I move— That the Bill be now read a second time.

The introduction of this Bill has become necessary as the result of the abnormal and artincial position in the wheat industry to-day. The object which the Government has in view is to ensure a market for South African wheat, when it is on offer at a price not exceeding the landed cost of Australian wheat when the duty and freight are included. The Bill does not intend to prohibit or control the importation of flour, which will continue to be the controlling and stabilising factor as far as the price of bread is concerned. The wheat position as it exists in this country was investigated in 1926 by the Board of Trade and Industries, and again a few months ago. They brought out comprehensive and valuable reports, and I presume hon. members who take an interest in this matter are conversant with the main outlines of those reports. There has been a decline in world prices during the last six months as far as wheat is concerned, but in this country the prices that have ruled during the last few months have actually been lower than those of wheat imported from overseas, if the duty, freight and other charges are added. That is the position to-day, and I think hon. members will agree with me that it is the duty of the Government, and I think our farmers are entitled, to claim that Parliament should do whatever is possible to deal with that state of affairs. I wish to remind the House what the position generally is with regard to wheat in this country. As hon. members know, we do not provide for all our local requirements; our protection is not sufficient to meet that, and a certain quantity of wheat has to be imported every year. As the result of the low fertility of our soil, irregular and inadequate rainfall over large areas of our country, our production per morgen is low. These factors contribute to the high cost of production. Our natural conditions are such that it is very difficult for our farmers to compete with wheat grown under conditions obtaining in other countries, but I think it is also accepted by the people of this country that the growing of wheat in this country is necessary for its safety, and is a national industry; we do not desire to be dependent altogether on outside sources. But our people are reconciled to the idea that we will have to maintain that industry on a reasonably protective basis. Let us examine the actual position as it exists in this country to-day, as far as stocks, prices and requirements are concerned. The average consumption of wheat in the Union during the last four years was 4,780,000 bags of 200 lbs. In 1927-’28 the average exceeded 4,126,000 bags. In 1927 South Africa produced 2,423,000 bags and imported 1,722,000 bags. Of this about 250,000 was Canadian hard wheat which must always be imported for blending purposes. In 1928 the production was 1,734,000 bags, and the importation 2,609,000 bags. If we take the local consumption for 1929 as 4,000,000 bags, which is slightly less than the average of the preceding three years, we find that of that this country is expected to produce no less than 3,082,000 bags. I think that is the highest figure of production we have reached, at any rate for a long time in this country. Coupled with this increased production, we find that for the eleven months January to November inclusive, there have been large importations, namely, 1,815,000 bags as compared with 3,051,000 in the corresponding months of 1929. But unfortunately the position is very much worse because there was a very large carryover of wheat from the previous year. The other day I gave the House the quantity of wheat at present held in bond, and although we do not know the actual figures of wheat in the possession of millers, we know a large quantity of imported wheat is in the country to-day. If we take these figures we find that the Union has now sufficient wheat to meet its needs until October of this year, without further importations. Let me repeat that during all this time our farmers have never received for their locally grown wheat anything approaching the prices of similar quality wheat which could be imported from Australia, if the duty, freight and other charges be added. If we examine the prices which have been paid, we find the following position: there are instances in parts of the Western Province where as low a figure as 19s. has been offered for local wheat, whereas at the same time the price of Australian wheat would be in the neighbourhood of 24s.

made an interjection.

I am comparing quality with quality when comparing prices. Unfortunately we have had rust and other conditions, and the quality of the wheat in some parts has been rather poor, and farmers know they cannot expect the same prices for that as for wheat of better quality. The position in the Transvaal and Orange Free State has been considerably worse, despite the added protection; only 19s. to 21s. has been offered. It was under these circumstances that a few months ago the Board of Trade, having examined the position again, recommended that the protection in regard to wheat should be increased by 7d. per 100 lbs. I gave notice of the intention of the Government to ask the House to approve of that so that the protection which our farmers enjoy is 4s. per bag in the case of Australian and 4s. 4d. in the case of Canadian wheat. Unfortunately our farmers are altogether unorganized, and having to do business with an organized body like our millers they, being at a disadvantage, the price of wheat has remained depressed, and the object of this Bill is to enable the farmers, while they know that the Government will not allow the importation of wheat while the country is overstocked, to obtain better prices and to put them in a better position to bargain with the millers. We do not intend to introduce, through this Bill, elaborate conditions of control. My own opinion is that the Government should interfere as little as possible with legitimate business, and should leave these things to the people themselves. But our farmers are at a disadvantage owing to various factors. The millers are able to depress these prices, and we have to deal with the fact that the farmers are not getting the price which would have to be paid for wheat imported into the country. We do not deal here with the importation of flour. That will remain as a stabilizing factor as far as the price of bread is concerned. If our farmers are unreasonable, and ask prices which the millers cannot be expected to pay, flour will continue to come into the country as it is coming in to-day. What we may reasonably assume is that wheat prices will firm up, but the price of bread should not be affected in any way by the steps we propose. We propose to regulate and control the importation of wheat The intention is not to allow the importation of ordinary wheat while we have these large stocks in the country. We only intend to allow the importation of certain grades. Permits will have to be issued for the particular kinds of wheat. I think it is reasonable to ask the House to allow the Government to have this exceptional power, legislation out of the ordinary. I submit that the position obtaining is abnormal, and that our farmers have the right to ask the Government to take these steps, if necessary, in order that they may be better able to obtain a reasonable price for their product.

The condition of the grain farmer, as the Minister of Finance has rightly remarked, has been very parlous for a long time. The Minister will remember that at the start of the short session last year a strong deputation of grain farmers from the Western Province visited him in July. He then promised that the Board of Trade and Industries would make enquiries. The report of the Board was subsequently laid on the Table of the House. Shortly after the start of this session there was a congress of representatives of grain farmers from practically the whole of South Africa, from the Cape Province, the Free State, and the Transvaal, and they made it plain to the Minister in what a difficult and parlous position the industry was placed at the moment. Shortly after the opening of Parliament Ministers gave notice of an increase of 7d. per 100 lbs. on the customs tariff on imported wheat, and of 8d. per 100 lbs. in the case of flour. The Minister, like all of us, hoped that the increase in the customs duty would relieve the farmer, but it became plain to us that the increase of the duty did not always mean to the farmer what was expected of it. This is due to the constant fluctuation and instability of prices on the world market. During the last few days the price of wheat has dropped more than 8d. on the world market, and some time ago when the Minister gave notice of the increase there was also a drop in prices. It is therefore sometimes the case that an increase of the duty cannot benefit the farmer. He is dependent on the condition of the world market. Sometimes there is greater production and consequently prices drop on the world market. I want to admit frankly that it is impossible for the Government to always increase the customs duty. The farmers also admit this, and therefore they have urged upon the Minister that the best system would be one of supervision and control over the import of wheat. They were very much in favour of the Minister creating a system by way of permits, which of course would apply to flour as well as wheat. The Minister has now introduced a Bill which deals with the importation of wheat. It gives the Minister the absolute right to exercise control over the importation of wheat, and our grain farmers are in such a position at present that they will readily and gladly accept the Bill of the Minister. At the same time, however, the farmer will feel, as the Minister has acknowledged, that the price of grain, and of his produce, is dependent on the importation of flour. If the world production of flour is large, and overseas flour can be cheaply imported, then the price of wheat will also be dependent on the price of the flour imported. The Minister mentioned that the millers would be obliged to buy the local product, but they will only buy up to a certain level. If they can get the flour cheaper than they can mill the wheat then it is good business for them to buy the foreign flour. I agree with the Minister that such a system of control is dependent on the organization of the grain farmers. They will have to organize on a large scale. The grain farmers are organized, and I hope that when they are well organized, the Minister will take a further step and, by creating a system of control and permits by which the farmer will get a payable price for his produce, the consumer will also not be unfairly dealt with. That is not an impossible thing if the farmers are organized. Such a system will be practicable as has been seen in other countries, e.g., in Germany and France where it is done on a large scale. I think we can also do so in South Africa. Wheat production is a primary industry, and there is a large section of our people, especially in the Western Province, which is engaged in it. A large portion of the people in these areas, farmers as well as bywoners, are dependent on that kind of farming. We here in the Western Province are in the position of only being able to use our land for cereals. We cannot grow fruit on it. The soil is not such that we can grow other produce. Now in connection with this, there is the production of oats and barley. In these parts we go in for mixed farming, viz., grain and sheep. When the grain is cut then the sheep have to be run in, and benefit by the stubble. Wheat is sown one year and then oats or barley the next in order to make farming profitable. The growing of barley and oats is difficult because the market is also very bad. There is a large surplus and the world market has dropped, and there is no chance of selling it overseas at a favourable price, unless the Minister is prepared to take steps in that direction. That is the position of farming at present, and I therefore say that the grain farmers will take this Bill of the Minister’s as an effort in the direction of assisting them. The Minister did not see his way to control the importation of flour. I therefore think it is doubtful whether the Bill—I hope it will have a very good effect—will in practice have the effect we expect from it while the importation of flour is not controlled. We shall not, therefore, get the benefit we would like to have from it. We are willing to accept it as a step until there is great organization among the farmers amounting to a large co-operative society of the whole industry, so that there may be a wheat pool. When that is so legislation can be introduced to stabilize the price of wheat for the farmer and also for the consumer. We are looking forward to that. We must adopt this course to build up this great industry. The Minister has shown that we are producing more and more in South Africa, so as to make ourselves independent of other countries. Other years we have been a million bags short. This year the shortage is much less, and I therefore think that the House will do a good thing in passing this Bill, although we shall not reap the benefit we expect from it. It is a step in the right direction, and I support the Bill.

