacturers on the board, but we object still further and still more strongly to the method of selection. In the first place, the Minister proposes that the producers shall be chosen by associations which, in the opinion of the Minister, represent the producers of milk and cream. That is far too big a discretion to be allowed to the Minister. We feel that only producers who are known to be producers and are actual suppliers, and can be easily identified because they receive their cream cheques every month, should be enrolled on the register, and by a ballot of these men alone should the producers’ representatives be returned as representatives on the board. Nothing short of that will satisfy the view of the people who are most closely identified with the production of milk and butter. I hope the Minister, in select committee, will be reasonable enough to accept such a proposal. We have also a provision made in regard to the selection of the manufacturers’ representation. It is an ineffective provision in as much as it provides for a conference to take place between the manufacturers’ representatives who deal in cheese and those representatives who deal with butter. We feel that in that case there is a very serious danger of one particular interest having a preponderating voice in the selection of those men. I have been told that, in former conferences between the manufacturers’ representatives and the co-operative companies and the representatives of the proprietary companies, one combine alone, which I need not mention in this House, has no less than 16 votes to about 8 votes on the other side. That combine has recently come to an arrangement to pool its manufacturing efforts with certain other companies. [Interruption.] I hope the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost) has satisfied himself about rings and trusts. I was dealing with a point of considerable importance to the Minister That is, the question of the selection of manufacturing representatives. I venture to point out to the Minister the danger in the course which he proposes to adopt under the Bill, that one particular combine may, in the conference he proposes, have 16 votes to its credit, whereas the co-operative section of the manufacturers will only have 8. It will result, strictly speaking, in that combine controlling the whole of the manufacturing representatives on the board, a very serious and very dangerous result. Now I hope that the Minister will realize that, in connection with the organization of this industry, it will be insufficient merely to burden us with a number of regulations. A great deal more is needed. I have recently made it my business to collect a huge mass of information from various dairying countries and I find we shall have a very unequal fight to hold our own against those more advanced countries. I have a report here of the annual conference of Factory Managers’ and Secretaries’ Association of Victoria, Australia. For 36 years these men have met together annually to promote the efficiency of industry and to do everything possible to further the progress of dairying. I hope the Minister will realize that we have a great deal to learn and much hard work to do before we can hope to compete with countries where efficiency is the watchword, as we know it is in the case of Australia and New Zealand. The New Zealand Dairy Board issues a book of regulations showing what to do and what not to do to ensure the success of a dairy industry. I agree that in regard to the levy the Minister will do well to act conservatively, and not to agree to the imposition of a heavy levy at the outset. The people of this country are particularly sensitive in regard to levies, and they are jealous of the expenditure of the money which accrues from the imposition of levies. I hope the Minister will see that the farmer is protected so far as the expenditure of the levies are concerned, and that the confidence of the private producer is secured. Again, in the selection of manufacturers’ representatives to sit on the control board, the voice of the supplier should be heard. As proposed in the Bill, the representation of the manufacturing industry is altogether too preponderant. As to farm butter, if there is no levy on it will be a very difficult matter to regulate its price and export. Competition will remain very keen for the local market and the creameries will feel that they are being called upon to pay in order to maintain a stable market for farm butter. There is a feeling among the creameries that there should be no differentiation between farm and creamery butter in regard to the levy, and that no payment should be made from levy funds to compensate factories for the loss of redundant depots. It is also felt that stabilization of prices should be secured on the lines followed by the sugar industry. I hope the Minister will agree to the select committee taking evidence very freely from those who will be affected by the Bill, which is a very far-reaching one, touching the source of income of a larger number of people in Natal than those engaged in any other branch of farming in that province. The Minister insufficiently explained the extent to which the Bill is to apply to condensed milk factories, and also whether there is to be a levy on condensed milk.

I just want to say a few words to support the Bill and thank the Minister for his courage in introducing it. I think this kind of legislation has long since been necessary. When we come to a product for which we have not got a large local market, it has always been very clear to me that that product must be better controlled if we want to build up the industry. As the dairy industry in South Africa has in the past been practically at a standstill, it is very clear that the time must come to take steps to see if we cannot develop it. We can, however, only develop it if we find an export market. The inland market is small and fluctuating. But if we want to sell the dairy produce abroad, we find tremendous competition in the countries like Australia and New Zealand, and if we want to compete there we must take drastic steps to see that our dairy produce is so manufactured that it can get on to the market. If we have no controlling legislation for the purpose we shall not be able to compete. I am convinced that this Bill is a step in the right direction. There is no reason why we should not make a great success of the dairy industry. The position is now such that, in times of good rains, like the present time, we have an over production, and that in times of drought sufficient is not produced when the price is high. The consequence of the local market being uncontrolled is that we cannot think of export because we have no regular systematic big production. When we have legislation to put the inland market under control, and ask for a levy in order to encourage export, I see the time coming when we shall build up a great dairy industry and have a considerable export in dairy produce. When we have got that length it will be possible, as the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) said, for the dairy industry to become one of the chief farming industries in the country. There was a time when I thought that the dairy industry was not particularly suited to South African conditions. Looked at superficially, it does seem so, because we do not have such great grazing veld as in, South America or Australia, where the production is great, and the cattle can keep fat on natural grass, but as we are now engaged, even if we do not have that kind of land, in starting on a small scale, and as we are building irrigation schemes, we cannot only increase the export of our produce, but we can also use lucerne as well as the grass as fodder for the cattle. That will result in our building up a regular dairy produce with fixed prices. To-day we have the difficult position that the farmers only get 1s. per 100 lb. for their lucerne, which is less than cost of production; but if we had a regular market for our dairy produce the farmers would be able to go on producing lucerne. But we do not yet possess those sound conditions, and as steps are now being taken in that direction, we heartily welcome them. I can also see the time coming when dairy produce will be regularly exported, when the farmer will go in for dairy produce on a large scale, while to-day they are living alongside irrigation schemes, and do not know what to do. I can imagine that there will be farms along the irrigation works with thousands of cows. But we need legislation for this, and, as it is now being proposed, it will have my fullest support. As it is a controlling measure, we can consider the matter further when it is in select committee, and after, and so amend it that all points which look a little bit harsh can be altered so that everyone will be satisfied. I just want to mention a few points more before the Bill goes through select committee. The first is that I think the board of control will be too large and a little too cumbersome. We must also consider the cost. It may be quite possible for the cost of the board to be so great that it will exhaust a large amount of the levy. I think that the board must be smaller, so that it can work more easily. Further, I think that the farmers are not sufficiently represented on the board. I think that it is a good suggestion that other members have already made in this connection, and I hope the Minister will consider it. Then I see provision is made for the payment of members of the board. I think we must be careful when we appoint persons on the board of control that the members do not make a kind of occupation of it. If this kind of board is appointed, I think that the people who occupy a position on such a board ought to have sufficient interest in the work so as to do it without payment. They must merely have their expenses covered for attending meetings. That is, e.g., the case with the boards of management of cooperative societies. There the principle was adopted that only the disbursements were paid. If we give a salary I fear that the people will regard it as a kind of position accepted for the sake of the pay. With these few words I want to give my full support to the Bill, and thank the Minister for introducing this legislation which has been so long required.

We have heard a good deal this afternoon about protection for the farmers, but I have not heard anything about the protection of the consumer, who, if I mistake not, is going to be very detrimentally affected by this law. Comparisons have been made with Australia and New Zealand, but these are absurd, as these countries have climatic and soil conditions which are practically ideal for dairying, and no one who knows the position will compare South Africa with these countries, and, to my mind, it is almost impossible to bring them on a level. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) spoke of advanced countries, referring to Australia and New Zealand. They are advanced in the dairying industry because of their climatic and other natural conditions, which we have not got, and which no levy can give us. While we in South Africa export a small quantity of butter at certain seasons, we are also importing it, and, as a matter of fact, the Bill anticipates that we shall still continue importing. If the dairying trade will only organize and reduce the price of butter, there is not the slightest doubt that all the butter produced here can be very readily sold to our own people. Very recently we have had butter selling at 2s. 3d. per lb., and now with the levy and the cost of various other organizations to be set up, probably the idea will be to charge 2s. 6d., and sell any surplus we have on the British market at about 1s. 6d. My argument is that charity begins at home, and rather than have many of our people using butter substitutes, as they are compelled to do now, those in the butter trade should be induced to lower their prices, when they would quickly sell all the butter they can produce. As a matter of fact, they will not be able to sell butter in the English market for more than 1s. 6d. a lb., and our people should get the benefit of these low prices. We know that the prices of butter in this country are very largely controlled by the cold storage companies, and, instead of being a blessing, as they should be, cold storages have been a curse. The prices of foodstuffs have been held up, and prices have been regulated, not according to the seasons, but merely on the storage capacity of the cold storages, and prices have been at the highest while millions of pounds of butter were in storage. This has been the key to the whole situation. If the Government would assist the butter industry, the first step to take would be to control the cold storages. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has asked quite innocently, who is going to pay the levy? And he says the farmers will do so, and on that account they should lay down the conditions for the control of the industry and the fixing of prices. Everybody knows that the putting on of a levy will increase the price to the consumer, and if the hon. member’s argument has any foundation at all it means that the consumer, who will pay the bill, should not only be represented on the board of management, but should control it. We find, however, that the board is to be comprised of Government officials and producers, who fix the price which other people shall pay. It is a very fine arrangement for the farmers, but a poor lookout for the consumer. The Minister should make provision for the representation of the consumers on this board, possibly representatives of trades unions and others. This Bill is altogether too indefinite, and I cannot support it in its present form, but I hope it will be amended in committee. At present I do not know what the Bill is eventually going to entail as far as the consumer is concerned. At any rate, I do not think the Government is entitled to call upon all the butter consumers in the country to pay a considerable amount, so that a few dairy farmers may benefit. It is useless to make arrangements to export butter while we still have to import butter for our own requirements, and it is absurd to put an extra tax on the whole public to artificially bolster up an industry which can never hope to compete in the world’s markets.