We are much indebted to the Government for this Bill. I think farmers in general, and the wheat farmers in particular, will be very thankful to the Government for this control measure to insure the wheat farmers in the future not being left to the mercy of the millers in our country. If we desire our production to be larger and more regular it is in the interests of the producer, and the consumer, that the prices of the wheat should be more or less stable. They were not so in the past, and as a Bill is now introduced to see to it that the Government can take steps to regulate the importation and in that way to put the price more or less under control, I think the wheat farmers and the consumers will welcome it. I do not think that sufficient attention is given in our country as yet to the production of wheat. There is sufficient opportunity of growing wheat here for the supply of the Union. There are various parts of the country suited to wheat growing, but owing to the uncertain wheat market the farmers were not prepared to go to the expense of making a start in the matter, and they did not want to buy new machinery for the growing of wheat. But when it is more certain that wheat can be sold at stable prices then the farmers will certainly grow more. And if such a price can be obtained for wheat then within reasonable time so much wheat will be produced in the Union that we can supply our own requirements. Hitherto we have not produced enough wheat; last year it was only three-quarters of our consumption. In future when the farmers are more certain of better conditions not only will production be started in other parts of the Western Province than where wheat is being grown now, but in various districts of the Free State and Transvaal as well. Wheat is already being produced on the great irrigation works, and the amount will be increased in the future. As the Government is now showing that it fully sympathizes with the wheat farmers and is seeing to their protection, I hope the farmers will not sit still, and will see to it that the wheat industry is stabilized. A few months ago a congress of wheat farmers was held where it was decided to organize themselves. I hope that it will not remain at that, but that the farmers will see to it that an effective organization of wheat growers is established throughout the country. If so, it will perhaps not even be necessary in future to apply this Bill. Wheat is the only product of our country for which there is a certain market in the country itself. It is the only product on the export whereof we are not dependent, and which we shall not need to export overseas for some time. For this very reason the wheat farmers have probably not yet established any effective organization, but now that there has been good production in the country, and the millers have imported large quantities of wheat and flour, and the prices are lower, than in former years, the farmers see that they must organize. If they are well organized they will probably not need the protection of the law, because then they will be able to prescribe to the Government and the millers what is necessary for the wheat industry. This does not mean that the farmers wish for such control that they can demand any price; I do not think that that is the intention of the farmers in the very least, but as wheat is one of the great requirements of our people, we must see that we produce sufficient in our own country, and it is therefore necessary that the wheat farmers should be certain of getting a proper price. If the farmers are organized then they can see to getting such price. The steps that are here being taken will probably not have an immediate result. Prices will possibly not appreciate at once, but as the Minister is being empowered to stop the importation, the millers will in future act a little more carefully. I think we all appreciate that in the past the millers have not acted towards the wheat farmers as they should have done. Even this year when at the commencement of the session the Minister proposed to increase the customs duty on wheat the millers wanted to oppose the Government. They went so far as to offer still lower prices to the farmers than before, and when the wheat farmers made certain representations to the Government, we found that the millers wanted still further to oppose the Government. They told the farmers that they would pay better prices, but then the farmers were to ask the Government to considerably increase the customs duty on flour. I am glad that this Bill is rendering the efforts of the millers futile, because if it came to the importation being completely prohibited then the farmers would fall completely into the hands of the millers, because they would then have full control over all flour and they would then act exactly as they pleased. As the Bill is now drafted, it is not necessary to take drastic action, but care is taken to protect the interests of the producer and the consumer. If we find that the millers do not treat the farmers fairly I hope the farmers will not only organize well, but that they will take steps to see to it that co-operative mills are established in the country. There is no reason why farmers should not mill their own flour. If the millers, with their existing plant, treat the farmers fairly, it is of course unnecessary for the latter to erect their own mills. But if the millers do not do so, if they try to get the power into their hands, then the farmers themselves must take the power and establish their own mills. If this takes place the farmers can control the whole matter, and so control the industry so as to secure a regular price. This will not only benefit the producer, but also the consumer. Wheat production may become a great industry in future. Much further development may take place, even in the north, e.g., in the low veld of the Transvaal, and then the day may come that we shall produce more than we need. If that happens it will be more than ever necessary for the wheat farmers to be well organized that if we have to export wheat they will be able to send their produce to an overseas market. I hope that by effective organization wheat culture will be turned into one of the best and most valuable industries in our country.

I fear very much that neither those who are behind the Bill nor the Minister himself, nor those who support the Bill, realize its consequences. I am afraid that they have not given sufficient consideration to the make-up of the Bill or to its implications and ramifications. It is one of my regrets that the Government, perhaps with the sole exception of the hon. Minister of Labour, would not see fit to call into consultation that large and, unfortunately, often voiceless, section of the public, namely, the consumers. I regret they do not take them into consultation when they are considering and framing legislation which, in the ultimate result, vitally affects them more than anybody else. I would suggest that Ministers should take into their counsels men who represent the trade unions of the country, because you cannot very well, by reason of their vast and scattered nature, get into consultation directly with the consumers. Representative trade union officials are men who are completely in touch with the consumer’s point of view, difficulties and family budgets. They are also level-headed men and would at all events be able to give some advice on the point of view of the people who are likely to be the chief sufferers if anything goes wrong. I do not think there is a single individual in South Africa who is not as keenly interested as the Minister or any other member of this House in seeing that the primary producer gets a square deal. No one can say that I am against the primary producer. Why, during the war period I definitely suggested that the price of primary products should be fixed at a rate which took into consideration all the costs and outgoings of the producer in order that he might be protected against the speculator.

Then you support the Bill?

No, surely we can have the same end in view and endeavour to achieve it by different methods. Whatever angle we may approach the problem from, not one of us, and least of all myself, is desirous to make it difficult for the primary producer. I wish to secure the safety of the primary producer, but at the same time not adversely to affect the consumer. All who are interested in building up South Africa should have that dual end in view. I am prepared to go even this far—to prohibit under certain circumstances the importation of this or that product rather than bring about the same end by erecting a tariff wall. That is what I call “spur of the moment legislation” which is always dangerous and never effective. Even when I was sitting in the counsels of the Government I bitterly opposed the imposition of a tariff to protect our primary producers, because it never brought about the desired end, and ultimately the enhanced price reached the consumer. If you put 3d. a bag on wheat, it becomes Infinitely more than that when the consumer buys his cakes, flour and bread. Again wheat is not our only primary product. There is the same tale with regard to fruit and wool, the reason being that the distribution of these things has fallen into the hands of individuals who form a close preserve, holding the producer by the throat with one hand and the consumer by the other. As a better alternative, I suggest the payment of a bounty. We know how much the bounty will cost, and that it will go into the pockets of the producer, while the whole of the country will contribute towards the cost. Between the tariff, prohibition or regulation of imports and the bounty, the last mentioned is the best method, but it is not effective. The Minister says he is only proposing to control the importation of wheat. That is where the Bill breaks down and becomes a complete failure. The bounty system is the least evil of the three methods I have mentioned. If we allow the free importation of flour, it must be obvious that the big importers of flour can play with the wheat situation precisely as they like. What is more, we shall be offering them a fatal inducement to do that, and I would rather import wheat than flour, because by importing wheat we at least give people here something to do in grinding the wheat into flour. After all, bread, cakes and so on are not the only things we consume, as the product of wheat. We are building up a very large poultry industry, and have a big export trade in eggs. We are building that up very rapidly indeed. You are going to the very roots of these industries. Bran is an essential article of food for cows; there is pollard and the other things which are necessary for the successful progress of industries such as I have indicated. Would it be in the interests of this country to protect the wheat farmers at the expense of your poultry farmer, dairyman, and the man who wants to feed prime beef for market? Pressure has been brought to bear; their object in bringing in the measure is laudable, and I extol it, but in carrying it out they are very short-sighted, and in the end are not going to accomplish their purpose. Why has the Minister introduced this? He told us what I have told the House years ago, and have never hesitated to tell it since, here you naturally expect the law of supply and demand to operate favourably towards the producer, yet you find the farmer getting a price which will not pay him. We are comparing prices on quality for quality. While we have had a shortfall of wheat in South Africa, and imported wheat, quality for quality, the Western Province farmer, at the very gate of the milling company or companies, was getting 19s.; shall we call it 20s. or 21s.? I care not; and at the same time the imported article was costing 24s. How do you account for that? I preached to the public of South Africa why the consumers and the producers were not getting a square deal was because of the great middleman who could say “Such and such a price you are getting as producers,” and to the consumers "Such and such a price you have to pay.” Any person who has given consideration to the course of events in this country would not say that such was not the case. The producer and the consumer alike are in the hands of the middleman, whether it is wheat, meat or fruit. It is a fact which has been established very much to our cost, and we are fools if we do not act accordingly. The Minister, to my regret, has not taken this into account. I was once taken to account by the managing director of one of the milling companies in South Africa, who said in effect, in a letter to the press, like so many who do not agree with me, “Madeley does not know what he is talking about; there is no such thing as a milling ring.” I accept that; not in the form that they come together and have a manager and share their profits pro rata, according as they have put money into this ring. But what they have, and what I am credibly informed, is that although they have not actually one ring on paper, they have only one buyer, and that was demonstrated very conclusively to me in conversation with wheat producers who told me that this buyer has gene round to various sellers and agreed on prices— the agreement being of the lion and rabbit sort. They have actually told people, some comparatively large producers, that so many bags are to go to one milling company, so many to another, and so many to another. The buyer is buying for all the companies, and divides the purchase pro rata according to their requirements. That is where the danger to the producer or to the consumer lies, your big middleman has every section of the community completely by the throat, and can do exactly what he likes. If you prohibit the importation of wheat you will not improve the position one penny piece. You may do it temporarily. Probably this is a mutual agreement by which they are egging the Minister on. Yes, egging the Minister on.

I turned down a proposal made jointly by the millers and the farmers.

I am not suggesting anything. I am discussing this question from the point of view of the man who desires to hold the scales balanced evenly between the producer and the consumer, with perhaps some slight bias in favour of the consumer because I know that the consumer invariably gets the thin end of the stick in all the operations of big combinations like the cold storages and the millers. Again the Minister said that by controlling the wheat import he could give the wheat farmer time to hold on to his stocks so that prices will rise and the wheat farmer will get a better price. I think I have disposed of that in the mind of any thinking member who has done me the honour of listening to me. The milling companies, having the opportunity of importing flour when they like directly against the farmer, would be able to tide over the period, while the farmer is in the unfortunate position of wanting cash, and is consequently forced to sell at the price the one buyer on behalf of the milling companies will pay him. The farmers will never be able to hold on to stocks, and it is not right that they should. It is dangerous in every way to have to use methods of this sort to improve the price position for those who are producing. The obvious is before you all the time. Why hon. members, particularly members of the Ministry, fight shy of it I cannot understand. Their attitude must be based upon sheer prejudice. [Laughter.] My hon. friend who laughs would have a much better opportunity with his products if he had a big central organization interested in his welfare as well as the welfare of the consumers. Australia proved that. One of the things one has got to enter an objection to is the loose way hon. gentlemen speak with regard to the operations of those State institutions in Australia. They have been demonstrated to be perfectly sound financially, they have made profits for the State, they have been run cheaper, and they have reduced prices to the consumer in Australia. I appeal to the Minister of Labour. This is too big a thing for us to be bandying words about our miserable pettyfogging affairs when a matter of this kind is being dealt with. We are asked to take a step here that may do irreparable harm to all sections of the population of South Africa. The passage of this Bill, in addition to clamping the chains around both sections of the community, may set up causes of bitterness between producers and consumers. I am concerned about this state of affairs. Do not turn the right thing down because you are prejudiced. Begin to think upon the question. All over the world the tendency is to eliminate private competition completely. You have all over the world little coteries of people banding themselves together and by their financial strength gathering to themselves diverse things including shipping, transport, wheat production and the manufacture of bread, as well as all sorts of things. That is happening all over the world. Why on earth don’t you take a leaf out of their hook? My friend talks about the cost of it. The cost of trustification is much too great. By your littleness of outlook you are placing your producers and consumers more and more in the hands of these people whose only concern is to bleed them. Institute your State mills.

Grow your own State wheat.

Laugh, I care not. I know the man in the street is beginning to think this. I notice there is not much laughter over there, because they are far ahead of you.

They don’t laugh, they weep.

I remember that not so very long ago what has become known as my King Charles’ head received the honour of a supporting resolution from a conference of Free State farmers.

State milling?