We have heard the advocates of the creameries this afternoon. They have been very voluble, but we have not heard a word about the makers of farm butter, a very important branch of the agricultural community. How are these people going to be affected? The Minister knows that he has the creameries behind him, but I want to know if he has got the makers of farm butter behind him. Has the Minister received any representations from makers of farm butter in support of this Bill? We all know that the creameries and the makers of farm butter are in competition one with the other, and as far as I can see, the effect of this Bill is going to be that one or other of these business rivals is going to suffer. Who is the most likely one to suffer? Of course, it is going to be the maker of farm butter. The Minister’s proposal is most likely to adversely affect the maker of farm butter than the few surviving creameries we shall have in this country after this process of elimination of smaller creameries has taken place. The surviving creameries are going to become so powerful that the makers of farm butter are likely to be eliminated by their competition. We all know the disparity between the price paid by the creameries for cream and the price at which they sell their butter. This Bill requires more consideration than has been given to it. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) said that at last we were going to get an opportunity of controlling our own industry. We have not got a shred of control under this Bill. The whole of the control is in the hands of the Minister. Then he went on to say that the creameries would bear the burden of the levy, and why should they not benefit? The burden will be borne, to a large extent, by the makers of farm butter. It is proposed, under this Bill, to compensate superfluous industries in the country out of a fund which will be created, to which the makers of farm butter are going to contribute largely; but they do not stand to benefit in the way the creameries do. They are being used to assist the creameries to get control of the butter industry of the country. Further, who is going to benefit by the export of butter? Is the maker of farm butter going to benefit? No, the creameries are going to benefit, and unless we are very careful how we deal with this Bill, the few surviving creameries will be so strong that they will crush the makers of farm butter and have a monopoly of the dairy industry. I represent a dairying constituency, and I dairy myself, and I say that the making of butter by the farmer is, in many cases, a most important branch of farming. I very much fear for that farmer, because I can see that with the increased cost of production, and with this competition which he is not feeling to any great extent to-day, the competition of the creameries, he will have to go down on his knees to the creameries and become a supplier of cream at the price which the creameries choose to pay for cream. The hon. member for Griqualand rather eulogized this Bill, because he said that at last we would have an opportunity of getting control of one of our industries. In what respect is the farmer going to get control? In regard to the constitution of the board, to begin with, is the maker of farm butter to be represented upon it? Provision of only one representative on the board indicates that the maker of farm butter is only a secondary consideration in the eyes of the Minister. The Minister is all out to make things snug for the creameries to the detriment of the farmer who makes his own butter and makes his living out of it. The constitution of the board is provided for in this way—

Where does the control come in there ?—

The next provision is—

Again, the control is in the Minister’s hands. There is a further provision which makes the Minister in effect the sole member of the board, which gives him sole control—

Yes, the Minister is to perform all functions. He is a member of the control board, the Minister of Agriculture, and the control board itself all in one. I am quite sure that the farmers in my district are not going to agree that the Minister should have this control. I have dealt with the constitution of the board and the powers of the Minister, but what about the control of the board? Sub-section 3 provides—

The board can do nothing without the Minister’s consent; it is tied hand and foot. Take sub-section E—

The board is powerless. Again, take subsection G—

and sub-section H—

What is the object of constituting a board and giving it certain powers which it cannot exercise unless the Minister so directs? There is another power which the Minister has taken unto himself. In regard to the imposition of the levy, the board is tied down to the specific provision laying down a penny per lb. in the case of creamery butter and other butter, and a half-penny per lb. in the case of farm butter. If the levy is to be varied, it is the Minister who must do it. Representing a farmers’ constituency, I object most strongly to the provisions of this Bill on the question of control. Unless the Minister is prepared in select committee to give a greater measure of control to the farmer, when the matter comes up in committee of the House, I shall have more to say. As regards the making of farm butter, this branch of farming will be badly hit by this. I want to ask the Minister if he has that branch of farmers behind him. I know the Minister circulated certain farmers, and some of them in my own district, when they had seen the circular, said: “Whatever you do, spare us from all interference and control from the Minister.”

The farmers always object.

I have very intelligent and progressive farmers in my district.

I do not want to go into details, but think it is necessary to say a few words on the Bill. The Minister has clearly explained it and said that when we go into committee he would be quite prepared to meet us. He knows that I, and the many others, are very shy of levies, and I was at first a little shy in connection with the supposed levy under this Bill. The Minister’s explanation has, however, removed my objection, and I cannot understand how anyone can oppose it after the explanation. However much I am against levies, I now have the decided impression that it is in the interests of the producer for this levy to be made. The Minister said that he felt that we were experiencing a hard time, and that we would therefore be careful and assist the producer, seeing prices were so low, in every possible way. But I now have the fixed impression that the Minister does not want to impose taxation, but to act in the real interests of the farmers. We find the proof of the necessity of such a levy in the result of the voluntary levy on cheese factories and creameries. I am glad the Minister is prepared to leave out farm butter, but the question, to my mind, is whether the time is not approaching when the farmers will also be willing, if the whole position is explained to them in a proper manner, to also put a levy on their produce. They will not be unwilling to impose 1d a lb. if they are going to make 6d. on the butter. If the levy assists in getting markets, we can have no objection to it. The people have only to thoroughly understand this. There are, however, a few points which I want the Minister to consider. I have some objections, and they may possibly be amended in committee. The first is the grading of cream. The Minister wants to make a distinction of 3d. between first and second grades. This, in my opinion, the House should not pass, because then we shall have much more second grade butter than is the case to-day. The distinction is too great. Sometimes if the cream is very low there is already a sufficiently large difference between first and second grades. I think it ought to disappear. Then I agree with the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) that the board to be appointed is too large. That is not, however, my real objection to the board. What I object to is that when there is a vacancy the Minister can fill it up. I think this is in conflict to the principle in the Bill which lays down how the board shall be constituted by producers and interested parties. When there is a vacancy, it ought to be filled up by the remaining members until the two years for appointing a new board have elapsed. Otherwise the object of the Bill will not be obtained. I see the Minister will also have the right to disapprove of the nomination of a member by one or other body which has to nominate. I think that also is wrong. If the bodies think that the persons are the right ones, the Minister must not interfere. They ought to be perfectly free. There are various other little things, but they can be put right in committee.

We are all of us anxious to see the dairy industry progress. We want to see the industry go ahead, but I submit that we are starting all wrong. The reason I say that is that when the whole system that the Minister proposes to inaugurate under this Bill is dependent upon a levy placed upon the consumer, and directly placed upon the consumer, it is entirely wrong in principle and will be very unpopular throughout the country.

Not on the consumer, but on the producer.

The position is quite clear. Every pound of butter has to have a ½d. stamp placed upon it. Therefore, the position is that these ½d. stamps have to be bought from the post office and placed upon every pound of butter.

Not by the consumer.

The consumer will have to pay for it.

No. He will not.

Of course he will; what nonsense. If the distributor has to buy a ½d. stamp in the post office and put it on a pound of butter, do you mean to tell me that the consumer will not ultimately pay it

It Does Not Follow.

You say it does not follow, but it will follow in practice. It followed in practice when the hon. Minister started, some years ago, to put a stamp on patent medicines. Of course, it does not follow. The Act did not say that the consumer would have to pay. Of course it didn’t. The manufacturers should have paid for it, or the distributors should have paid for it, but, in effect, the public paid for it. Then, if butter is sold at 2s. per lb, or whatever the price may be, you can rest assured that the ½d. per lb. placed on the butter will be charged to the consumer. It is no use saying that it will not follow. In practice it is always followed. In this connection, I say it was rather depressing to hear the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) saying that he was not satisfied that he could support the Bill until he knew what the levy would be. I may tell the hon. member that the amount of the levy is laid down in the Act. It is to be ½d. per lb. for farm butter and no less than 1d. per lb. for imported butter. Also, if he reads further he will see that the whole machinery of the Bill is entirely dependent on these levies. To encourage the export of butter the Minister, or the board, can advance as much as 6d. per lb. to assist in the export of butter. The secondary effect also would be that not only will the consumer be paying ½d. per lb. on butter, but the home products will also increase in value, and he will be assisting in increasing the whole cost, and will be helping the export of the same article. So the consumer in this country will get it in the neck both ways. I submit that the right thing for the Minister to do is to secure finance for carrying out this scheme, and the machinery, apart from where he can get the money, appears to be workable, and will no doubt assist the dairy industry. I further say this: that the money should come from some other source than directly from the consumer. It should be placed in such a way that not the consumer only, but the whole country, will bear the cost by means of a subsidy for the encouragement of this particular industry. This is one of the cases where a subsidy will be the right thing, and the only fair way to encourage the industry. We know ourselves to-day of the depression that exists and that has been creeping over this country for the past few months. It appears, so far as I can see, that it will be a steady depression, and there will be a good deal of tightness affecting the business community as well as affecting the whole of the people of the country. The people of this country are finding it more difficult every day to make their monthly wages meet the demands of the cost of living, and if they are faced with further expenditure on one of the most essential articles of life, namely, butter, they will kick and take very great exception to it. It will be quite plain to them that they have to meet this levy, for every pound of butter will have a stamp on it. It is all very well to say that it is only a small sum, but it is the small sums which hit these poor people. Some people to-day in Johannesburg and Cape Town are only able to get one pound of butter per week. They can only afford to buy that, very often, once a week for a family of four or five people, and every extra halfpenny on the cost of butter will be resented very much indeed. I hope when this matter goes to the select committee that the fundamental thing, namely, the means whereby the finance is going to come from, will be carefully enquired into, and that we shall find some other means of subsidizing this industry. I am appealing to the Minister now to take that very carefully into consideration, and when the time comes, I hope that we shall be able to find some other way. I can say that, so far as we are concerned, we cannot possibly support a direct levy in the form in which the Minister proposes to impose it. We have had enough of these 2½d. stamps which have annoyed people before, and it will become dangerous if he proceeds with this.

I am going to support this Bill, not because I favour the Bill as it stands to-day, but because the Minister has promised that it is going to a select committee where we have some hope that it will be amended and brought back in a form which will be of some use to the dairy farmers. This Bill absolutely protects and provides for the creameries and factories in this country. They are protected in every way, and we are going to give them the whip-hand. What is going to be done for the farmers and the producers of the country, and how are their interests going to be protected? As far as I can see they will be in the hands of the factories, because they will have no power on the board which is to be brought into existence. The Bill proposes to eliminate all competition so far as creameries and milk factories are concerned and give them a monopoly, and we shall have to accept whatever price they care to offer for our milk and cream. There will be only one factory in each area, and competition will be limited to the very smallest possible extent. We farmers cannot accept a position like that. We must have some means of enforcing fair play to us as producers, and unless we can get this, I will not be a party to accepting a Bill of this nature. I think the best way to deal with the problem would be to follow the example of the Natal sugar farmers, who, by the help of the Government, have by agreement secured a fair price for their produce. An examination was made into costs of production and manufacture, and on the information thus obtained, the price paid to the farmers was fixed. If the control board had the power to enquire into the cost of producing cream and milk and the cost of manufacturing and marketing, it could determine what would be a fair price to pay. At the same time, we wish the creameries and factories to be protected. Unfortunately, most of the creameries and factories are proprietary concerns, and are out to make as much as they can from the primary producer, whose interests will not be protected on the control board. Although the farm butter producers will have one representative on the board, they will have no voice in his selection, and he will be appointed by the Minister because there is no association that represents them. The same thing will happen in the case of the producers of cream and milk, as our farmers’ associations represent all branches of farming as a whole; consequently, in actual practice the Minister will nominate the representative of the cream and milk producers. The department will come into very close touch with the factories, and will be sympathetic to their needs and requirements, so I agree with the previous speakers that the producer should have a predominating representation on the board. As the Bill is to go to a select committee, it would be a mistake to go into details at this stage at any great length, but I must point out that a great deal of power is to be given to the manufacturing interests. Section 33 gives the board the right to enforce payment for milk without reference to the producer as to the basis on which the payment is to be made. If 75 per cent, of the owners of cheese factories in any one of the seven areas defined in the schedule wish to enforce this section, which authorizes the payment for milk being made on the basis of butter fat and solids, they will have the right to do so, and the farmers will have no power to object. Hence, unless we have some power to make our wishes felt if we object, we shall be in a very bad way. The Minister could insist that milk supplied to factories should be a good commercial article, such as supplied to the town consumers. It has been proved in New Zealand and other countries that the best milk for cheese-making is not abnormally rich, but is a good commercial article. The chief point I wish to impress upon the Minister, however, is that he must not create a monopoly for these factories and creameries with power to dictate prices to the producer. If we wish to make the dairy industry large and prosperous, the farmer must be given a fair deal; provided that is done, the industry will flourish.