No, State shipping. Establish a central organization run by the State itself. The argument is often employed that the State cannot get the men to run these concerns properly. I will admit there is one almost insuperable obstacle on the part of our Government—the will to work or rather, the non-desire to make it successful. People who come along with that supercilious air do not want to see it a success. The objection that you cannot get the man is absurd. Any industry gets the man, even the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) who runs the diamond mines has a manager, paid very highly indeed—and doubtless well worth his pay—all organizations whatever they may be employ somebody else to run them; they do not run themselves. The State can do it too; I urge on hon. members who claim to represent the primary producers of South Africa that the only right and successful way to tackle this business and get over the difficulties, is to establish State mills—to which the farmers may send their products and arrive at a fair price taking every circumstance into consideration— where milling will be done at an average cost. I am trying to appeal to the minds of hon. members who think, as I appeal to the bulk of people outside that the price should be based on a fair return to the consumer.

Hopeless.

No, nonsense; it has not been tried. You have not the pluck to try it. I submit to the earnest consideration of this House, with all the power that in me lies, do not waste time with this; do not prohibit merely importation of wheat: you must prohibit importation of flour as well. I ask the hon. the Minister to go one step further, and fix the price ….

You cannot do that.

Cannot—that cry again: “It is not the ordinary business of the Government to interfere with private enterprize !” It is the business of the Government to interfere with anything in the interests of the people. The Minister is hoping to fix the price of wheat to the farmers by this means. Let us not waste words, but consider the case on its merits. I say, in conclusion, your prohibition method is better than the taxation method; better than imposing a tariff wall at the coast. If you are going to prohibit at all you must not prohibit wheat alone; you must prohibit flour. Fix the price or you will fall short of your desires. Turn a serious ear to the point I have put which I believe with all my soul is the only way to cope with this difficult situation, and safeguard the interests of all sections of the community.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) made a very long speech; went over hill and dale, and finally settled on the elevation of a state mill. There we would certainly not agree. I am very glad of the attempt the Minister is making to protect our wheat farmers, and heartily welcome the Bill. It is very short, but far-reaching. What use is it to us to encourage the wheat farmers, if large quantities of wheat are constantly being imported unnecessarily? We must get to the stage of producing enough wheat for our own use, so that there is no need to import any. If the wheat farmers are not assisted, if they get not the slightest encouragement, if everything gets into the hands of the strong combines, the farmers will not be able to go on. Before even the farmers have sown the millers say that next year they will pay £1, and at the same time the millers tell the consumer how much he will have to pay for flour. The millers have all the power in their hands, and therefore I welcome the attempt of the Government to control the position. It is a pity that flour has not also been included, but we remain silent because we feel that the Government want to protect the consumer as well. If this is a success—the attempt to prevent the importation of wheat—I hope the Minister will go further and also exercise control over flour. Then only can full success be obtained. We have waited very long for protection, and now it is being introduced in a sensible way. I can assure the Minister that my constituency heartily welcomes it. They have, to a large extent, to make their living from wheat culture, but as the lands are small, and it is a thickly populated area, it is practically impossible to make a living out of wheat. Without protection it is also not possible to do so on the large settlement. The production costs are too high to be able to sell wheat at 19s. a bag, and make a living. It is said that the farmers must take off their coats; they are doing so, but they have no market for their produce, and we cannot reproach anyone. The Government is doing its duty in trying to find markets. Wheat, however, is a product which is still imported because we do not grow enough here. Hence I feel that this Bill will encourage the farmers. Our object must be to try and prevent a single bag from being imported. We have felt that the increased protection on wheat was not sufficient but remained silent because the consumer must also be considered. Control over wheat is now exercised, but I hope the Minister will later on exercise control over the importation of flour.

The country has gone a long way when a Bill which has such autocratic powers as this one can be brought forward by the Government. I am certain that in the days, for instance, of the late right hon. gentleman, Mr. Merriman, such a Bill would have been laughed out of the House. The hon. the Minister of Finance says that the conditions of the Bill are simple. Yes, they are remarkably simple. They give him absolute and unrestricted power. They give him the powers of a Mussolini. One Mussolini in a country may be a salutary punishment for too much licence, but last week we had another Mussolini in the shape of the Minister of Agriculture who took upon himself the right of putting any duty which he considered fit on imported butter. It seems to me that this House is gradually abandoning its functions and handing over to Ministers absolute and uncontrolled power to do anything they wish. The Minister assures us that this Bill is not going to have any effect upon the price of bread. That is purely a statement of the Minister’s. He does not produce any arguments supporting that view. He produces no arguments, but simply makes a statement that he will see that there is no increase in the price of bread under the conditions that he is going to lay down. Did I understand the Minister to say that? I do not want to misquote him, but I understood him to assure us that there would be no increase in the price of bread.

The hon. member says I made a statement, and it is merely a statement. I think it is obvious. I said if the price of bread should rise, it would certainly not be as the result of this Bill, because I had left untouched the importation of flour which has been the controlling and stabilizing factor so far as the price of raw materials from which bread is made are concerned. That is a fair and obvious conclusion to draw. For that reason I did not deal with flour, although I was urged to do so. I do not want the consumer to say that I was not taking action which might possibly lead to an increase in the price of bread. That was the statement I made.

I accept what the hon. the Minister has said. I see his point. His point is that the absence of control of flour acts as a check on the rise in the price of wheat. I can see very great difficulties in the question of this control. We have had one very unfortunate experience when we tried to control the importation of wheat. It cost this country a good deal of money. In those days—they were war days, and we had no option. To-day we are dealing with a condition of affairs where the ordinary laws of supply and demand and competition act in their normal way. I do feel that, with the best intention, the Government’s proposal to issue permits for the importation of wheat is likely to lead to very grave disturbance of the whole of the wheat and milling industry. I feel under certain conditions, under any conditions, two things may happen, either the farmer will not get the protection which those in favour of the Bill hope, because there will be too many permits issued, and the allowance will be too great, and the South African farmer will not be able to sell his wheat; or, on the other hand, if too few permits are issued, it can only lead to a very great increase in the price of local wheat. I do not see how, under economic conditions, anything else can happen. I do say this: that no Government— I am not speaking of this Government any more than of any other Government—has the knowledge or is quick enough to follow the trend of the wheat market so as to exercise proper control.

That is not the intention. The permit system will not come in so long as there is plenty of wheat in the country.

The hon. the Minister says that permits will only be withdrawn so long as there is plenty of wheat in the country. But you cannot get wheat in five minutes. It has to be bought months ahead. Unless a Government expert is put on to handle this one subject, he cannot possibly have the knowledge of the future market conditions which is necessary in order to handle such a delicate trade as the wheat trade of the world. Now another complaint I have got against this Bill is that it is a permanent law. I accept and recognize the difficulty of the wheat farmer, but it is a temporary difficulty. It is caused by the fortunate or, shall I say, unfortunate, very fine harvest we have had in this country. It is temporary. Under this Bill we are making provision for permanent control forever. I say that if you have a temporary difficulty, you should have a temporary cure. I think this Bill would not be nearly so bad if there was a clause in it restricting its existence to twelve months or two years, and if the necessity arose, you could come back to the House and get leave again to have this absolute control of the whole of the industry in this country. It is a very vital necessity, not only to the farmers, but also to the people. I think the Bill would be very much improved if the Minister would Consider it as a temporary measure of relief for abnormal conditions. It is an extraordinary abandonment of the rights of Parliament to hand over to one man the entire control of one of the biggest industries in the country, and it is of very great importance to the consumer. I recognize that the Minister will exercise the control sensibly and reasonably. It would have been possible to say that if the local price of South African wheat went under 23s. a bag, then the Minister shall have the power of control. But instead of that, if the price goes up to 27s. a bag, the Minister will still have control.

Would Parliament go so far as that?

I dislike the Bill any way, but I think my suggestion would be a very great improvement.

To-day the price of flour controls the position; it cannot go higher.

I am not happy as regards the flour position. A tremendous amount of pressure is going to be put on the Minister to control the price of flour. My whole argument is based on this point, that we are constantly making precedents in this House, giving all sorts of uncontrolled powers to Ministers, and it is a very short distance to go from wheat to flour, and the only check on the price of local wheat is permission for flour to come in freely, subject, of course, to the payment of duty. We also have to recognize that it is very much more profitable to the country to import wheat than to import flour.

Hear, hear.

The Bill certainly is a simple one. Its object could be contained in two lines: “I am Mussolini, and I do as I like.” That is the gist of it. When one reads the Bill, one thinks the Government felt that it must do something for the wheat farmer, but I am not satisfied that it is not doing more for the man holding wheat, thon for the wheat farmer. The Government has not a definite scheme, and so it has taken to itself the complete right to do what it likes. The difficulty in that respect is this: The miller will not know, from time to time, what the conditions are under which he can import, and wheat has to be bought such a long time ahead of its arrival in this country that the Bill will lead to all sorts of confusion. Another grave and serious matter the Government should consider is this: The wheat farmer is being hit, but what about the maize and the wool farmers? It is going to be very much more serious for the Government to frame a measure to help the wool farmer, for it can protect the wheat farmer, but not the wool farmer. When the latter sees what the Government is doing to support the wheat farmer, he will come along with a very strong case to ask for help, saying that his commodity has gone down in price very much more than has wheat. I would like to hear from the Minister more details of the scheme he proposes to work under. In France and Belgium free importation is allowed, but the miller has to mill a definite proportion of home-grown wheat. If we adopted such a scheme as this in order to right our position in regard to our wheat position, the miller ought to grind about 75 bags of South African wheat to 25 bags of imported wheat.

Roughly.

If that is the position, could not the Government consider making that a definite arrangement. I could argue against that as well, but that system has less objections than the other system. At any rate, there would be a method under which the Minister could very jealously guard the price of bread. Last week the Government put up the price of flour. I urge the Minister to have a very careful regard to do nothing that will raise the price of bread to the consumer.

There is no doubt that the wheat farmer is in a terrible position. I listened attentively to what the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) said, but he makes such wild statements that one does not know what he wants. He merely always wants state undertakings. If the hon. member had spoken about state motors, I could have understood it, but when he speaks about wheat, about which he is entirely ignorant, he only makes himself ridiculous. The House, however, knows what value to give to his words, and I am, therefore, convinced that no one will take much notice of him. When we, however, come to the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), he made certain statements that incline me to ask what the hon. members wants. He was opposed to the Bill, but yet he can give no reason why it should not pass. We know that the Bill is absolutely necessary. He says that it is not necessary, but gives no proof thereof. The only reason is that the Bill gives the Minister the power of Mussolini to say this, or the other, must be done, and it must be done. Let me say at once that that is not so. The Bill gives the Minister the right of protecting the wheat farmers, when necessary, and if it is not necessary, he need not do so, so where does the hon. member’s argument come in? It is clear that he, as a wholesale merchant, is not sympathetic in the matter. Therefore, he uses such arguments in the House. If he had honestly studied the matter, he would have seen that it is not a thing which the Minister could suddenly, and arbitrarily, introduce. The hon. member for Benoni also said that it was an opportunist measure which the Minister suddenly introduced. That is not the case. If both hon. members read the reports which were laid on the Table of the House, then they would have seen that the Board of Trade and Industries has already made recommendations in this direction. In its reports of 10th February, 1930, the board says that it is necessary to pass measures to see that the producer gets a fair price. The report deals with the importation of wheat. This is the Board of Trade and Industries, which is a competent body. It has gone carefully into the matter, and recommends that something must be done to assist the wheat farmer, because othewise be would be ruined and become a poor-white. Here we have one of the proofs that something must be done, and is it not now the duty of any Government to assist in the circumstances? But what do we find in the previous report of the Board of Trade and Industries? In that report the board enquired what the wheat farmer got for his product, and what he ought to get to make a profit. The Board found that the farmer needed an average price of 25s. to make the industry profitable. As I say, the board went into the matter carefully, and laid that down. Then he does not make much in any case. But what do we find now? The Minister has told us that the farmers of the Western Province sold wheat at 19s. a bag. In the Transvaal and Free State they got a little over £1.

Much less.

The hon. member says that they got still less. I am only taking the figures which are given to the House. They are already 4s. less than what makes ft profitable to the farmer, according to the price fixed by the Board of Trade. There are also other parts of the country that are suffering. There are drought-tried areas, like the north-west, where the land is fertile, and where the people have produced grain since it has rained. There they had to sell at 13s. and 14s. a bag. I ask has the time not come to assist the farmer? Then we find hon. members opposite still talking very frivolously. Can they not see that the farmer, who is a backbone of the country, must be assisted? A Capetonian, like the hon. member for Newlands, may enjoy sitting here as a wholesale merchant, but they even cannot make a living in Cape Town if the farmers are ruined. It was necessary for the Minister to bring a Bill like this before the House. I just want to point out that the wheat production of the Union, according to the Board of Trade and Industries, is calculated at 3,300,000 bags. The former figures—1917-’18 when there was a good harvest—show the production as 3,050,000. The consumption amounts to 4,000,000 bags. Roughly, we still produce only 75 per cent. of our needs; is it then not fatal that, seeing we only produce 75 per cent., we should allow the industry, owing to overseas competition, to be ruined? This Bill must be passed. It must be clear to everybody, and it is only a pity that it was not introduced long ago. Even now it is almost too late. If it had been produced earlier, the farmers would not have been in their present calamitous position. The hon. member for Newlands makes a comparison with the wool farmers. He says the wool farmers and the maize farmers are in a bad position, which is true, but is that any reason why we should let everybody be ruined? I hope something will be done, or everybody will be in difficulties. I hope, however, that there will be no opposition to the Bill. The hon. member for Benoni, who knows nothing of the matter, will, of course, oppose. His speech would be appropriate for the parade and for the I.C.U., but here in the House, where there are people who know something about the matter, no notice will be taken of him. There is another matter which troubles me. It is whether we can put a certain tax on fine flour. I see, according to the report of the Board of Trade, that over 400,000 bags of flour came in. In certain classes of flour imported there are foreign constituents added. That kind of thing is not required by us. It is described as fine flour, but really it is not so. It is sold cheaper here. It is dumped here, and the wheat farmer suffers because our population buy it, and it is this kind of fine flour which must be looked into. I hope that very careful attention will be given to the matter. With these few words, I want to heartily support the Bill. I welcome it, and am glad that the Minister has taken steps to introduce it”. Moreover, I hope that the name of Mussolini will not be used again when the Minister introduces legislation to assist a section of the farmers.

I welcome this attempt to help the farmer, and I would like to congratulate the Minister on laying this Bill on the Table of the House. I, as a practical farmer, entirely agree with a lot of what he said. I feel that this matter should be treated entirely on non-party lines. I shall speak only on the merits of the case, and criticize the Bill with a view to assisting, and in no way hostile, and I trust the Minister will not emulate the Minister of Agriculture, whose one slogan is: “Julle wil politieke munt daaruit slaan.” We are beginning to resent this remark. I think we should stand together. This is not a time for us, when we are faced with a dangerous situation, to quarrel with each other. I agree with one thing the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) said, that we must all combine to do what we can to protect the farmer. But there is a strong temptation to criticize the Government, because of the way they have handled the matter. We on this side of the House, however, will exercise that restraint which is to be expected from a responsible and patriotic Opposition, a restraint which was so conspicuous by its absence when the country was last passing through a period of depression, stress and danger. I am glad that the attack of lockjaw with which the other side was afflicted with regard to another measure, has passed away, and that the Government backbenches are once more allowed to speak. While I welcome this attempt to assist the farmers, I agree with the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) when he said it should have been put on the statute book before. Admitted that last session was very short, nevertheless, two deputations waited on the Minister, and he was warned that unless immediate steps were taken, it might be too late to save a lot of the smaller wheat farmers. It was pointed out to him: (1) that the wheat farmers have had three bad years, (2) that expense had to be incurred ahead in producing the wheat in the purchase of fertilizers and working of the land, (3) that the next season would be a bumper season, so that, unless action was taken before March or April, it would be too late to assist them. There are other reasons why it is necessary for the ordinary farmer to sell his crop as soon as possible. I will give only one difficulty: the question of transport. It is necessary for the ordinary farmer to send his wheat to the station, and with the same conveyances to fetch his fertilizers. If the wagon has to go empty to fetch the fertilizer, it increases the cost of production, which is still further increased if the wagon carting grain to the station has to return empty. Another thing is that we have no storage, and therefore we have to sell as soon as possible. We also pointed out to the Minister that if the next season proved a bad one, then the one chance the farmers had of getting on to their feet would be lost. If I remember aright, the Minister said, firstly, that he had no time to make a law then; and, secondly, that the Board of Trade and Industries must first investigate the matter. There, I think, the Minister was right. The other point he raised was that our ground was too expensive. That is largely an erroneous argument. For years past the amount of grain grown, anyhow in the south-western districts, has been produced by “bysaaiers.” It makes no difference to them whether the ground is worth £1 per morgen, or £40, as they don’t pay interest on the value of the ground, but hand over to the owner one-third share of their harvest, which has been the rule for the last 30 years when ground was one-eighth of its present value. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the bysaaier is the hardest worked man in South Africa. There are many independent land owning farmers to-day who started as bysaaiers 15 years ago. Some of them worked 16 hours a day and their wives and children helped them. Due to thrift, grinding, hard work, sound farming and an ability to sell their products, they have attained their present position. There are many of the same class of men passing through that transition stage to-day, who are potential tax-payers in the future. But who, if they are not assisted, are going to go under. At present they do not ask anything of the state, and they give very little trouble, and are an asset to the country, but if they are forced off the land due to economic pressure, nothing will induce them to go back, and they will simply add to the unskilled labour in the town, and may become a public charge, for whilst they are splendid farmers, they have no other training. We hear a good deal of the living wage; why not a living wage for farmers? There is one argument of the armchair critic which annoys me. “If you cannot grow wheat under 20s. per bag, then for goodness sake, the sooner you quit growing wheat the better.” You might just as well say to the Minister of Finance, because diamonds are so cheap, he should wire to Alexander Bay and instruct his staff there to stop finding diamonds, but to dig out pearls or sapphires instead; or, if the millers can’t compete against cheap dumped flour, tell them to grind stones instead of wheat, as the Government is going to spend £1,000,000 on new roads. The analogy is absolutely fair. We cannot grow anything else with profit. It is a parrot cry based on ignorance. I do not want to go fully into the reasons why we cannot grow wheat as cheaply as other countries, but one of the reasons is that our land is not so fertile as Canada and Australia. The topography of the land does not allow of the use of huge, heavy tractors; our sowing is so scattered and comparatively small that we have not the organization, i.e., elevators, special grain trains, etc. For these reasons, it is more expensive for us to produce wheat in this country. The brokers, millers and speculators find it easier to buy huge consignments of foreign wheat, as it is just as much trouble to buy one 100-bag lot as one 10,000-bag lot with this difference, that the expenses in buying ten 100-bag lots is greater than buying one 10,000-bag lot, and so, for their own selfish ends, they prefer to buy foreign wheat and let the money go overseas. Then we have the question of dearer bread. This is the bogey we are always being frightened with. It is said it will increase the cost of living, but when wheat was 30s. a few years ago, bread was at the same price it is to-day, although wheat is now sold here at 19s. or 20s.

Who makes the difference ?

You townspeople do; you and your bakers. Moreover, with your Wage Act, you have pushed up the cost of living. I am not speaking for the farmer alone, but also for the country storekeeper, who depends upon the farmer for his income. If those men go under, the big shops and importers are going to feel it very soon, and you will have unemployment in the town, as well as in the country. In France the import duty on wheat is 50 francs per 100 kilos, equal to 17s. 6d. per 480 lbs. In Italy it is 10 gold lire per quintal, or 24s. 6d. per 480 lbs. Germany, 6½ marks per 220 lbs. Every business man and miller will say there is no ring in regard to wheat. I have been ridiculed for saying that a ring exists. In 1922-’23 there were 686 millers operating in South Africa. I have been asked: “How can you suggest that all these men could come together and form a ring? Competition is much too keen amongst such a large crowd, and some would break faith.” But the fact is, 95 per cent. of the mills are country mills, and do not sell flour or wheat, they merely sell service. They grind your flour, and you pay for the service. Let us analyze the figures. Of the 686 mills, only six employ more than 100 hands, and only nine employ more than 51, whilst no less than 408 have less than four employees. This puts rather a different complexion on the matter. Therefore, I say the milling companies in this country are in the hands of about six large concerns, so that it is quite possible for a ring to be formed. I am informed—and I am prepared to believe it— that there is not a definite ring, but there certainly was an understanding for years past.

And there still is.

Many of us have approached the milling companies to buy our wheat, and have been told they are not buying. We then go to a broker and sell the wheat, and afterwards find when the consignment note is made out that the wheat has been sold to one of the very millers who refused to buy direct. If only one broker buys, the markets become stagnant. I have information on the subject from many sources that this is so, from farmers, storekeepers and co-operative societies. I have seen correspondence, and have asked to be allowed to bring it before this House, but I have been refused permission because the owner of the correspondence fears he might be boycotted by the millers in the future. Now this evidence shows what the position was; I do not say that position exists to-day. But let me give you a small extract from a report on the enquiry into the methods and costs of wheat-growing and milling published under the aegis of the Board of Trade and Industries in 1926. Report No. 67, page 15—

And further on we find that in going into the books of two largo milling concerns—

That was the evidence of the board. I am prepared to admit that some of the criticism we have levelled at the millers can possibly be explained away. I wish, in fairness, to say that the millers to-day are not making the profits they were a few years ago. I think they have seen the error of their ways, and are definitely trying to work with and help the farmers, and that they look at the position from the national point of view. I do not wish further to criticize them, and I say to the farmers: “Let bygones be bygones and cooperate with them.” They are using our wheat, and they are trying to help us. Therefore, let us put a united front against our enemy, low prices and depression. I do not wish to quarrel with anybody at a time like this. Let us work for the good of the farmers in this country. Here I wish to criticize the Bill for not going far enough. I can support the Bill, but I do not think it is strong enough. There is a serious omission in regard to the question of the prohibition of the importation of flour. Will the Minister contend that there is no connection between wheat and flour? The Minister says to the farmer: “I am stopping the importation of foreign wheat,” but he does not say he is stopping the importation of foreign flour, which will compete against the finished product of South African wheat. If a patriotic miller uses our wheat and they will take it up to help the farmers, and they find that speculators are flooding the country with foreign flour, you cannot expect these millers to continue to use our wheat if foreign flour can come in and undersell them. The hon. Minister has said that we have sufficient flour and wheat in the country to last until October. If that is so, why is there any necessity for flour to come in at all? Why cannot we restrict importation of flour as well as wheat?