The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) will, even more than other hon. members, be interested in a story I tell about my visit to London. During that visit I was in Tooley Street, where the cheese trade of London is carried on. There the dealer told me that our cheese was so excellent that they requested us to send more cheese, because they could not get enough of it. The hon. member will be very glad to hear that they said that the best class not only came from South Africa, but the very best came from Kokstad in Griqualand. I, of course, felt very happy, and thought that they not only produced good cheese in Griqualand, but also good members of Parliament. But this afternoon I doubted a little about the last part when the hon. member interpreted the Bill according to his taste. What I cannot forgive him is that he wants to tax the old tanta’s pound of butter. With us in the Transvaal, and I think in other parts of the country also, that pound of butter means a big income for old tanta, with which she has to buy sugar and other things, and if we were to tax it, even if it were only with ½d., I fear that the hon. member for Griqualand would have a lot of trouble with the old aunties. I fear that that idea, which I got in Tooley Street, will no more apply to those old ladies than to the hon. member. Other hon. members as well want to tax this home industry, the production of farm butter. There are even some who want to put a higher tax on it. It will be very unfair to the old ladies. Another point on which I do not agree with the hon. member for Griqualand, and the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), is that the provision that every pound of butter must be done up in paper before sale with the printed statement of its origin. It is true that there are possibly parts where the natives make butter, but I think the scent of the butter sufficiently betrays its origin. I am astonished at the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) talking on exactly the opposite lines to those two hon. members. This is another proof of the great unanimity on the other side, of which they always boast so much, and which in this case also leaves much to be desired. I do not agree with the hon. members, nor with the hon. members for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) and Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) in what they said about the protection of the consumer. It is, of course, a good thing to protect the consumer, but what those hon. members forget is that one cannot compare butter with patent medicine. Butter has an actual value— a food value. Each pound of butter represents a certain amount. That we cannot say of patent medicine, because it only has an imaginary value. I am convinced that the board of control will see that there is not too much difference between the price and the actual value of butter. I hope that in select committee something else will be passed than what hon. members opposite propose. I should like, e.g., the powers of the board of control to be extended a little more, while other hon. members want to curtail them. The hon. member for Boksburg spoke about the protection of the consumer. Of course we want to protect the consumer, but protection is most required practically only where a danger exists of a monopoly. That is what we must oppose the most. I see in the instructions to the board under Clause 12 (o) that the instruction will be [Sub-clause read]. I think that it doee not go at all far enough. In my opinion we must give the board the power to intervene at once when a monopoly arises in order to protect the consumer. I hope an amendment to this effect will be inserted in the select committee. I should like to congratulate the Minister on this Bill, and I know that he only introduced the proposal to tax the old tanta’s butter with a ½d. to test the feeling of the House. I am certain that he will remove it from the Bill, and will not listen to hon. members opposite who only want to pick a quarrel with the old ladies. I congratulate the Minister on this Bill because I see that the dairy industry will yet play a larger role in our country. We see, e.g., in the Transvaal to-day that people are growing wheat on the most splendid land, and we know what that means. The farmer cannot live on it because the wheat is exposed to hail, drought, and other mishaps, and the worst of them is the millers’ ring, and we do not see any signs as yet of the breaking up of the ring. The farmers are at present using good ground for wheat, and the ground is too good for cheap wheat, but if they were to use it for dairy produce, the man who has a poor existence to-day and has to go hungry, will get an opportunity under expert guidance of building up an industry in which he can maintain his family well. With these few suggestions, I think that the whole House should give its support to the Bill, which will yet be a blessing to the country.

I do not propose to deal with this from the point of view of the dairy farmer. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) has dealt with many portions of the Bill. Generally speaking, the same thing is going to happen to the dairy farmer as happened to the fruit farmer. They go to the Government to ask for help, and come away from the Minister bound hand and foot. Well, of course, that is their business. I particularly want to deal with Clauses 12 and 27. Under Clause 12 this board has the uncontrolled power to impose taxation to the extent of a penny a pound on imported butter. It is an entire innovation in legislation to hand over to an irresponsible board the power to levy taxation through the customs. I do not imagine that the general public will appreciate the benefits they are going to get by their butter going up one penny a lb. immediately this board comes into being. In addition to the one penny per lb., the board, with the consent of the Minister, can increase the customs duty on butter to any extent which they consider necessary. The position is that when butter is scarce at certain times of the year that levy will be increased very much in excess of one penny per lb. It will be increased to protect the local market rate, and the consumer is going to pay the difference. I want to point out that there is also provision that the levy need not be the same for the locally produced and the imported article. Under this Bill there may be a levy of 4d. a lb. on butter if it is imported, and only a half-penny a lb. on butter made in the country. Clause 27 goes further. Power is there given to the Minister to prohibit the importation of butter or cheese from any particular country or place. Seemingly the intention is that when the butter is scarce the Minister will be able to prohibit absolutely, irrespective of any duty, the importation of any butter from any of the adjacent territories in South Africa, and it seems to me that it is a very unfair and unjust taxation of the general consumer in this country. With regard to the spending of the levy, as far as I can see the board have very wide discretion. They can collect the money from the public, and spend it in any way they wish. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) pointed out that the dairy farmer wants to keep his liberty. To that I say “hear, hear,” every time, and I am sorry to see him losing his liberty through many of the clauses of this Bill. Last session I emphasized the very strong necessity of decreasing all the duties on the necessaries of life, but here we have a Bill to do directly the opposite. I should like to know what is the attitude of the Minister of Finance on this matter. He may consider that a certain duty should be levied on butter, the maximum duty that that article can stand. After he has levied that duty the Minister of Agriculture can, under this Bill, double that duty. As far as I can see we are asked to hand over power to Ministers and boards to impose further taxation on foodstuffs. I hope hon. members on the other side of the House will help us to see that a further burden is not put on the consumer.

Should there not have been a Committee of Ways and Means before this Bill was introduced. Rule 114 says that all proposals to raise funds, whether by way of taxation or the imposition of any impost on the people, should be originated through a Committee of Ways and Means. This is a proposal to levy on imported butter. I submit that it is an impost to be levied upon the people under the authority of this Bill, and I should like to know whether it should not have originated in a Committee of Ways and Means.

If the levy goes into the Consolidated Revenue Fund then a Committee of Ways and Means has to be set up, but in this case it is not necessary.

Are not the words of the rule wide enough to cover any proposal for an impost on the people wherever the proceeds may go? I submit that this is a new de parture.

Standing Order No. 114, as the hon. member points out, lays down that “all proposals to raise funds, whether by way of taxation or the imposition of any impost, rate, or pecuniary burden upon the people” shall originate in Committee of Ways and Means; but in construing this rule I think that it has always been held that it only applies to charges which form a portion of the State revenue to meet State expenditure. It will be noticed that the levy to which attention has been drawn does not, as in the case of the fund created by the Miners’ Phthisis Act, flow into the Consolidated Revenue Found and I do not think that, in the circumstances, Standing Order No. 114 applies. The question is, however, one of considerable constitutional importance and I shall take an early opportunity of going more fully into it and of giving a more detailed ruling.

The Miners’ Phthisis Act does not impose any levy on the people; it is on the industry. This imposes a levy on the whole of the people who use butter.

I will consider the point.

We have just heard the complaints of the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) and it is wonderful to see how soon members and the public outside are prepared to oppose a levy of 1d. a lb. on butter. We at once hear the shout that the cost of living will rise. I wonder whether those members do not yet get the farmer’s produce sufficiently cheap. We are now producing practically everything we require in the country, excepting wheat possibly. They get those things practically for nothing, and when we now try to get a better price for the articles marketed by the farmer, then we at once hear all kinds of complaints about the cost of living rise. The people who buy the goods are, in most cases, people with salaries. They get their money regularly, and they can pay a little for their goods. But the poor farmer who gets almost nothing for his goods is constantly faced with the statement that the cost of living will go up. Members opposite are now suddenly opposed to the levy. And it is just those people who wanted to put a levy on all our produce when they were in office. How wonderfully the world turns. Now that a levy of 1d. is proposed, the cost of living must suddenly increase. I do not know, but this Parliament seems to me a wonderful thing which turns about strangely. It is a wonderful experience, possibly by both parties. The hon. member behind me here attacks the South African party for wanting to increase taxation. It almost looks like it. But I do not blame them. It was their policy from the start to tax the produce of the farmer. We had the tobacco and other taxes. I, however, want to talk to my own Minister and plead with him. It is the foolish tobacco tax which hit me so hard on the back veld, as it is called. We had the greatest trouble with it, and it killed the South African party so that it is sitting on those benches. But I do not want my Minister to go the same way.

That was tobacco.

Yes, it was luxury tobacco, but here we are dealing with butter. With the bread and butter that is indispensable, and I want to address an earnest appeal to the Minister. At that time our people went a hundred miles and more to pay the tax when they sold a pound of tobacco. They suffered the greatest inconvenience. But to come to butter. I have constituents who live a hundred miles from Middelburg, who take their pound of butter and exchange it at the shops for coffee, sugar and other necessaries. They have to live in that way, and it is no use to live in the clouds. We must come down to those people and keep count with them. Now I shall have to go to my electors, if the Bill is passed as drawn, and tell them that they can no longer take the pound of butter to the shops without first paying a 1d. levy on it. I can assure the Minister, be it never so good a measure for the dairy factories—I am not speaking of them— it will cause great inconvenience to those farmers. I feel the people who sell this butter struggle to make a living in that way, and we must not put a hindrance in their way. We are now going to tell them that they must first go and buy the stamps in Middelburg. This will place me in a very bad position. I must bear the responsibility for it with them. The Minister will not be there when I am hauled over the coals. I want to ask the Minister not to tax the work of the women in the home in that way. All the parties always go to the women when they need anything, and do not now let us tax them in this unfair way. Why levy a kitchen tax? I hope the Minister will assist me to kill this proposal. He says that he will refer the Bill to a select committee with the object of altering this clause. When I observe the way it has been debated in this House, I fear the select committee will possibly increase it to 2d. In which case I pity the poor farmer. Things are already so bad that they can hardly make a living. There is much grass in the Transvaal, and they are still able to do something with their butter, but if they have to pay a tax, then I pity myself and the Minister as well. I have set my hopes on the select committee, but that hope has now completely gone. It seems the committee will be in favour of it, and then I shall have to settle with angry women. I am very much afraid of an angry woman, and if the Minister has not yet had this experience, he will have it in future.