The farmers and millers may be unreasonable, and this is in protection of the public.

I accuse the Government of hypocrisy.

I must call upon the hon. member to withdraw that word.

Well, then I withdraw it, and I am sorry I used that word. I will say that they are not quite as honest as they might have been about the matter. They are running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. They say to the farmers: “We are stopping the importation of wheat,” and then they rush round to the consumer and say: “Are we not splendid fellows? We are allowing flour to come in free, so as to keep the price of wheat down.” Is that not almost hypocrisy? It means this: that really in their hearts they know they are not really helping the farmer very much if they don’t prohibit imported flour. I say that you cannot hope to help the wheat farmers unless you restrict the importation of flour as well. The farmers will see through this, they are not fools, and if they do not, it will be forced upon us by economic conditions. I urge the Government to place restrictions on the importation of flour. The world stocks of wheat are increasing year by year. Speaking in millions of bushels, the figures for 1926 were 323; for 1927 they were 378; for 1928 they were 400; for 1929 they were 515; and they year they are 583. There has been an increase of the world’s wheat progressively ever since 1926. I see here in the “Corn Circular,” dated 27th January, 1930, that, for the first time since the war, Russian wheat is coming into the market and under-selling local wheat on the Baltic. This shows that there is a chance of the world being flooded with cheap wheat in the near future. If this happens, wheat and flour will fall heavily in price and speculators will import huge quantities of foreign flour into this country and undersell the flour made from our South African wheat. This must bring down the price of our local wheat, and this Bill, is it stands, cannot then help the farmers in any way. I always try and make constructive criticism, and here is now a concrete suggestion. I refer to a permit system. The Government know how much wheat we grow in South Africa, and also how much more is required to feed the people. Say we grow 75 per cent. of our requirements and have to import 25 per cent., then let the Government say to the millers: for every bag of imported wheat you buy you must buy three bags of South African wheat. Don’t force the miller to get a permit every time he wishes to import wheat because, by the time he has got his permit from Pretoria, he may have missed the market. Let him buy when and how he likes, but then at the end of the year the onus will be on him to show that he has bought at least three bags of our wheat for one of foreign wheat during the year. This leaves him free to buy in the cheapest market and at the same time ensures the farmers against not being able to sell their products. If the miller cannot show that he has taken up his full pro rata share of local wheat, he should be prosecuted. That is my suggestion. Then I think the imported wheat— that is the wheat required over and above what we produce—should come in duty free. This will help to bring down the price of bread to the consumer and, at the same time, the farmer will get a higher price for his wheat. The ratio should be fixed each year, based on our total production of wheat in South Africa. Is the Minister prepared to give up the duty on wheat that comes in free? It will mean about £250,000 less for his exchequer, but if he is sincere he will do so. It has been done in Germany and other countries. In Germany a miller can only import wheat in ratio to flour he exports. We have heard that wheat cannot be produced for less than 20s. to 25s. per bag, according to the views of the various experts who calculated the cost. The point is this: that when those estimates were made it was taken for granted that oats were saleable at from 8s. to 10s. per bag. I wish to point out that in certain areas you cannot grow F.A.Q. wheat continuously without rotating it with oats, so that the wheat price is bound up with the saleability of oats. Speaking of braak land —not virgin soil—the usual rotation is: wheat, oats and then fallow. So in six years you have two wheat crops, two oat crops and two fallow years. Now, supposing an attempt was made to restrict the output of oats and the farmer substituted a fallow in place of his oat crop, you would have in six seasons wheat, fallow, wheat, fallow, wheat fallow, viz., three crops and three fallows, but although only three crops were grown as opposed to four in the six years, it would be found that the wheat would deteriorate in quality and be much lower in yield. Added to this the farmer loses the whole crop in the six years. When fixing the cost of production of wheat, the saleability of oats must be kept in mind. A further feature of the situation is that the value of stubble land for grazing sheep is great, and must be put as a credit to grain and debit to sheep. Here again oat stubble is much safer and more valuable for lambing ewes than wheat stubble. The cost of sowing oats is less than that of wheat, for certain benefits are obtained from the previous wheat crop, to mention but a few. Oats are sown on the wheat stubble. This means that the farmer has not the cost of braaking like he has with wheat seeding. Again, to grow wheat successfully slow phosphatic fertilizers have to be used with the ordinary superphosphate to “push” the grain when in the ear. Bone dust is one of these. A considerable amount of this fertilizer remains in the ground, and if oats are sown after wheat—instead of the land lying fallow—full benefit is got from this. I could go more deeply into the matter, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House too much. The question of barley, whilst very serious for the farmer who has any on hand, as he simply can’t sell it, I am not so worried about it as to the future, for the simple reason that barley is not a rotation crop; it is grown on wheat land, and so if wheat can be sold at a profit, there is no necessity to grow more barley than is required for local consumption. The production of barley can, therefore, be restricted, but oats cannot be restricted to the same extent without lowering the quality of the wheat. The Government can also assist by placing a total embargo on imported oats, bar that required for seed purposes, and also an embargo on imported breakfast foods which take the place of locally made oatmeal. The Union’s total consumption of human food made from oats is approximately 5,000 tons of 2,400 lbs., per ton. The quantity of oats required to produce this would be approximately 10,000 tons of 2,000 lbs. each, or, in other words, 134,000 bags. The total crop for 1927, which can be taken as an average year, was 1,300,000 bags. This means that roughly only 10 per cent. is necessary for human foodstuffs, so we produce ten times more oats than are needed for human consumption. The manufacturing capacity in the country is four times that required, while the quality of our product is equal to the best. So it is, therefore, unnecessary to import any oatmeal at all. The carton in which the oats are packed costs more than the value of its contents, and we are faced with this extraordinary position that whilst the cartons imported empty for filling with South African oats milled by South Africans are taxed through the customs, 30 per cent. for printed cartons, and 20 per cent, unprinted cartons, these packages, if filled with overseas oats, come in free. Thus Quaker oats are taxed at 3s. per 100 lbs. on the weight of the contents, and this works out át 12 per cent. ad valorem on the contents of the package, the carton coming in free. The cost of packing the 5,000 tons of oatmeal in 2-lb. cartons amounts to £22,191. The duty payable on this packing material when filled by the overseas manufacturers is nil, but if this same packing material was imported by local manufacturers of oatmeal for filling with South African grown oats, the customs duty payable on the importation would amount to approximately £4,240. Here you have the local manufacture of cartons protected to the extent of 30 per cent., which has to be paid by the local users of cartons to put up our oats in, but overseas oatmeal can come in ready packed in the same container, the importer paying nothing for the packing material, and thus he competes against our locally-grown and manufactured oatmeal. I, therefore, suggest that a rebate be given to all bona fide users of cartons for this purpose, and that a complete embargo be placed on imported oat-meal. The secondary industries are protected up to 35 per cent. and over, but the primary industries, such as wheat-growing, receive only 20 per cent. protection. The primary industries are being sacrificed for the secondary. Every penny made by the grain farmer goes into circulation in this country. It is an economic fact that only the producer can in reality pay taxes. If he does not pay it directly he does so indirectly. Our two main producers are the mines and the farmers, and the latter are the only people who have to buy retail and sell wholesale. Wheat farmers are constantly being asked why they cannot produce cheaper, but one of the reasons for the high cost of production is the high cost of living, and that again is largely due to the heavy protection of secondary industries, while the primary industries are being neglected in the interests of the secondary. While the Government is prepared to go any length to support these secondary industries, they wait till the ship is on the rocks before assisting the primary ones. If the Bill will not go further, I shall support it, because half a loaf is better than none, but the Minister should consider restricting the importation of flour, otherwise the Bill will, in the long run, be of very little assistance to the wheat farmers.

I have heard this measure likened to Dora (the initials of the Defence of the Realm Act, introduced in Great Britain during the war to allow the authorities to do anything they pleased). The Bill now before us should be called the Defence of the Farmers and Millers Bill, as unless there are safeguards put in that have not yet been mentioned, the farmers and millers will, under its provisions, be able to do exactly what they like, and we can guess what that is likely to be when we hear the last speaker calling upon both sides of the House to combine and protect the farmers. The Minister of Finance has expressed the view that the consumers are amply protected, because the importation of flour is not prohibited, but he should remember that he proposes to increase the duty on flour to 4s. 4d. per 100 lbs., which amounts to 1d. per loaf of bread, and on such an essential commodity this is a very substantial protection. This Bill has been brought in owing to extraordinary circumstances, in that there have been very large importations of wheat in a year when we have had a record crop, and there is already sufficient wheat in the country for our requirements for a year. In these circumstances I am prepared to support the Bill provided it is for one year only, for, as the matter is of such public importance, I do not think it wise to retain it as a permanent enactment, but bring the subject before Parliament again if necessary. It is an opportune time for us to ask in the interests of the general public—and not only in the interests of the wheat farmer, who, after all, is but a small proportion of the farmers as a whole, whether we are justified in maintaining the price of wheat at an artificial level in order to assist an industry which can never, under the best conditions, supply our needs for good wheat at a fair price. Before deciding the question of giving further customs protection to the industry, the Minister consulted the Board of Trade, but the board shirked the main issue when it reported—

If it is not the duty of the Board of Trade to decide such an important question, then whose business is it? Apparently the Minister gives his own view and that of the Government in this Bill, and decided that the interests of the wheat growers should be paramount. I realize the difficulties of wheat growers who struggle against unfavourable climatic conditions and poor soil, and I desire to give them a fair return for their labour and the service they render the community, but, nevertheless, I hold that our present policy is neither in the interests of the farmers themselves or for the good of South Africa. I have always advocated the protection of infant industries, but wheat-growing is not an infant industry, and can never no matter how much protection it gets, supply all our needs. The Minister admits that South Africa cannot supply all the wheat we want, and it is startling to find that in a season of bountiful rains and record crops, the farmers’ production costs are so high that, even with the assistance of heavy protection, they cannot compete with other countries, and are actually going through a crisis. If it had been a bad season, or even a normal season, the position must have been very much more serious. The Minister frankly admitted the disadvantages under which our farmers are working as regards low rainfall and poor soil, and admitted the yield of wheat was low. He did not mention the figures, but I will tell the House what the records really are. The yield of wheat in Denmark is 43 bushels per acre, the highest in Europe, but this does not affect us, because we do not come into competition with Denmark. But we are in competition with Canada, which has a yield of 16 bushels, Australia with a yield of 11.6 bushels, Argentine with 10.9 bushels, whereas South Africa has the lowest yield of any part of the world, viz., only 8.7 bushels to the acre. In addition, South Africa spends far more on fertilizers than the other more favoured countries need to do. There may be differences of opinion as to whether we should attempt to grow wheat, but there can be no gainsaying the fact that Australia with all white labour can grow wheat, pay something like 10s. a sack for freight and duty, and still so successfully compete with the South African grower that the latter is now appealing for prohibition. Mr. Mills, chairman of the milling section of the Cope Town Chamber of Commerce, speaking at Paarl recently, stated that the problems which had confronted millers and farmers had been amicably solved, and they were optimistic as to the future from both points of view. This seemed like intelligent anticipation, for now we have this measure of prohibition, and we know there have been rumours of an unholy alliance between the millers and the farmers by which the farmers are expected to exert influence on the Government with regard to customs and other protection, and in return the millers will pay a higher price for local wheat. I was glad to hear the Minister repudiate the statement that the Government was a party to this pretty arrangement, but there is no doubt it was in the minds of the millers and the farmers. At any rate, the consumer will have to pay for dear bread whatever arrangement is made.