I do not think the progressive dairy farmer will quarrel with the Minister for having introduced this measure. Although the Minister was on firm grounds in regard to the general principles of the Bill, he was certainly on very “shifting sands,” to quote his own words, in regard to farm butter. That is the weakness of his whole measure, and as that portion of the Bill affects the people I am interested in, I wish to speak on that point. It is all very well to refer to Denmark and Holland and New Zealand. Their conditions are absolutely ideal. The farms are small, the country densely populated, the farms are near to one another, and conditions generally are favourable to the dairy industry. Their markets are next door. But do those conditions prevail in South Africa? Let us come down to earth. The Minister’s scheme would be welcomed if applied in those countries because their conditions are far in advance of the conditions which prevail in this country at the present time. I mention to the Minister that I am particularly interested in this question because I feel very strongly that this Bill is absolutely going to kill the private producer. He will be squeezed out by monopolies, and he is going to be forced to send his products to the creameries. If all the creameries were purely co-operative creameries, and the producer was going to get some benefit out of the profits made by them, there might be something said for it. But we know that the shares in many of these creameries are held by people who do not produce a single pound of butter. They are investors, and those shares are in consequence going to go up by leaps and bounds. The only one who will keep the balance of power is going to be the producer of farm butter. Between the creameries and the consumer the private producer of farm butter is going to hold the balance of power, and his competition is going to keep up and maintain the price that the creameries will pay for cream. In my part of the country, where thousands of pounds of butter are produced, the farmers produce butter which will compete against any creamery butter. On the East London market they will certainly compete against any butter, and it is not possible to consent to allow the producer of farm butter to be squeezed out as this Bill un-doubtly will do. The Minister has implicit confidence in these creameries. I can assure him that the farmers in our area have not that implicit confidence in the creameries that he has. I will give an illustration of what actually happened in my own experience. There were two farmers living on the same farm who sent their cream to a creamery, one in a big can and the other in a small can. The man who had the big can got a higher price for his cream, and the man with smaller can got a smaller price, although the milk was produced on the same farm, milked in the same kraal, and passed through the same separator. It happened on two or three occasions, and then the man with the small can thought of a plan. He said: “I will milk all the cows into the same bucket and put all the milk at the same time through the same separator, and divide the cream into my little can and put the other lot into the big can.” His name fortunately was different from the owner of the big can, so the creamery did not know that the two men were in any way related, or had any interests in the particular cans. Although the same milk had been put through the same separator, and divided into a big can and a small can, when the next return came from the creamery there was again a difference in the price. That is why a large number of our farmers have not that confidence, I will not say in the honesty, but in the dealings of some of these creameries. The Minister himself, by only giving one representative on the board to the producers of farm butter, shows that he attaches very little importance to the maintain that they form a very large percentage producers of farm butter in this country. I of the producers of butter in this country. I quite understand that the conditions of this Bill may be applied to constituencies like East Griqualand and Natal, where things have developed much on the lines of New Zealand. I would ask the hon. the Minister not to apply the principles of this Bill to other parts of the country where they are not as highly organized. We are legislating in advance of the requirements of the country. That is ideal legislation. Much as one may admire ideal legislation, one must come down to practical politics, and not introduce legislation which is in advance of the requirements of the country. Let us develop slowly on lines through co-operative creameries, and I appeal to the Minister to exclude the private producer. Let us see the benefit to be derived, and when the private producer sees that it pays him, he will come in automatically, but do not force him. It is a characteristic of our people, and I admire it, namely, their sense of independence. They will not be dragooned. You can lead them, and you can guide them, but they will not be dragooned, and this measure will dragoon them. Whilst approving of the principle of the Bill, I ask the Minister to give his serious attention to the question of excluding, for the time being, the producer of farm butter. One hates the idea of anything in the nature of a monopoly in a product like butter. If we have a monopoly there will be a reaction against this monopoly. There should be no difference as between town and country. After all, our interests are interbound. We have mutual interests, just as much in the interests of the townsman as the farmer. It is in the interests of the townsman that the farmer should advance and progress, just as it is in the interests of the farmer that there should be a consuming population to buy his products. The hon. the Minister has already said that he is going to refer this Bill to a select committee. I welcome that, because I do feel that when the Minister gets the voice of the unorganized section of the dairy producers in this country, he will find that he has not got the support of that section of the farmers in this country, for a levy of ½d. per lb. on farm butter.

As a dairy farmer, and a representative of dairy farming, I heartily welcome the Bill. We feel that the matter brooks no delay, because the industry is in such a position that it may collapse at any time, which will ruin many farmers. There is a difference of opinion about the proposed levy. I want to remind hon. members that we have already had a voluntary levy in the past. It was not laid down, but a number of factories agreed to impose it themselves, and as a result they were able to export more than 2,000,000 lbs. last year. There were factories that refused to pay. Is it light for some of the factories, or producers, to saddle themselves with a levy, while others draw the resulting benefit without doing anything? It is necessary to have legislation to treat everybody alike? Another objection was raised by the hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) to the effect that farm butter should be exempted. The present position is that the man who sells farm butter —inferior butter in almost every case—gets more than I do in selling my cream to the factories. I get 1s. for first grade cream, and in Kimberley and Johannesburg, farm-butter fetches 1s. 3d. and 1s. 4d. a lb. Factory butter is indeed sold at 1s. 6d. to 1s. 8d., but I do not reap the benefit, but the mare who sells the farm butter does. The Bill already provides that the factories should pay a bigger levy than the person making farm butter. I am satisfied with that, but we cannot altogether exempt the farm butter. It will cripple the industry. The hon. member for Middelburg even tries to frighten us with the women. I have much respect for them, but we need not be afraid in this instance. Nor have they the franchise, and we need not be so frightened. Everyone admits that it is a necessary thing, in order to save the industry. We must do the right thing. I am glad that hon. members opposite support the principle of the Bill. Of course there are members who oppose it, but I understand that direct producers anyhow approve of the principle. There are a few points I do not agree with. It is provided that the difference between first grade and second grade shall be 2d., and the same amount between second and third grades. The poor producer has not the slightest control over the grading. The factory grades, and the Government grader only comes once a month to inspect. The producer is dependent on the factories, and we feel as soon as the difference between first and second grades becomes 2d., it will always be second grade. The difference of 1d. is enough to-day to encourage any producer to deliver a good article, because the 1d. amounts to a fairly large sum in the long run. There are people in my district who take their cream to the factory—a distance of more than 100 miles—and the lorry possibly only comes once a week. It goes without saying that the cream is constantly over ripe, and falls into the third grade. One rarely, or never, finds second or third grade in the factory. Perhaps they turn all the butter into first grade, but the producer is paid out for second, and third grades. Therefore the difference must not be 2d., because then the farmers will never smell first grade. The difference in price also that I get, and that at which the factories sell in the local markets, is too great. I cannot see why the cost for converting cream into butter should be so great that a profit of 6d. or 8d. a lb. should be made. Therefore the Board of Control is a good solution, because it can investigate the profit which is made by the factory out of the consumer. I think that there are possibly middle men who must be eliminated. I am also sorry that the farmers will still be sending their cream to the factories as in the past, and that the factories will pay the railage. It actually happens that farmers skip two or three creameries, and send to another creamery, and I, who live close by, must pay for the luxury. I know of people living at Olifantshoek, a distance of 300 miles, and who pass three creameries to come to ours. At the end of the month all the cost of transport is thrown into one and distributed amongst the farmers. It is deducted from the proceeds of the farmer’s cream. If anyone wants to sell in Vryburg or Johannesburg let him do so, but pay the railage himself. The manager of a creamery himself told me that as soon as it was laid down for everybody to pay the rail charges themselves the cream would immediately go up a 1d. a lb. If the farmers can get that benefit, we must make it possible. I hope this will be put right in select committee. Other points can be debated later, but I hope the Act will soon come into force.

I do not think anybody will be found in the House to quarrel with the objects the Minister has in view in introducing this Bill, such as improving the quality of butter and cheese, stabilization of prices, development of export trade, reorganization of our creameries, and giving financial facilities to the producers, but I do not think that the methods he has adopted can commend themselves so much as the objects of the Bill. What does he propose to do? He proposes to organize all the farmers who supply creameries, the manufacturers of butter and cheese, and the makers of farm butter, and then to establish, from representatives nominated from these bodies and by the distributors, a board, to which he proposes to give the most drastic powers. They can impose levies, they have complete control of the exports of butter and cheese, power to close down factories, raise loans and make advances, and several other powers. Under the Bill they have most inquisitorial powers. They can command any information they please, and this information has got to be supplied. This seems to me to be very much like practical socialism, and when his feet are firmly planted on the path of socialism, I expect to find the Minister dictating to the farmers how they are to run their farms. That will be only one stage further. We have heard a good deal about co-operation. The Minister has expressed his adherence to the principle of co-operation, and from all sides of the House we have heard that principle supported; but I very much doubt whether the principle of co-operation is going to be furthered by the methods he proposes under this Bill. He has applied the stimulus from the wrong end. Co-operation is a useful plant, but it is a rather shy one, and it has got to be very carefully handled if it is going to have a healthy growth. You have got to prepare the ground for it by propaganda, and the principle of this Bill does not prepare the ground, and will not induce healthy growth. This Bill will hinder co-operation. The secret of co-operation is that farmers should rely on their own efforts, and that they should run their own show. If they make mistakes they will suffer from their mistakes and learn by them. The Minister has the very widest powers in this Bill. He can decide which cooperative association is to appoint a farmers’ representative on the board, and whether associations of butter and cheese manufacturers are qualified to appoint manufacturers’ representatives. He can veto any appointment to the board. This does not mean that the farmers and producers of this country are going to work the co-operative machine, it means the Minister is going to do it. Everything the farmers do will be subject to the Minister’s veto and approval. It seems to me this board is mere camouflage for the wishes of the Minister, and the principles and methods enshrined in it are the methods not of co-operation, but of the parade ground. The Minister proposes to lay down what he wants them to do, and what they shall not do. The idea of government interference’s absolutely devastating to the idea of co-operation. This board, nominated by men whose interests they are going to look after, will not in fact respond to them, but will respond to the Minister. The chairman who is appointed will have a casting vote, and we may easily see to whom he will go for instructions, or to whom the board will go for instructions. They will go to the Minister, not to the farmers they represent. In importing provisions of this kind into the Bill, the Minister abrogates the true idea of co-operation which we have heard extolled from all parts of the House. That-part of the Bill has been dealt with by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), but I propose to direct attention to the two sections which the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) has referred to. I do not object to the principle of a levy. I think it is a sound one, if it is a levy upon the produce of the persons who are going to profit by it. There is no objection to it if properly applied, because the money is being used for the people who will benefit by it. But the Bill goes further than that, and it gives the board of control and the Minister power to take that money out of the pockets of the consumer. That position is absolutely unsound, economically and on constitutional grounds. Parliament is being asked to delegate to this board of control and to the Minister power to tax the consumer to an unlimited extent, not only by imposing levies on imported butter and cheese, but by discriminating against imported butter and cheese. If it is necessary that import duties on butter and cheese should be increased with a view to protecting an industry, there might be something to be said for the proposal, but the Board of Trade and Industries have themselves reported that customs duties are added for protection. They say—

So that no case can be made out for increased protective duties on butter and cheese. This provision for a levy on imported butter and cheese is, in my opinion, not essential to the principle of the Bill, because if the levy is restricted to butter produced in this country the position, I am confident, will be that the producers of this country will be able to recoup themselves of that levy. The experience of Australia referred to by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) proves that clearly. If a levy is made and properly applied, it repays itself to the persons on whom it is levied. Under the shelter of the existing customs tariff I maintain that the farmers will recoup themselves by better organization and grading, and by advertisement propaganda. They will recoup this levy which it is proposed to be laid upon them, without any necessity for further protection in the form of levies on imported produce. So that the levy on imported butter and cheese, I submit, is quite unessential and it might well be dropped. It is the function of Parliament to hold the balance evenly between all classes, between the producers on one side and the customers on the other side. If this proposal goes through, giving the Minister power to impose a levy on imported cheese and butter, the board will be divesting itself of fulfilling that most important function. I further appeal to the Minister to take a proper view of this levy on importations and drop it from the Bill. There is no objection to a levy on the produce of the country. Then there is the power to prohibit importation. That also, I submit, is unessential to the Bill, and I feel that the Minister should drop that also, because the effect of that power to be given him to prohibit importation will simply be to have the consumer in this country bound hand and foot to this Board of Control. Now the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) said the price would be raised against the consumer. I do not agree with him entirely. I agree with him to this extent, If this power to make levies on imported butter and cheese and to prohibit importation, is maintained, that will have the effect, if it is not deleted, of not raising the price of butter and cheese. The power to import is subject to customs duties and that is a sufficient safeguard against that. I suggest that these objectionable provisions of the Bill should be dropped.

Owing to the wild fluctuations in price which the farmer receives for his cream it is better, during the winter months —as I interjected during the Minister’s speech —not to milk at all. The object of the Bill is to stabilise the price of milk products, and once that is done it will be possible for the farmer to know exactly how he stands and for him to go into the question of feeding his stock on scientific lines. Without stabilization of prices, however, it is almost impossible to expect the farmer to carry on dairying on scientific lines. It has been asserted that the payment of a levy will involve an increase in the price to the consumer, but if the industry is organized the consumer will benefit as well as the producer, as the manufactures will be able to make butter at a lower price. There is tremendous scope for improvement in the butter industry, and also in the treatment of our cream. I now wish to refer to a few points in the Bill. The butter industry has been and is in a precarious state, and this Bill has been introduced at the request of the creameries and the producers in order to place the industry on a sound basis. One of the main features of the Bill is the control board, but unfortunately that board is controlled by the Minister. The Minister I submit is vested with too much power, and too much is left to his opinion. In almost every clause the opinion of the Minister is the final factor whether a thing shall be done or not. In clause 3 the appointment of representatives shall be subject to his opinion as to whether they are representative of the producers of milk or cream. The Minister decides whether the person appointed is qualified to represent the suppliers of milk and so forth. You will find that right vested in the Minister throughout the Bill. I think the time has come when the farmer wants a little less interference from the Minister and his department. They want less autocracy from the Minister and less bureaucracy from his department. The farmer wants to be left alone so that he can work out his own salvation and left to work out the best method to carry out the objects of the Bill. As to the constitution of the Board, I think the producers should have a majority on the Board; they are the people who have to bear the brunt and the levy, and they should have the control, in the same way as control has been given to the producers in New Zealand, which is one of the best organised countries in the world as far as this industry is concerned. Unless the producer has the majority on that Board, there is a grave danger that he may be made to suffer and come under the control of the creameries and manufacturers, and I appeal to the Minister to consider that point very carefully. When I speak of the producer, I also include the farmer who manufactures butter. I have no objection to the levy, and I think it is absolutely necessary if we are to stabilise the industry. The dairy farmer of to-day realises that the time has come when we are over-producing, and unless we have a levy and control of exports the industry will be in a very serious condition. That levy should apply not only to the producers of cream, but also the butter factories. It is manifestly unfair that only the producer of cream and the creameries should be called upon to bear the levy, and I think that everybody who is producing cream and butter should bear his fair share of that levy. I strongly support this, and hope the Minister will not give way on the point. If you do not impose a levy on everybody, it will impair the whole success of the Bill. If the position is placed before the producers and it is realised that everybody will get a better price, farmers producing butter will realise that they must also do their share in helping to stabilize prices. The power of closing down creameries and depots seems to me very far-reaching, and I hope the select committee will consider that very fully, because it may lead to unfairness towards smaller creameries which are to-day paying the best price, and where the cost of production is less than in the larger creameries, some of which are over-capitalised. I hope that clause will be very carefully considered when the Bill goes to a select committee so as to make it impossible to close down any of these smaller creameries. I will give my support to the Minister in this Bill, which I think is a good one, and is going to help the butter industry very considerably. It is going to stabilize prices and there will be better organisation, with the result that dairies will be put on a sound basis. But I would like the Minister to whittle down some of the powers he has taken under this Bill which, I hope, will come back from the select committee so amended as to benefit all concerned in the industry.

I cannot support this Bill in its present form. It has really very objectionable features, and the first is the supreme power the Minister has arrogated to himself—a power for which South African agriculture will not stand. It is unheard of the Minister taking upon himself powers of this nature. My second objection is the creation of a board which has power to impose a levy and to tamper with our customs tariff. I want to ask the Minister what is to be the cost of this organisation; he has not told the House; does he know? As usual, he brings a proposition before this House not knowing one of the most essential features of it—the cost. The third objection I have to this Bill is that it is too far in advance of agricultural opinion, and of our dairy land and our dairy cattle. We have heard comparisons made between Australia and South Africa. There is no comparison. We have not the quality of land here to run dairying on the same lines as they have in Australia, nor have we the quality of cattle. The land which is devoted entirely to dairying in Australia is valued at from £40 to £70 per acre. There is green grass all the year round on that land. It has been stated that 80 per cent, of our cattle are scrub cattle. Where are the dairy cattle coming from to stimulate an export? These 80 per cent, of scrub cattle can barely rear their own calves. Where are we going to get a surplus for butter and cheese? Where are we going to find a market in the world for the product of tuberculosis-infected cattle? The Minister’s excuse for not tackling the disease of tuberculosis is the cost, because he says that to eradicate it from our dairy herds would involve an expenditure of £6,000,000. If we are going to average our dairy cows at £12 each, that means that 1,000,000 of our dairy cattle are infected. I think the Minister has begun at the wrong end. He should eliminate that disease first. We see the ravages caused by this disease. It can be seen at our abattoirs by the increasing number of condemned pigs on account of tubercular infected pigs fed upon milk. It is going to take South Africa all its time to supply all its own markets, let alone an export. Why have we so much Danish and Australian butter sold in the shops throughout the country, proving lack of a surplus of S.A. butter. We want to begin by improving the cattle and the pasturage, and fully supply our own markets before we think of an export. Where is the necessity for a levy? Surely the Minister knows that an export of butter in any quantity is as far off as a decade, probably. In this Bill the Minister is sounding the death-knell of farm-made butter in the interests of the creameries. The Minister knows that that butter can be produced at a cheaper rate than creamery butter, and that it is setter than the creamery butter. Some hon. gentleman says, " O-ah !” Has that hon. gentleman ever seen cream sent to a creamery which has changed its character to an explosive and blown off the top of the cans? You can say what you like, but the test is the market price and the keeping quality of the butter The farm-made butter is far in advance of the creamery butter. Is the Minister going to impose further taxation upon the poor farmer? Is he going to restrict the farmer’s income, because he certainly will if the creameries are going to get a monopoly. Under this Bill the creameries will be in the position of a ring, and a ring with power to restrict the creameries to a certain number. Is it the intention to further handicap the dairy farmer by reducing his source of income from farm-made butter? These men have gone in for expensive machinery. Are they to have it lying idle. I don’t think the Minister has considered this Bill from the angle which he should, and that is the angle of commonsense. If we give the creameries a monopoly such as this, then up will go the price of butter and you will increase the cost of living, and any Bill which does that will not get my support. I think this Bill requires to go to a select committee, and I move—

I second the amendment. I did not intend to say anything on this farming matter, but it seems that there are farmers on both sides of the House who are at sixes and sevens. I think the reason my hon. friend has moved the discharge of the order for second reading before the Bill goes to select committee is that we can alter the principle to a bonus on export. The object of the Bill is to give the farmer a higher price which the consumer will pay. The consumer is bound to pay the levy. This would be a combine, under the Bill as it stands, which I think the farmer would find would act against him. If the idea is to stabilize the local price in the way recommended by the Board of Trade and Industries at the export price, then I think we should be in favour of it, We are all sympathetic with the farmers, who should get all possible help. I think we all feel that farmers should get a good return for their trying work. But I do not think this levy is going to achieve its object. I am told that the levy is largely to bring about more co-operation between the dairying industry, in order that they can get their costs of production down. If this is in the Minister’s mind, I would say let the whole dairy market take its course. I have seen butter sold at 1s. a pound, and I asked the shopkeeper why it was. He said he had paid 11d. a pound on the market for it and could sell at 1s. He added “There are a number of poor people who do not know what butter is.” I am very pleased that getting production down is the idea in the Minister’s mind. What about the farmers who have a summer rainfall? In a conversation with a factor recently I asked him about the high price of condensed milk. He said that He did not understand it. The milk from a good cow in South Africa is 700 gallons annually, whereas in Holland a good cow will yield one thousand gallons a year. The trouble all comes back to this: the farmer has got to reduce his cost of production and feeding all the year round. I hope you will accept this amendment, because if you would give a bounty on the export I will agree. I would rather see a bounty on the export of butter than see this levy. The cost of collection is practically nothing in the case of a bounty. Even to-day you are having trouble to discriminate between farm butter and creamery butter. The levy will land you into all kinds of trouble. You do not need regulations to force people out of the dairy industry, if they cannot carry on making butter or cheese they will close down of their accord; you need not worry about them. There is a big market for our butter in Great Britain who imports £50,000,000 of butter per annum, so that there is plenty of demand, and it is the same with cheese. There is one clause I do not like, to “protect the farmer.” All protection tends to make people lazy, and the more you protect him the lazier he gets. In 1922 I was up against this protection idea. I warned the Minister then that farmers would very soon be squealing. Here are farmers getting world’s record prices for wheat, and they say cost of production is too high; it does not pay. There will be further reactions affecting wages. The wage boards will be the next trouble. For one reason I would like to see this Bill go through; it will be the best lesson the farmers have ever had of being under control. But it will be a very bad thing from many points of view. The best way to deal with this dairy business is to let it face and solve its own problems as it goes dong. The farmer should produce more and rot produce less. The more you produce, the cheaper the cost of production becomes. Are you going to stabilize prices at a low level, or at 1s. 9d.? I hear farmers talk of this figure; in that case you are not helping the country, you are only helping a few farmers.

When we notice the speeches made on both sides of the House, we see that the weight of the dairy industry is appreciated. The previous speaker said that he would not vote for the Bill because legislation of this kind would increase the cost of living. Hon. members like him who represent Durban constituencies never support the interests of the farmer. I do not blame them, because they do not know the farmers’ difficulties and circumstances. As I said, it is clear that both sides of the House realize the great importance of this industry, and what great developments it will have in the future. Therefore I say that we are much indebted to the Government and especially to the Minister of Agriculture for all the work done in connection with the matter. During recent years enquiry has been made with the result that we enquiry has been made with the result that we now have before the House a Bill intended to protect the industry, so that it shall become in future what it ought to be. Most speakers opposite welcomed the Bill. This proves that they also sympathize with the farmer. Some of them, however, referred to the powers given to the board of control and the Minister. But one cannot pass legislation of this kind with out giving the board concerned, and also the Minister, certain powers, because they need power to carry out the Bill. One of the powers given to the board is to make a levy. I am now thinking of the time when the party now sitting opposite advocated a levy. I then opposed it, and I still feel the same. I think that no farmer, not even the Minister, can say that a levy is a good thing for the farmers now. The old members of eight years ago on the opposite side who then favoured a levy will possibly still be in favour of it, but I do not think the rest will support it. The position is that a part of the industry engaged in the most profitable part of it has asked for a levy, and legislation is necessary to grant it. In the circumstances I was satisfied with the Minister’s explanation. But I became afraid after I heard the speech of the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer). He made me feel that I should protect myself. It is true that some of the people asked for a levy, but there is also a section that did not. There are the producers of farm butter, and they did not ask for it. The Minister says that he would leave it to the House to decide whether the levy on farm butter should be imposed. The House could discuss the matter and the select committee could decide. The hon. member for Bechuanaland is in favour of it. He made the circumstances clear. In my part there are also areas where the same grievances exist in connection with the getting of their cream by the people to the dairy factories, but there are other areas where the people cannot do it, and he is therefore quite wrong in saying that there will be no injustice in imposing the farm butter levy. I also would prefer to send my cream to the factories, because it is difficult to make butter, but one finds areas where it is inconvenient to get to the factories, with the result that the people are obliged to make butter. They make a few pounds of butter and sell it to make a living that way. They are not able to deliver cream. I am pleading for that class of man. We possibly have a woman with six or seven children who makes a few pounds of butter and has to live on it. She has not the cash to buy the stuff to pay the tax. I am afraid that the select committee will report to us that this clause should not be deleted, and if I knew that would be the case, I should feel inclined to propose now that the matter be withdrawn. I can tell the hon. member for Bechuanaland that if the Bill is passed with the provision that farm butter will have to pay a levy of ½d. a lb., then we will fight very hard in the committee stage, because we cannot allow it to go through. I am very sorry that this clause was put in the Bill. The Minister probably got the best advice, but he did not consider the circumstances in all parts of the country. He possibly talked to the hon. member of Bechuanaland, but he did not talk to me. It is a good thing to take advice, but I do not take all the advice I get. I think that the Minister agrees with me that it is not necessary to insert this clause. I appeal to the select committee to delete it. We must co-operate with each other, but we must bear in mind the position of the people who are not able to send cream to the dairy factories, and who cannot buy the stamps.