There has been no arrangement arrived at.

The effect will be the same.

That is right. We have all heard of the national importance of wheat-growing, so that in time of war, which we hope may never come again, we may be provided with food. But we have had experience of war conditions in South Africa, and it is worth while to recall it. In 1914, before the war, a 2-lb. loaf cost here less than 6d. In 1915, the second year of the war, it rose to 6½d., and in 1917-’18, the concluding years of the struggle, bread had gone up to 8d., so that it will be seen that after a four years’ war, the consumer of bread was not one whit worse off than he is to-day, when the price is still 8d. The present condition of the farmers proves that protection for their industry through the customs has failed to bolster up—to use the term of the Board of Trade—the wheat industry. What is the alternative to the present system? It seems to me that there are some parts of the country ever so much better suited to wheat culture than others, which, owing to meagre rainfall and poor soil, are quite uneconomical for wheat-growing, and there is a possibility with the prohibition now being put on importation, more unsuitable land will be put under wheat. I would like to suggest to the Government that it should consider the question of demarcating certain areas for growing wheat, where the soil is suitable and there is a regular rainfall, and for wheat grown in these areas a bounty should be given. That would certainly put some people out of the wheat-growing business, but, as a matter of fact, the wheat-growers are only a small proportion of the farming population. Then again, according to their own statements, these so-called wheat farms are not paying now, so the owners could not be much injured by being called upon to grow something more suitable. If traders or mechanics got into an unpayable business, they would receive very little sympathy and no assistance from the House, but, nevertheless, I think it would pay the country handsomely to assist these farmers to put their ground to some other purpose than wheat-growing. While this big question of the future of the industry is being considered we have the present and insistent problem of how to reduce the price of bread. If the Government is justified in prohibiting the importation of wheat, and thus giving a very big privilege to the millers and the farmers, it should certainly at the same time devise some safeguards to protect the consumer from the abuse of that privilege. The one bright spot in all this controversy is supposed to be that there is not going to be in increase in the price of bread, but I consider that the general public is entitled to be bitterly disappointed, because there is no decrease. We have it on record that when wheat was selling at 55s. a sack, bread was 8d. a loaf, and to-day, when the millers are only offering 19s. for wheat, and the farmers are anxious to get 22s. 6d., bread is still sold at 8d. The reduction of 6s. 8d. a sack in the price of wheat should be reflected in a penny reduction in the price of bread, yet here we have a reduction of at least 12s. 6d. a sack, and yet bread has not been reduced a fraction. The Millers’ Association, in a newspaper controversy with Mr. Gawith, of Pretoria, gave the whole game away, when, in a statement of what they called the “true facts,” they proved conclusively that there had been shameless profiteering in bread for years past. It may be contended that when the millers were paying 35s. for wheat that they were losing money, but the Board of Trade has already reported that at that time one of the biggest milling companies was paying 44 per cent, profit, and other concerns were very little below this. One would like to know what profits the millers are making to-day when they can get wheat at 22s. 6d., seeing that they had such huge profits when they paid 35s. a sack. The price of bread remained stationary at 8d. all the time, but if the millers would sell their flour at a proportionate price to what they are now offering for wheat, the price of bread could come down immediately to 6d. One little bone I want to pick with the farmers is that they want to have it both ways. When the markets of the world are high, they want to take advantage of them, and when the markets are low as at present, they want prohibition. In 1920 the world’s price of wheat was very high, but there was a good season in South Africa, and the farmers got 35s. for their wheat. They would have got more had there been any buyers other than the millers. A combination of millers and bakers then put the price of the 2-lb. loaf up to 13d. In 1922 the price of bread came back to 8d., and it has remained at that ever since, and to-day we are paying the highest price reached during the four years’ war. I would like to compare the price we pay for bread with what is paid elsewhere. We heard the other day that, owing to the very low price of wheat, a reduction has been made in the cost of bread in Great Britain, where the 2-lb. loaf is to-day 4d., although most of the wheat has to be carried from Australia, a distance of 13,000 miles. In Australia the price is 5½d., and in South Africa it is stated officially to be selling at 7½d., but we know the standard price is 8d. Some one has remarked that the Wage Act is responsible for our bread being so dear, but it was dear years before the Wage Act was thought of. The Minister of Agriculture, addressing a farmers’ gathering the other day, and the Minister must have made sure of his fact, assured the farmers that the Wage Act had only added one-twentieth of a penny per lb. to the cost of bread. The public is getting very good value for that small addition to the cost, for now bread is produced under hygienic conditions in strong contrast to the filthy methods employed by unsupervised natives in the past. The greatest factor in the price of bread is that while there are many small bakers who have to meet comparatively heavy overhead charges which keep up prices, there is really no competition in the business. The millers fix the price of wheat as they are the only buyers, they fix the price of flour and, through their own bakeries and those they control, they fix the price of bread. Now, it is proposed by prohibition to entrench them in that position. The people who in the whole arrangement are insufficiently considered are the fathers and mothers of large families, who have difficulty in making ends meet, and the larger the family is the more they pay in taxation, which is already a penny a loaf through customs dues alone. I cannot see how facts like these can longer be disregarded by a Government that prides itself upon being a people’s Government. To cope with the situation, I hope the Government will take into favourable consideration some of the propositions I intend to submit, In 1925 I tabled a motion in this House for the establishment of state mills to protect the farmers against the millers, and also asking the Government to fix the price of bread. The then Minister of Mines and Industries referred the matter to the Board of Trade, and I would like to draw the attention of hon. members and the Government to the recommendations of the board. In 1926 the board reported, and fould that it had great difficulty in arriving at definite conclusions in regard to the cost of baking owing to confusion of accounts, but it is obvious that the board thought that bread was being sold at too high a price. If the Board thought bread was too high, then when wheat was selling at 28s., there can be no doubt what their decision must be to-day, when wheat is 22s. 6d. The board recommended—

I would like to know if the Government endorsed that suggestion and appointed the board the watchdog for the public. If it did, then the board has been neglecting its duty in not barking. We have had plenty of publicity about the farmers’ plight through cheap wheat, but not a word about the cheaper bread which should be a natural consequence of cheap wheat. But there are other factors beside the price of wheat and flour which come into operation with regard to the price of bread, and, as other hon. members have said, the middleman plays a big part, The Minister of Finance has told the House it is not right to interfere with legitimate business, but the excessive price of bread is not legitimate business, it is downright robbery. During the war it was found necessary in Great Britain to introduce an instalment of state socialism, though to meet the objection of people who objected to the term “socialism,” it was called public necessity. It was found that when the Government took over the bakeries and ran them, tremendous benefits were realized for the people. Now we are in a time of peace, but it seems to me that even in peace the Government should regard cheap bread as a public necessity, and when the Government finds, as the Board of Trade points out is the case, that this essential industry is disorganized to the detriment of the public, then I claim it is the bounden duty of the Government to step in. The Board of Trade plainly tells the Government that by standing aloof they are putting a premium on inefficiency and uneconomic organization in the bakery industry. The board has expressed the opinion that—

On a point of order, the hon. member has been arguing now on the duty of the Government to deal with the price of bread. That has nothing to do with the Bill. Let us deal with the Bill.

You cannot dissociate the price of wheat from the price of bread. Another factor in the high price of bread is the high cost of delivery. The Board of Trade estimated that delivery cost 1d. a loaf, and it must be much more in areas where several firms are competing against each other away from their headquarters. With common sense methods in distribution, 1d. a loaf could be saved. Then there is the question of the credit system, which is also an important factor. I can tell the House of an instance where a baker approached a mining company and told the manager that he was delivering bread to many of the mine’s employees at 8d., but if the mine would guarantee the accounts, the price could be dropped to 6d. The manager replied that dealing in bread was not his business. There are but few isolated instances where the bakers offer inducements to the public to pay cash, and this point struck the Board of Trade, which recommended—

I would like to know what the Government is doing about this important aspect of the case. Further on in its report the Board of Trade shows that it is convinced radical changes are required in the baking industry.

The hon. member must speak to the motion.

With all submission I consider this is all germane to the subject. As I have said the Board of Trade condemns the methods of the bakers, and because the members of the Board are young and optimistic they innocently call upon the bakers to reorganize their businesses and reduce prices of bread. The report proceeds—

That report it should be remembered was written four years ago and the need for reorganization is far more necessary to-day. As there is a bargaining spirit abroad I think the Government should suggest to the millers, who really control the trade, that no further concessions or privileges should be given them until they put their house in order as recommended by the Board of Trade. Finally the Board of Trade suggested that bodies of consumers should start co-operative bakeries, which had been very successful in England, and in this connection one would like to know whether the Government is going to take any action in this matter and whether it will give the same assistance to co-operative bakeries as it does to co-operative farmers’ associations. In my opinion the quickest and easiest way for the Government to give relief to the bread consumer would be to fix the price of bread, which must be lower than it is to-day, and the bakers would then soon re-organize and adjust their conditions to suit the case. People who have not considered the matter may think a penny or twopence a loaf does not amount to much, but on the statement of our Director of Census, we are told that if the people of South Africa could buy their bread at the same rate as the people of Australia, and this is possible with the present price of wheat, then the people here would save no less than two-and-a-half million pounds per annum. The benefits of cheap bread would be felt not only be individuals, but would materially assist all classes of the community, the farmers, the miners and industrialists generally. The lower one is in the economic scale the bigger part does bread play in the daily menu, and dear bread is the first step in the vicious circle which increases the production costs in manufacture without really benefiting the men employed in the industry. Wage determinations have helped thousands of people but there are still thousands who are not affected by wage determinations and who are vainly looking to the House to give them relief in the shape of cheaper living. Even many men who are regularly employed are having a great struggle to make a living for themselves and their families. In the constituency from which I come wages are about the same as they were before the Great War, but the purchasing power of the sovereign now as compared with then is only about sixteen shillings, so that the real wages have been reduced about 20 per cent. In conclusion, I would suggest to the Minister that he should accept the suggestion of the Board of Trade to let it deal with the matter of bread, with power to fix prices in accord with the ruling price of wheat, and if he does this there must be a great drop in the price of bread, and the Minister will earn the gratitude of practically the whole country.