I welcome the general principles of this Bill, and I shall only criticize it on one or two points. I refer to the utterly inadequate representation on the board of the producer. The hon. Minister has referred to the dairy industry in New Zealand. It was thirty odd years ago when I was in New Zealand, and I know the people and the conditions of farming there. I should like to give the Minister this assurance that the dairy industry of New Zealand has been built up by the producers with the assistance and advice of the Government, and not by the Government with the assistance and advice of the producers. When I examined the representation on the board given to the actual practical producer, I regarded it as an indictment of the farmers of the country by the Minister. The proportion of the farmers or producers to the non-producers on the dairy boards of New Zealand is, as already stated in this House, such that the farmers on the board have a preponderating influence upon the Board of Control. If he farmers of New Zealand can build up their own dairy industry, I maintain that the farmers of South Africa can do the same thing. I am certain that the South African farmers are as much advanced as the farmers of New Zealand and are not behind them in any way. I refer the Minister to two organizations that have done more perhaps, than anything else to build up the wool industry in this country, namely the Boere Samwerk and the F.C.U. The board that controls these two successful concerns is composed almost wholly of farmers who are elected by ballot by every farmer producing wool in the country. There are no Government nominees on those boards, and they have been more responsible for the success of the wool industry in this country than any other factor. I trust that when this Bill goes to select committee the Minister will make provision for a larger proportion of producers to non-producers in the constitution of the board of control.

I can well remember that one of the leading Natal farmers told me that they were very dissatisfied in Natal with their S.A.P. representatives here, and I can well understand it when we listen to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) asking why we are trying to find a market for our tuberculous butter. I think the people rightly say that things went very badly with farming in Natal before this Minister came into office, and then we have the new hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McIlwraith) in one of his first speeches supporting him. The former is trying to establish himself as a great expert on farming, and he says that co-operation only makes the farmer still lazier, and hon. members opposite do not even disavow it. There we have a man who lives on the farmers, and he dares to come here and say that the farmer is made lazier by protection. If my hon. friend could for once try to farm and bring up a family in the Karoo on a farm of 1,000 morgen, heavily mortgaged with drought and other burdens, he would talk a little differently about the laziness of the farmer. We are now quite bored with those insinuations that are flung against the farmers. What would the big princes of the chambers of commerce do without the farmer? They would never be big princes, if it were not for the farmer’s produce. Then the hon. member speaks of the bigger business which will result from a lower price of produce; and this is a representative of a town who lives on the back veld. These are the people who have meetings with natives, and say that 6s. 6d. a day must be paid to them, and these are the people who object to the poor white working in the industries although the manager of General Motors says—

The hon. member cannot now discuss that.

I just want to point out that my hon. friend says that our farmers are lazy, and that this protection will make us still lazier, and I want to point out that it is they who say that 6s. 6d. a day must be paid to the native, but who want our produce to be sold cheaper. What would happen, for example, if we did not have some protection for our skins? Then we should have to sell our skins to a few of the people whom I call parasites and vultures. What would be the position if we did not grant the levy, which does not go into the pockets of the middle man or the treasury, but will be used to push the sale of our produce? If we do not do it, we shall be still further exploited by the middle man. We shall then see that, notwithstanding the Minister’s action, we may expect a worse market, just as in the case of wool. I hope that we shall be able to do something for the dairy industry by means of the Bill. But the position of the dairy industry is so serious that the dairy farmers have moved votes of no confidence in their directors at their congresses, because they do not believe that anything can be done in the matter. The position is such that if we do not try to save the industry we shall see butter, cheese, meat, and all sorts of produce becoming cheaper than ever, like wool. Look at the price of wheat. The price is impossible, but bread costs just the same as when wheat was 30s. a bag, and what is the position of the meat trade ?

The hon. member is now wandering a little too far from the subject.

What is the position of the dairy industry? If we do nothing the price of butter will drop. We cannot allow the same position to arise as has come about with other produce. We shall, however, not advance the interests of the dairy industry if we follow the advice of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South).

If agricultural legislation is the secret of farming prosperity, South Africa ought to be the most prosperous country in the world. We have had a regular spate of agricultural legislation recently—some of it good, some bad and some rather indifferent. Perhaps this Bill may partake of all of these qualities. It is indeed a fearsome measure. It gives very undue powers—legislative and judicial—to the executive which will administer it, and to people who are not directly interested in a very important industry. We must take note of a number of acts we pass in which we provide that regulations to do this, that or the other thing, can be made by the Minister and practically give unlimited power to the arbitrary will if the public service. I do not think that is good for the country, but perhaps in select committee we may be able to modify some of the very extraordinary powers the Bill, as it is framed, intends should be handed over to the administration. I hope the Minister will not regret the time we are spending over the Bill, for dairying may become the most important industry in South Africa. Its success or non-success will have a more profound effect on the future of the country than perhaps any other industry. It is in its infancy, and capable of practically unlimited expansion, and furthermore is the one industry capable of transforming the struggling farmer into a successful one, releasing his mortgage and making him the free owner of his land. The doctor, lawyer and the storekeeper will benefit and so will the country in general. I have made it my business to study the matter. Denmark is a shining example of what a country can achieve through the influence of dairy production. After the Napoleonic wars Den-mark was practically ruined, and led a very struggling existence until the sixties. It simply existed by growing grain in small quantities of indifferent quality, and sending it abroad. Then came the disastrous war with Prussia when it lost two provinces and was left in a crippled position. It was left with Jutland, then a mass of sandhills, moors and marshes—the most unlikely and unprofitable form of country that could be imagined. But look at it now. Sixty years ago it was the poorest community per head in Europe, and now is the richest, if we exclude a few millionaires in England, and this change has been due chiefly to dairying. When we compare South Africa and Denmark, the comparison is all in our favour. We have more fertile land and we have not the heavy winds they have in Jutland, and in many respects we have a better chance to make good in the industry than Denmark had. The keynote of their success may be summed up in one word—co-operation—and that has been found to be so in any country that has shown any degree of success in agriculture, such as Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and elsewhere. After these disastrous wars they set to work in Denmark not against human but against their natural enemies—the sand-dunes, undrained marshes and the high winds. The sand-dunes are now fertile country. The country represents a picture of agricultural prosperity on a large general scale. Even the export of grain was denied them, as Prussia put up such a prohibitive duty so that they were compelled to consume it on the spot. Is there not a lesson in that for us? We also export grain, and no country that I have ever heard of ever attained permanent prosperity by exporting grain. It is a very disastrous policy for any country to indulge in, and to make it its main factor in its operations. We wonder why our dairying and cattle industries are in such a bad state. Let as much grain as possible be consumed on the spot, and in time our difficulties will be gone. The best butter must be made from comparatively fresh milk, not more than half an hour from the cow, but there ought not to be any difficulty in producing a good article if properly manufactured. The dairy industry is comparatively new and people ought to be taught how to deliver cream to the creameries, as if it is not uniform in quality it is impossible for the creameries to produce good butter. But all this can be done, and I have seen it done. I join in praising very heartily this remarkable report—No. 81 of the dairy industry—which is indeed most valuable, but I may be pardoned if I mention two or three serious omissions. I find the minimum attention has been paid to the producers’ interests. I do not know whether the board considered its time was better occupied in going into the manufacturing establishments. Surely they ought to have begun from the producer’s point of view. There is a very curious omission —with the exception of a line and a half I have not been able to find anything about the most valuable adjunct to the dairy industry—pigraising. If you run pigs in connection with dairying what you receive for them is found money—money that practically costs you nothing. You are left with the skim milk, which owing to its bulk is of such little economic value that it does not pay to send it from one firm to another. The transport costs, small as they are, would not be justified. This skim milk, even without anything else, is capable of raising good, sound, marketable porkers within a short time. If the ration is more balanced you get better results, but I am showing you that a commodity that is practically worthless, if it has to be moved any distance, can be made a profitable part of the dairy industry if it is fed to pigs. Coming back to the grain business, how many farmers realize that four pounds of mealies fed to pigs will make 1 lb. of pork.

Over how long.

Over about six months. Therefore a bag of mealies weighing 200 lbs. would produce approximately 50 lbs. of pork, which at the ordinary price per lb. would give the farmer more than market value for his bag of mealies. You can bring pigs to marketable condition in from five to eight months, and as 100 lbs. of live weight pig will make 60 lbs. of bacon, members can work out for themselves what the cost of bacon ought to be, bearing in mind that the adjuncts, the sausages and offal, will considerably more than pay the cost of converting the meat into bacon. You will see that I am not very far wrong in describing the rearing of the pig in connection with the dairy industry as found money. I am disappointed that the board, considering the vast importance of this adjunct to dairying did not lay more stress upon it. With regard to the Bill itself, I am not very enamoured with the powers given to the department in connection with the dairy industry. I think we are too apt to depend on legislation. When we have put a law on the statute book we have done very little. I think the old adage of Pope is true—

It is not the laws you have on the statute book, it is the administration and spirit behind them that really matters, and I am not satisfied to put so much power into the hands of the Heads of the Department. These boards should be business boards. That is the main end for which they are created. If there is one class of individual who is a worse business man than a farmer—the farmer is bad enough—it is the civil servant.

What about the lawyer?

The lawyer has had a business training of some sort, but a civil servant’s training is the negation of business principles and instincts. That is the weak point in it. I do not see how you can possibly expect to get good business men from the public service seeing the conditions under which it is administered.

What about the experts ?

I have a great respect for the wisdom of the experts. I have never known an expert of the Agricultural Department to take up farming. I have known some very able experts in their own line. I am not questioning the ability of these men in their particular line, but I have never known one of them to take up farming successfully. In that respect they have shown their wisdom, because they have had a one-sided experience, and not that general experience, as well as special training, necessary to make a success of farming. We hope this Bill will have a good passage through committee, and that it will emerge in a greatly improved form. I am sure the Minister will he patient, and will receive suggestions gracefully and thoughtfully. We hope that the vast importance of the matter will be realised by hon. members whether they are directly engaged in agriculture or dairying or not. I know of no industry in this country that has such potentialities for success as that of dairying.

I did not intend to speak, but after having listened to the various speeches I feel obliged to say a few words. In the first place, I feel that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. MacIlwraith) has made a very unfortunate remark to-day in his maiden speech, and I hope hon. members on both sides will’ treat it with the contempt it deserves, I should not like to be guilty of such rude expressions because in the past the House and the public have already had sufficient disappointment in consequence of such statements. It seems strange how members, who are active farmers, are now taking more interest in their representation here than in the actual interests of the farmers. I always thought that when hon. members came to this House they came to maintain the highest interests of the people. Today I came to the view that some think more about the safety of their position here than of the interests of the people. One of my friends here, the hon. member for Magaliesberg (Mr. Alberts) said something with which I unfortunately do not agree. He said that he had to say something to protect his own skin against the electors. I feel that there is also another side to the matter. If we do not take the necessary steps to-day to protect the great industry, then we shall run the clanger of its tumbling to pieces. If that takes place it will I think be soon enough for many members to think of their skins. They will then say that they merely wanted to take precautionary measures in the highest interests of the producer, but if things go differently they will try to say that they sounded a warning. I do not think that is quite the right attitude to take up. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) spoke about the very large powers being given to the Minister. I think that as long as the ministry consists of men who know the needs of farming, we can safely place the powers in the Minister’s hands. It is said that the Bill ought to go to a select committee before the second reading. That would be a mistake. Delay is harmful, and I should like the House to show the public that it has confidence in itself. If it has confidence it must go on with the matter. As far as I have noticed, most hon. members have admitted that the principle of the Bill is necessary and good. If so, we must be logical and pass the second reading. Unless immediate action is taken, we may probably find it too late. It is very easy to plead on behalf of the small producer, for the woman, as the hon. member for Magaliesberg said: “The woman with seven or eight children who is dependent on the few pounds of butter she makes”, There is, however, another side to the question, viz., whether it is not preferable to put a small tax on the butter now, the ½d., than subsequently to find that the price has dropped not by a ½d. but by so many pence that it is no longer possible to dispose of it. I hope the Bill will easily pass the second reading, and that the select committee, if necessary, will amend it.

I think that the member who has continually lived in a town will have a lot of pleasure taken away from him when he again goes to a farm to enjoy a holiday. I have spent holidays on farms, but I have had to come to this House to find that farming is so impoverishing an occupation. The position of tobacco, wool, maize, dairy produce, and wines and wheat have been stated to be in a parlous condition and one wonders just how the poor farmer is going to survive. Those who analyze these matters and do not say very much think that there is no striking necessity for this Bill; creameries and factories have not got down to the fact that they must keep up production and keep down prices. I find that we are the lowest consuming country in the civilized world so far as butter is concerned, and taking the various dominions I find that South Africa consumes 14 lbs. of butter a head per annum of its European population, Australia 31, Canada 32, and New Zealand 34 lbs. a head per annum. Therefore it strikes me you have your market right at hand by increasing consumption by finding ways and means of getting to the consumer so as to encourage the consumption of your produce. At present your price is too high and ordinary consumers cannot afford to buy save as a luxury at the price at which you sell. I understand the average price is 1s. 7d. to 1s. 11d. per lb.; that is the selling price. The farmer gets 1s. to 1s. 1d. per lb. for his butter fat. I think the farmer is getting too much for his butter fat if it takes three gals, of milk to make 1 lb. of butter. The farmer will have to reduce the cost of butter fat so that we may get a reduction in the price of butter. Our poor consumer will then have more than 14 lbs. of butter a year, and may be able, like his New Zealand brother, to consume 34 lbs. of butter per annum.

That seems something we can look forward to. It is the same with cheese. We must reduce the cost of production, enabling our own people to consume more of what is produced by reduced retail price. I regret that the tone of the House since I have been here has been so doleful. I think the section that deals with enabling this board when constituted to do away with redundant creameries is a strong move in the right direction; I think that is the root of the trouble: when you have multiplication of creameries—three in one area producing the same commodity when one would do the job more economically and efficiently—I think there the Minister is on sound lines. If this Bill goes to select committee, and this clause only is left, and you have a levy on butter in order to close down unnecessary factories, then I think you will do a tremendous amount of good. Our trouble in this country is the duplication of plants and factories to do the same job. Even our bacon factories are in the same position. There are 14 factories in this country to produce the little bacon that the country consumes and is hoping to export Our trouble lies in that direction, and I think that control of that kind is to be encouraged in every way. I hope this Bill will not be thrown out altogether. I hope for the sake of a clause of this kind, the Minister will get some support. We had hoped that the farmers—and we consumers are not against the farmers—will not assume that this is a case of town versus country, We are not against the farmers. We hope to support them. We believe in protection, but we do ask that you should consider your position, not only from your own point of view, but that you will also see that the consumer has to pay for it. Always aim to bring down the price of the produce in order that the poor consumer can pay for it. From the amount of butter consumed in this country, there is a strong indication that if the price of production is reduced, consumption will go up by leaps and bounds, because from statistics in other countries, you do not reach saturation point until you consume more than 34 lbs. of butter per head. In many other directions this Bill is a very sound one. We do not want to quarrel with the principle of a levy, but what we do want to see—and I think that this House should deal with it as conscientiously as possible— is that, in protecting one industry, we do not filch what is right for another. Sound protection based on those lines cannot go wrong. I disagree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McIlwraith) who is evidently an out and out free trader. We, on this side of the House, support protection in every way, but we want to see that the consumer is not burdened by having to support the producer. I hope this Bill will not be thrown out. There are many things in it that need such support from which the industry will benefit. I do hope that in sending the Bill to a select committee, that the Minister will enable such amendments to be made as will be for the Bill’s benefit.

Much has been said on the Bill, and I know hon. members are all tired of it, but now is the time for us to speak. Listening to the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer) it looks as if he was talking on his own behalf, and not for the public. We are not all in the position of Bechuanaland where the people can despatch cream in cans. There are many places where people have to be satisfied with making a pound of butter I agree with the hon. member for Magaliesberg (Mr. Alberts). And then you have another hon. member ridiculing the case of the wife and eight children he referred to. The hon. member is quite right. I can also give instances where the housewife depends on the pound of butter for buying her requirements. She takes it to the shop, and minutely calculates how much sugar, coffee, and ginger she can buy with it. Hon. members laugh, but they can go and see the housewife making her calculations in the shop, and now she will find that the ½d. she meant for the box of matches will have to go for the stamp. Those are the kind of people for whom I am speaking. That great organisation has asked for the levy, and although in principle I am opposed to it, I shall say nothing against our giving it to them as requested, but the farmers in my district who have not much milk to send away can once and for all not agree to the levy. This is a very serious matter. If we do not consider those people, we shall have to give account The hon. member opposite, Mr. Gilson, and I, cannot alone prevent it. Hon. members will have to assist me. I hope the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) will help me because he will certainly be a member of the select committee. Then I want to address a few words to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. MacIlwraith) who has come here with the old unionist-minded statement that the farmers are lazy. They are not so lazy as people opposite think. They work very hard, and their salaries have now been reduced. Just let us touch the salaries of the officials, and we see the outcry there is. The farmer’s income is reduced on all sides, and now we have a measure which will hurt him. I may happen to go to a farmer forty miles from the village to buy a pound of butter, he dare not sell it, however, because he has no stamp, nor has he a wrapper for the butter. It is all unnecessary trouble and annoyance. No, the time has come that we must also think of those poor people in the House, and forget ourselves a little. If we do so, I fell certain that the select committee will recommend to remove the levy on farm butter. I ask the select committee in all earnestness to bear in mind what I have said in this House, and to meet me in this respect. On the Strand this year there was a great scarcity of butter. The people ran round to get hold of a pound of butter, and they bought here and there. If the butter had first of all to be wrapped up then they could not sell it, because it was so warm that the butter ran, and no one could put it into shape. I do not address my request only to the Minister. He told us that he left the matter in the hands of the House. I hope the House will there fore see that farm butter is exempted.

I did not intend to speak to-night and will not detain the House long. I rise on account of the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. MacIlwraith). If he had not attacked the farmers I would not have spoken. I am now obliged, however, to deal with him in the old countryside language. I expected hon. members opposite to shell him with tear bombs. They are, however, silent. Yet they call us the “shooting-down party.” They are right to this extent: that if the farmer is attacked we will always start shooting. The hon. member is not in his place, and it was his maiden speech, and, therefore, I will treat him lightly. We shall always use the “shooting-down” policy if the teachers, attorneys, doctors, etc., commence to shoot at the farmers. We hear so much about protecting the consumers but their money, in any case, comes out of the pocket of the farmer in the long run. They can commence where they wish, but in the long run they still get their money from the producer—the farmer. If the farmer goes bankrupt they will fail also. Then, in addition to the money they get from the farmers they buy motor-cars, and ride down the gates of the farmers. It is very late and I just want to bring one matter to the Minister’s notice, viz., clause 17 (2) and (3) This provides for the levy on farm butter, and I want to support the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst). He got excited about a lb. of butter which had melted. The matter, however, is this that the Minister must know that there are many women who earn a little money by selling a little butter. If now they have to buy stamps and paper wrappers, they will prefer to eat the butter. In course of time our people will possibly be educated to this sort of thing. Now, however, our slogan must be: “Hasten slowly.” We must remember that the women are getting the vote, and they will deal with the Minister.

I am in principle against all kinds of trusts. We are slowly going in the direction of America, where everything is in the hands of big trusts, combines and rings. We have got to that position in South Africa, because year after year it happens that the producer does not get what he ought to get for his produce. In that way we have come to the co-operative societies to eliminate the middle man, and enable the producer to sell his produce directly to the consumer. It is a very good idea, and I am in favour of co-operation, so that the man is paid for his work, and gets a proper price. The middle man gets the benefit of the producer; hence we have to-day come to the point that we co-operate in all departments and form co-operative societies, and now we want to introduce legislation to protect the producer. But we may go too far. I do not wish to condemn the Bill, and, for the most part, I agree with the proposal, but this Bill unfortunately, just like other Bills of the kind, tends, in the first place, towards the benefit of the big man who is independent, and it twists the neck of the small man. I feel just like other members who represent those small people, who make a few pounds of butter, or still less, and who take it for exchange to the shopkeeper. The Minister said that he would leave the levy or farm butter to the select committee, and I feel the committee to be appointed should not only think of the interests of the strong man, but also of the small man. I was once a farmer, and know the conditions more or less. It is impossible for the small man to pay the cost of the paper and printing, because it often is merely for a few months in the year, in the summer, that he makes butter. My chief objection to the Bill is that it presses too heavily on the small man. Its object is, as I understand, to export the over-production in butter. Well, that is a very good thing, and I wish the Bill success, and I hope the Minister will succeed to build up the industry for the benefit of the people, but it has already been the case for years that the producer is not paid for his work; the middle man benefits by it, and he must be cut out. If we get so far the farmer will get better prices for his produce, and be able to make a better living. An hon. member for Durban has mentioned that the cost of living will rise. I think he is wrong. It will not be so. The Bill will regulate the prices, whereas to-day they go up and down. If the Bill is passed, and suitably amended, all sections will, I think benefit by it.