I only want to say a few words because all the arguments have already been used, and also because it seems that the whole House with a few exceptions is supporting the Bill. The hon. members for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) and Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) spoke at length and opposed the Bill. If I were to talk next week on trade unions they would laugh at me. It is just as ridiculous for them to pose as experts on wheat culture. The hon. member for Boksburg even told the farmers that they were to sow corn. It is ridiculous for hon. members to try and instruct our farmers. I said a few words with regard to wheat last year, and I said that the difficulties were so great that the time had come to consider how the importation of wheat can be stopped, and what could be done in connection with the prices and the millers. If we could eliminate the miller there would be no wheat problem. We negotiated with the millers in Lydenburg and we pointed out to them that we could deliver much better wheat than they imported, and we asked them to pay us the same price as they paid for the imported wheat. They, however, paid us 3/- to 4/- less. This was a very great grievance with us, and it is one felt throughout the whole country. Thereafter the conference took place. How presumptuous the millers were. They did not simply say that they had treated the farmers unfairly and that they would pay a little more, but they merely pointed a revolver at the Minister and said: “Increase the import duty by 10/- on flour and we will raise the price of wheat by 1/- or 2/-.” The Minister could give no heed to such an unreasonable proposal, and now we have this Bill before the House. The wheat farmers will be grateful for it to the Minister, and I am convinced that it will have a good effect although we shall only reap the benefit next year. We are still importing annually at least million bags of wheat, and it is right for the Government to try to remedy the shortage of wheat by supporting and encouraging the wheat farmers. They are encouraged to produce more, to make more use of the ground, etc. What is necessary is for the wheat farmers to know that they have a sympathetic Government which protects them against importation, against low prices, and also against the millers. Without doubt a ring exists, or, in any case, an understanding between the millers. They have one buyer who buys the wheat at fixed prices to the detriment of the farmers. We are grateful for the Minister’s intervention.

This Bill is such a new departure that I think it is a pity the Minister did not go deeper into the reasons which compelled him to bring this measure before the House. We are dealing with a staple of such importance that many an economist has advocated that wheat, and not gold, should be the stabilizing influence of the currencies of the world, because wheat is an article of universal daily use. It is used practically by the whole of the civilized world. We are now asked to do something which, to a large extent, is unprecedented in this country, at all events during normal times. That is to give the Government absolute power over the importation of this great staple. What has led up to it? I suppose we must make up our minds that legislation of this sort is to some extent inevitable. It is the result of causes in the past which are very deep-seated. I ask the Minister to consider if this measure is not, to a great extent, the result of what I may call lob-sided legislation in the past. That is to say, that legislation in the past has been directed to a large extent towards the interests of everyone rather than towards the interests of the primary producer. The Board of Trade, whose reports have been so freely quoted from this afternoon have laid down some of the chief reasons why wheat farmers are in this undesirable condition. They have pointed out that the farmers have had many drawbacks to contend against, such as irregularities of seasons the want of fertility in the soil and so on. The board have made certain recommendations to the Government, and they also issued a warning to the Government which they did not seem to take notice of. They say that the policy adopted is a significant departure from ordinary policy, but that is the very course the Government has adopted, and my complaint is that the Minister did not go deeply enough into the matter and explain to the House and to the country why he has taken this significant departure from ordinary policy. Farmers, it is generally admitted, cannot produce wheat at a profit regularly. We know that one of the reasons why they are not able to produce it at a profit is due to the fact that all their costs have gone up and are still going up. This has been the case for several years, but the prices obtained has not made a corresponding advance. Every farmer knows this. The farmers have got to meet increased expense in production, due largely to the increase of wages. I do not want my Labour friends to misunderstand me in this matter. You will understand that everything the farmer uses has gone up in price, chiefly due to advance in wages. I am not concerned for the moment whether it is right or wrong that wages should have been increased in the last few years, but everything the farmer uses is more expensive. If hon. members had been buying agricultural machinery they would know that the price has gone up from 200 to 300 per cent.

All imported duty free !

Wagons are not imported duty free. They are made in this country and their price has gone up. Harness is not imported. The ordinary expenses, masonry, carpentry and so on, buildings and machinery and those things generally, which enable the farmer to carry out his profession, have gone up enormously in price. I do not want this question to be side-tracked by arguments of whether it is right or wrong that wages should have gone up, or whether it was in the general interests of the country that artizans should be better paid. My complaint is that while the wages of the worker have been legislation for, no machinery has been brought into existence to ensure that the farmer shall get a better price for his produce than he did before his costs were advanced. As a matter of fact, the industrialists also are well protected by tariffs. The merchant too is in a better position than the farmer. He can buy from hand to mouth in times when a commercial crisis is anticipated. The farmer has to take the long view. Any farmer will agree that he has to look from 6 to 16 months ahead in all of his operations, and he is committed to a certain course of action a long time before that policy is brought to fruition. He is in a disadvantageous position. He is not protected by tariff, nor is it easy that he should be. His prices have gone up and he gets no corresponding advantage. Is it any wonder that the farmer is in this unfortunate position —he has to accept the price offered to him for his produce, and he has to pay the price that is demanded for his requirements. It will be seen that he is in a very disadvantageous position. The result is that we have to bring in this legislation, which no one can defend as a permanent piece of legislation, but as a temporary palliative to meet what the board of trade describe as a situation abnormal and artificial. It reminds one of people who have been recommended to take a tonic in the form of arsenic. They keep on taking it until presently they cannot do without it. They take increasing doses which eventually may prove fatal. If we go on in this way, legislating for one section of the community, the industrial or labour section, and leave the producer out of our reckoning we produce a state of affairs which have this day compelled the Minister to bring in this legislation. The cost of production has increased. The farmer has to pay more for everything, and the productivity of the land is not increasing. The board of trade called attention to it, to the unsatisfactory result that we have, as pointed out by the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) the lowest production of wheat per acre in the world. That production is not likely to be increased under present methods. We know that overhead costs are much the same whatever the yield per acre, and until the farmers can devise some means by which a greater production can be added per acre at approximately the same cost, there is not much hope of relieving him. We have the dearest bread in the world, but neither the farmer nor the consumer is getting a reasonable and just deal from the miller. This is borne out by figures given by the Board of Trade and Industries in their report dated 1926. The board states—

The average rate of profits earned by the four companies varied from 43 per cent. to 6.19 per cent., but the latter figure was due mainly to the fact that the quantity of wheat ground during 1923 was considerably below the average, while the comparatively small rate of profits appeared to be the result of heavy capitalization. We should be quite justified in rejecting the last figure and arriving at the conclusion that these milling companies are making an annual profit of 35 per cent. on their capital. I do not think it is right or just that a community should enable any body of persons dealing in articles of food to make such abnormal profits. The companies are in a strong position. One company has a reserve fund of £170,000, and a dividend equalization fund of £150,000, in addition to other funds, while another company has a machinery and rolling stock depreciation fund of £102,000. The board reports that the price of bread remained the same during the last few years, although flour and meal are from 2/- to 4/- less a bag than they were in 1925. We realize the essential function these millers fulfil and they have done it certainly at great profit to themselves, but the public have been very long-suffering. The taxable income of our farmers is only £51 per year on an average. The taxable income of public servants, the highest and the lowest, is about double that; of doctors, seven times, and of lawyers, so big I have not been able to get it. The Board of Trade point out that no crops of wheat can be obtained in the best districts without fertilizers, and they are artificial; they are temporary stimulants and enables a farmer to produce a crop, but do not add to the permanent fertility of the soil. The Board of Trade go out of their way, if it may be so described, in pointing out that the condition of the soil is getting worse, and more is being extracted every year than is being put back. They more than hint that unless the method of farming is changed radically, and something is put back into the soil to replace what is taken out—to a greater extent than at present—the conditions will become worse. There must be a better system of cattle farming. I would rather that the Minister used the elevators more for the wheat industry than is being done for the present. I do not see why the Government should not so arrange, if they cannot get companies to do it, to have a considerable quantity of wheat stored in the elevators both at the coast and in the country, in order to tide the country over a time of stress, and a season’s failure. It is necessary to have that reserve of food. Surely we can do as little without that reserve as we can do without a reserve of gold. We have either a famine or a feast, or we have the surplus we have at present.

We have not a surplus—just over 3,000,000 bags, and our requirements are just over 4,000,000.

Is it not in the report of December 4th, 1929.

If I may explain, of course, if the millers do not import more than is necessary, we won’t have a surplus. Normally we do not grow enough wheat for our requirements. This year our production is greater than in former years.

I take it that the hon. the Minister will not be at variance with me when I have explained myself fully. I was endeavouring to say that at the time this report was compiled and signed, there was a surplus of wheat in the country beyond the normal requirements, and the Board of Trade said that that was due to the country having a bumper crop and importers making a wrong guess as to requirements. I wish the Minister, in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture, would go into the matter of grain elevators, and see if they cannot be put to more profitable use. One use I suggest is that a portion of these elevators, in areas where wheat is grown, could be used to store wheat. Farmers could then get advances on that wheat. Furthermore, I believe that a good deal of our wheat is of indifferent quality. We know that any buyer will give the price of the lowest quality. The elevators could be used to grade and clean, and perhaps in some cases, to dry this wheat. Whether that is done by the Government, or with the assistance of the Government, or by a wheat pool, it is not for me to argue, but I suggest that that would be a means of stabilizing this important industry to a greater extent. With regard to the price of bread, surely it is not satisfactory to find that we are paying nearly double the price obtained in England, although that country, like South Africa, imports a great proportion of its bread stuffs. We know that when a cargo of wheat is put on the water it does not add very much to the expense whether it is taken 3,000 miles or 6,000, but there must be something wrong when there is such a large difference in the price of bread in England as compared with South Africa. This Bill at best is but a piece of temporary legislation. It is very regrettable, but the Minister will have to go more deeply into the whole structure of social legislation if this sort of thing is going to be perpetuated. He will have to devise some means by which the farmer will be relieved of some of his expenses. He will have to see that the requirements of the farmer are supplied to him more economically than is the case at present. And as the hon. Minister for Railways is here I think that he would be called into consultation too because no one understands better than he that it is the farmers who pay these rail charges on grain. I do not want at present to go into the reasons why the charges are so high but it is a matter of great importance which affects not only the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture, but also the Minister of Railways and Harbours. It is only necessary for hon. members to look into the report of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to see how badly off the farmers are at present.

I rise in the first place to thank the Minister and the House for the Bill which has been laid on the Table to-day. It contains the principle on which we are now practically all agreed. It seems to me the Bill has the unanimous approval of the House, except possibly the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) and some others. And the Bill rightly meets with general approval, because legislation of this kind has long been necessary, and I am very glad to see that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) heartily supports the Bill. Although there was a time that he could long since have introduced the Bill, I am glad that he supports it. The hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) is now also very enthusiastic about it. He even wants to go further and apply the Bill to imported flour. Not long ago the hon. member went with me on a deputation to the Minister of Finance, it was six months ago, and he argued strongly for a bonus, although I and others did not regard that as a desirable system. I must, however, say that I am very glad that these two hon. members, as well as the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) support the Bill, because I feel that this is a matter which should long since have formed the subject of legislation. The old free trade principles which the hon. Mr. J. W. Jagger always advocated now takes a back seat in this House, and I appreciate that it is understood to-day that the primary industry of the country must be protected, not only against unfair competition from abroad, but also against the actions of people in our own country. It has come out in the arguments used that the consumers do not get the benefit of the wheat farmers’ losses. That has become clear, and I confirm that within recent times 4s. to 5s. less has been paid for local wheat than for the imported article. Such a state of affairs compels any Government which has the interests of the country at heart to control the importation of wheat. More wheat is imported than is desirable, and the miller simply tells the farmer that he does not need his wheat. The farmer has no option but simply to keep it as long as the miller chooses. Strong action must be taken against such a state of affairs. I have always said that extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary legislation. We are now faced by extraordinary circumstances. The farmer, who is faced by a depression, has to bear all the burdens of it. Nothing is done for his produce, but the price of his requirements goes up. It is now-said in the papers that even prospects have come under the control of the wheat. If that is so, I say that the circumstances are extraordinary, and the Government must therefore take extraordinary measures. I am not so optimistic. I want to say at once that I am not so optimistic as to think that if this Bill is put on the statute book to-day it will meet all the requirements. I do not say that our friends will not again find a leak, but I say that if the millers succeed to find another leak, that we shall then have to have still stronger legislation. Our friends on the cross-benches talk so much about the price of grain, about the middle man and the consumer. There is in South Africa to-day a co-operative milling company whose affairs the Government of today has the fullest right of investigating at any time to know what is actually going on and whether the consumer is getting his proper share, and whether any robbery is taking place. In my opinion this alone is sufficient protection for the consumer. I am speaking here for wheat farmers, i.e., on behalf of people who have ploughed more than 4 million morgen of ground for wheat growing. When you go along the road and you see that one portion is taken up with other produce and one portion is lying fallow, then you see that the ground occupied by wheat culture is not less than three times 4 million morgen, i.e., 12 million morgen. Large capital has been invested in the business and very much more will be invested in the future. I am not one of those who thinks that wheat cannot be grown in our country. In 1918, when the prices were good and there was shortage, the farmers doubled their harvest.