As one who represents a very large milk producing district I feel compelled to speak on the Bill. From my district more milk goes into Cape Town than from any other district in the Union; fortunately the people who send in that milk are not affected by the Bill. I, however, represent another class, a very poor class, I refer to the German element on the Cape Flats. It would do some of the member good to go and see how these descendants of German settlers introduced by the late Mr. Merriman have developed the Cape Flats. Their existence involves much hard work and they have had no assistance from the Government. To-day each one produces anything from 15 to 50 pounds of butter a week, which they deliver in Cape Town twice a week. They deliver the butter to their customers in bulk, but under the Bill they will have to make each pound into a separate parcel and affix a halfpenny stamp to it, and to these poor people a loss of 10s. or £1 a month represents a considerable sum. I support the measure, but I hope that in committee the Minister will afford some relief to these people.

I will not detain the House long but as I represent a district much concerned with the dairy industry, I feel I must say something. Certain views have been expressed on both sides of the House about the Bill, and they were often opposed to each other. There are hon. members who wish a levy on dairy produce; others who are opposed to a levy on farm butter; others again who want no levy at all, and some hon. members say: “Let the people who want a levy have it Our country has progressed particularly fast of recent years, and consequently it looks as If some people want to hurry it more, and want to anticipate. They want to introduce legislation fifteen years before the proper time. As a levy is asked for, I quite agree it should be allowed. There are already things upon which a levy exists but we did not ask the Government for a levy to push our affairs. We have our own levy of the co-operative societies, and the shareholders have approved of it. It works well, but we do not ask for legislation to put a levy on the man who is outside the society, and wants to do business on his own account. Here we have creameries, and dairy factories, who have asked for the levy, and I cordially agree to it. I, myself, send my produce to a creamery, and will therefore contribute to the levy, but as already stated, there are certain sections of society which cannot possibly pay the levy, viz., the producers of farm butter. They have not asked for it and I know it is impossible. Hon. members speak of a levy of ½d., and if that were all, it might perhaps be possible, but they forget that the farmer must make the butter in pound packets; that he must wrap it in paper, and have the paper printed. He will have to order at least 1,000 wrappers, which will cost him about 10s. to 15s. per 1,000, which is a considerable sum for the small man, who has to buy his groceries in exchange for butter. I do not want to go further into this because enough has already been said, but I want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer). He insists on everybody paying the levy. He is a dairy farmer himself living so close to the creamery that he can deliver his milk almost every morning and afternoon, but he forgets the small man, who has too little cream to buy a can, and those whom it would cost too much to send their small quantity to the creameries; nor can he wait until he has enough because then his cream goes bad. The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Swanepoel) spoke a little contemptuously about hon. members who do not quite agree with the Bill. He said they ought to think of the interests of the public, and not so much of themselves. I can assure him that I am honestly convinced that the interest of my constituents means very much to me. In this case my own interests take second place. I do not know how many dairy farmers the hon. member has in his constituency, but he is possibly not in such a difficult position as I am. I can, however, assure him that I am thoroughly awake to the interest of my constituents. It was said that the costs of production would be increased owing to the levy. If the price of produce really becomes more through the request of the dairy factories for a levy, I think the cause will be found in the man who when he has to pay 1d. more will demand 2d. more from the consumer.

I agree with many hon. members that Clause 17 will have an adverse effect. There is no doubt that many of the people who are small plotholders and keep one or two cows for the supply of their families will suffer. The few pounds of butter they sell pays for food for the cow. There is also the consumer’s point of view, and this Bill will tend to increase the cost of living and put the production of butter into larger hands—those of monopolies. The small producer prevents speculation. The fact also has not been stressed that the machinery for carrying out this Act will entail additional expense to the taxpayer. The community will have to bear the tax for the purpose of increasing the cost of living to themselves. This Bill will rank as an injustice in the minds of many. We have also to consider the consumer as well as the producer. I do not think this is going to help in any way to increase the production of or stabilize the prices of butter, but to drive many of our poorer producers from the field of production.

I would like to raise a few points. I am convinced that the Minister, after what he has heard to-day, will be prepared to drop clause 17. Notwithstanding what the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer) has said, I should like to call attention to the state of affairs in his own constituency. Many farmers complain that they have no facilities for sending their cream to creameries. In the district of Kuruman there are many farmers who have no means of sending away their cream. The nearest creamery to Kuruman is at Vryburg 100 miles away, and farmers living 150 miles on the far side of Kuruman have to send it to Vryburg. They are therefore in a very difficult position. Another point is that many of the farmers possibly only go to the village every three months, and then bring butter in for sale. If they then have to pay a tax on the 10, 20, or 30 lbs. it will lead to much unpleasantness. As the hon. member said, in many creameries the butter is only accepted as second or third grade, and the fact that many farmers to-day pass certain creameries is because they are so badly treated. For the rest I welcome the Bill.

I have listened with interest to the various speeches and the criticisms made. It was, on the whole, of a good and constructive nature, but there was, however, one very false note which I deeply deplore. It was when the new member, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McIlwratli) spoke contemptously of a section of our population. When he sat down he was applauded by hon. members opposite. The hon. member said that the more the farmers were protected the lazier they became. He knows quite well that 75 per cent, of the farmers on the countryside are Afrikaans speaking, and the contempt was meant for them. This is the contempt which a certain section still feel for the Afrikaans section of our people. I deplore their sneers at the people who form the backbone of the country, and I hope that sort of spirit will not find favour in the House. When we speak of racial reconciliation and co-operation, we ought not to use such language. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) laughs. Perhaps he, also, holds the views of the hon. member, I congratulate one of our youngest members, the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) for his courage in saying that he does not agree with it. That is a good sign. The hon. leader of the Opposition was present, and I am sorry that he said nothing.

I was not here.

I accept it, but there were other hon. members on the front benches who heard the aspersions, and took no steps. I feel that it is my duty to say what I have done. I hope that the time is passing when one section will show a spirit like that towards another section it has to live with. It is fortunately gradually disappearing because the section is becoming less and is dying out. I thought that I ought to reprove the new member, because otherwise his second divagation would be worse than his first. I want to point out to the hon. member that our Afrikaans speaking people are also proud of living in the country, and of developing it.

I was speaking of the tendency of protection to make everybody lazy. I never singled out the Afrikaans-speaking farmer.

Then I will assume that the hon. member also accuses the English-speaking farmers of laziness. Then it is a still greater shame for hon. members opposite, who represent English-speaking sentiment, to have allowed it without correcting the hon. member.

Do not talk politics.

I feel that our friends are very sensitive. Perhaps they will once more tell our farmers how much they desire to get their votes, and then they will forget to say what was said here of the farmers. I hope the farmers will read what the hon. member said. I shall not go further into the matter. I am glad of the reception given to the Bill. Hon. members agree that legislation of this kind is required. They agree that the dairy industry must be saved, and that a certain amount of levy must be put on dairy produce. I will say at once that I do not wish to go so far as the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) to make the farmers, for whom hon. members on this side have pleaded, also pay a levy of 1d. on their butter, like the factories. Let me at once ask who in the long run pays the levy. It is very nice to say that the creameries pay it, but if we go into the matter we find that it is always the producer who pays the levy which ostensibly is paid by the creameries. I think that it would not be fair to tax the farmers more. In my introduction I said that I would leave it to members of the House to express their views on the matter. Hon. members have mentioned the difficulties in connection with a levy on farm butter. There may be difficulties in certain cases, but if hon. members will carefully explain to the farmers, then they will see that it is better to pay the small levy which will protect and benefit them. The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) calls it a tax, which it is not. It is money which is paid in order to make more. He compared it to the tobacco tax. That went into the Treasury, but this will not. It goes into the producer’s pocket when stability is reached and the people can sell more butter. The great objection of hon. members now is the proposed constitution of the board of control. They say that there are too few representatives of the farmers, and too many on behalf of the factories. I will say at once that if that is the serious objection of hon. members opposite, that I am quite prepared to put five representatives of the farmers and three of the factories on the board. I welcome that kind of criticism. I am the last man who would like the farmers to have insufficient representation, Because I am a farmer myself. Hon. members, however, complain about the powers of the Minister. The Minister has authority over the board’s decisions, and can call it to order. My reply is that the people of South Africa have confidence in me and have put me here. They entrust the matter to me, and want me to see that the board does its work properly. If I had not a right of veto over the board’s resolutions then I would not like to see the poor man who has to administer this Bill.

What about the lemons ?

I will admit that the people will have an opportunity of getting rid of the lemons, and now the hon. member wants to prevent it. He merely wants other kinds of oranges to be exported. If the people can sell the lemon I want to give them a chance; I want to help them. Various hon. members spoke about the closing of the creameries, which may be necessary under the Bill. They say that the power cannot be granted. Within a few miles of one dairy factory another is established. Both cannot possibly make a living in the neighbourhood. The result would be that both will fail, and are we not now to take the power to protect the farmer from suffering in consequence? It is in the best interests of the producer for us to take these powers. If there are factories that cannot pay their way we must do something, and the investigations of the Board of Trade and Industries have shown that there are such factories. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) made a fuss about the so-called manifold regulations my department issued about the supply of milk. Let me refer him to Act No. 13 of 1929, section 17 (2) [sub-section quoted]. The Public Health Department insists on it, and the town councils also want supervision over the milk sold in towns. Then there is another matter, viz., the question of the chairman of the board of control. Hon. members ask why they should be governed by the Agricultural Department, but when an important meeting of farmers is held, then they usually ask the department to nominate a chairman. That is especially the case with dairy factories. I have always hitherto received letters expressing admiration and thanks for the work done by such officials, and for sending someone who could lead the meeting so well. Requests constantly came, and therefore I must assume that the officials gave satisfaction. Now, however, hon. members say that the department is taking the lead too much. They ask for it themselves. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) asked if I was convinced that the farmers favoured this Bill. All hon. members opposite agree to the levy. The Board of Trade and Industries in its report gives the attitude of the farmer. The report reads—

The Board of Trade and Industries has fully gone into the matter and they say that farm butter cannot be exported. That is not because it is not good, but because the makers of farm butter do not possess the necessary machinery to get rid of the water and milk. The reason is not that those people do not do the work well, but it is because they cannot buy the necessary machinery. Moreover, we must remember that if the creameries are not able to export butter, the makers of farm butter get much less for it, and the whole industry may be ruined. It looks almost as if hon. members wanted that. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) said that we wanted to impose a levy so that the consumer would have to pay more for his butter. But it is not much better for the consumer to know precisely how much he has to pay for his butter? If the industry collapses then he is dependent on the butter from abroad, and he will have to pay the price demanded. We must not forget that there was a time, after the drought, when butter was imported and the consumers had to pay more than 3s. a lb. I think it would be much better for us to know what the prices are. I welcome the criticism offered. Except in one case it was useful criticism, and meant to be constructive, and I readily attend to criticism of that kind, because if it is not made, then wrong things may be passed by the House. As I said before, I am anxious to send the Bill to the select committee, and clauses on which there is a difference of opinion can then be thoroughly gone into. It was said by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that we have not the power of providing for a levy in this way. I have taken legal advice, but we can go into the matter further in the select committee. I am, however, very glad that the hon. member raised the matter. I do not think it is necessary to go into all the various remarks that have been made here. I have only referred to a few of the chief points. Everybody welcomes the Bill, except on certain subordinate things about which we differ, and which we can thrash out in select committee. Probably the select committee will send an agreed Bill to the House on which we can build up a strong dairy industry.

Amendment put and negatived.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time and referred to Select Committee on Cattle Improvement Bill for consideration and report.

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged Mr. van Rensburg from service on the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities, and appointed Mr. F. D. du Toit in his stead.

I suggest that we adjourn now, as we have had a very long day, and there are several important amendments which will take some time.

On the motion of Mr. Krige, the debate was adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.