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

When business was stopped at 6 o’clock I was trying to convince the House that that obsolete idea that wheat could not be successfully grown in South Africa was as old as the Hills of Scotland. The argument of those days was handed from generation to generation, and it found considerable acceptance with a certain section of the population, i.e., the argument about the cheap breakfast. It was a good story for the election, but all our industries did not start on that principle of “cheap breakfasts.” Our industries were created by the existing of primary industries. We have to-day our tobacco and leather production, and if those supporters of the "cheap breakfast” are consistent, they ought also to wear cheap boots. If we had adopted that principle there would have been no industries to-day on a sound paying basis. Apart from our present difficulties, the wheat industry since Van Riebeek’s time was overdone, and benefited nobody. If the industry was, in the first place, established for the benefit of that industry, then we can expect great developments. But since that time the industry has not been in the hands of the interested persons, of the wheat farmers, but in those of the middleman, who had no other point of view than the business standpoint. As long as he only made money it meant nothing to him whether the consumer or the producer made something out of it. The sooner this industry, therefore, is regarded, as in the case of other industries, from the point of view of the viability of the industry, the sooner will those people who thought of a “cheap breakfast” get their cheaper bread. I also want to point out for the information of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) that it must not be forgotten, especially in the south-western districts, that the wheat fields of the Western Province are not the back-veld of Cape Town. That was the case at the start of the Cape Province, and if particularly Cape Town does not co-operate very sympathetically with the wheat farmers of the Western Province, then the interests of Cape Town will suffer just as much as those of the wheat farmers themselves. I want again to congratulate the Government on the step they have taken. I think it is a very sound principle to put the wheat industry on a better basis, and I am firmly convinced that if this measure does not attain the object which we expect from it, that further effective measures will be taken by the Government. I have tried to explain that if I am convinced of one thing it is that if the wheat farmer can get a reasonable remuneration for his produce, which he is entitled to, then in a very short time more wheat will be grown in our country than what is consumed by the people of South Africa. This was proved in 1918, when there was a shortage of wheat, and there was every expectation of good prices. Production nearly doubled that year. Notwithstanding the great world production of last year the millers paid for our corn just as much as for the imported flour. The production of the world was 44 million bags above normal. But this year, in spite of the fact that there is an over-production in the world, a price is offered to the farmers far below that of the imported product. This is exclusively due to the fact that so much wheat is imported from overseas that there is more than sufficient at the moment to supply the demand until the next harvest. I hope this Bill will have the necessary effect and if not, I want to strongly recommend the Government to take more severe measures. I hope its effect will be that there will be a better understanding between the millers and the primary producer.

The wheat farmer member to-day is practically stating that he is an anti-protectionist, because he now feels the higher cost of production. The essence of the whole trouble is the economic issue, and nobody seems to have touched this side of it. The wheat farmers state now that the cost of production is so tremendously heavy that they cannot come out. My friend the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Major van der Byl) even says the bysaaier cannot come out. The only true solution is the economic one, which demands permanency as the only sound basis. We have to be generous—our troubles make us so. The Minister of Finance some years ago stated that, while he was sympathetic with the farmer, he had to issue a very grave warning. They did not like him for it, nor the Minister of Agriculture, and I admire them both for the warnings they have given to the farmers. The warning was to be careful with regard to sheep land prices, as they were approaching a dangerous level and there has been an all too rapid fall in wool prices. I thought I had lost the sympathy of the wheat farmer, but I find he is coming round. The wool farmers depend on the export market and so do the fruit farmers, also the maize and wattle farmers. They can still be my friends. I want to see all our primary industries on an economic basis; the only one that counts. Can the Minister of Finance pick out one section of the farming community and say “We will give you a helping hand.” He cannot do so economically. He may do it as a palliative, but that is of no use. If he picks out one section what is to happen to the others? How are we going to help people who depend on an export market? That is the economic question we have to face. I heard before leaving Port Elizabeth that at a conference round here the farmers kept talking about 19s., and the millers said “You are getting from 20s. to 21s.” The F.A.Q. Cape wheat is not up to F.A.Q. Australian. We heard a lot last year about the inability of the farmers to sell their wheat. I told a farmer I would make enquiries for him, and as a result of them I wired him “Send all you can at 22s. 6d,” the cost of Australian. What happened? He replied “No, I want 2s. more.” The millers said then that for equal quality they are prepared to pay an equal price, and I know that is correct. Wool has had a tremendous drop, from 53d. to 10d. The wheat drop is not so serious, and the wheat farmer is getting a comparatively high price because his wheat is sold in South Africa. You cannot help him very much further. If you do you bring about a very serious state of affairs. The intention of this Bill is to get the wheat farmer a better price, but if you force up the price of any primary article you are beginning to get your land on to a fictitious value, and the whole basis of your primary production is going to collapse. You cannot go on bolstering it up for ever. Roughly speaking he has to pay from 20 to 25 per cent. on his requirements to-day, even on his milk cans. I hope hon. members will not agree to start this wheat price on a wrong basis. In certain areas between the census of 1911 and 1921 the rural population decreased by 26 per cent. The remedy for this trouble lies not in bolstering up the farmer, but in helping him by placing him in a position to profit from his labours, and that is only possible by facing the hard economic issue. The Minister told us that the object of the Government was to ensure a market for South African wheat by enabling it to be offered at a price not exceeding the landed cost of the Australian wheat after duty and freight had been included. Put that in the Bill and the people’s anxiety will be greatly relieved. If the millers are unduly depressing the price of our farmers’ wheat I say it is wrong.

I listened this afternoon with very great pleasure and appreciation to the speches delivered by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) and the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin). I feel sure, whether hon. members appreciated those speeches or not, that the consumers will be very glad that these hon. gentlemen stood up for them. I think the public expected that their claims would have been put forward by the Opposition, but unfortunately the South African party at the present time is almost like a dead fowl. I saw a startling and striking cartoon this morning, according to which the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) appeared anxious to cut off the head of the South African party. It seems to me that whether the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has been attempting to do it or not, it is clear that the Cape Times is doing it most effectively. I do not know whether they have tried to cut off the head of the chicken or whether they have actually done it, but they have not done their duty in putting forward the case for the consumers. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) showed clearly that the Bill which is before the House has very important ramifications in view of the cost of living, especially abroad. I want to remind the House that at the present moment there are tens of thousands of people, mostly Afrikaans-speaking, who cannot buy any bread at all, but live on mealie-pap. It is the duty of the Government to see that the price of necessities of life should be brought down for the benefit of these people. The hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) made three points in order to brush that aside. I want to emphasize them. I think the country is entitled to know why it is that in Australia where the Wage Act is more stringent than it is here, where wages are higher, agricultural labourers are paid 10s. a day; my friends tell me sometimes 2s. an hour—why, in spite of those high wages, Australian farmers are able to compete, after paying freight from Australia to South Africa.

They have better land.

Very well. I want to ask the question: is it due in any measure to more efficient labour; that may have something to do with it.

What do you know about it ?

Secondly, is it due to the fact that these labourers—like my hon. friend opposite—are less efficient than the farmer in Austrlia? I do not think so. Or is it true that the land is better. If so, it becomes a question for investigation whether—if we can never compete with wheat producers elsewhere— to what extent are we entitled to tax people in order to maintain a small section of the population. If it is imperative to produce what wheat we can, then the most effective and practical method of helping the farmers would be to give them a bounty, so that the country might know exactly what it costs, and the whole community might bear the burden. On the other hand, the question was raised that the price of land has been such that in getting returns, the farmer must obtain a higher price than is possible, and therefore loses money. These are matters which should be investigated before a line of policy is adopted which may have advantages for farmers, but many disadvantages for the public. The Minister has recently given notice of an additional duty of 7d. per bag, and, I understand, he has now found that the additional imposition of that duty has not safeguarded the farmer. That is the very point we have been impressing on the Minister. I remember in 1926, when the Minister imposed an additional duty on wheat, I pointed out that that duty would not help the farmer, because he is dependent on the miller for prices for his flour. Therefore, whatever may be the duty imposed on imported wheat, the miller can say: “Though I pay 24s. 9d. or 26s. 9d. for the imported wheat, the South African farmer is not going to get that price,” and the result is the farmer is obliged to sell his wheat at a cheaper price. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. Speaker) knows something about this. In 1926 I suggested to the Minister that, instead of imposing a duty, he should prohibit importation of wheat subject to licences. I pointed out that mere control of wheat importation would not be sufficient, because the farmer would still have only one market—the miller. You cannot prohibit wheat importation indefinitely. The position is this: the South African farmer is ultimately forced to go to the miller, and ask what price he can give for his wheat despite importation; that is a matter of simple economics. This Bill would not help the farmer at all, but it would raise the price to the consumer. I submitted in 1926, and I submit to the Minister to-day in all seriousness, that if he is not prepared to accept the proposal of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) and the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin), who in 1926, submitted a resolution to this House on behalf of the then united Labour party, I submit that he seriously consider the suggestion I put to him then; that is, if you want to protect the farmer and the consumer, you should take the necessary powers to control the importation of wheat. Simultaneously with that, you must fix your price, guaranteeing the farmer a minimum price, so that he will have some security that he will obtain a reasonable price for the wheat he is producing. You should say to the miller: “I will not give you a licence to import wheat into Loath Africa unless and until you have taken up the wheat produced in South Africa at a price fixed upon by the Government.” You should say to the miller: “I shall control the importation of flour, and will only issue licences to import flour after you have used up all the flour manufactured in South Africa, and subject to a price which will give the miller a reasonable margin of profit, and not the undue profits of which we have heard to-day.” You should enable the baker to utilize the flour in a reasonable manner. You must go further, and say to the baker: “You are getting your flour, but we must fix the price for the bread.” When the price of wheat is brought down, the price of bread must not be higher than when wheat was more expensive than it is to-day. The Minister must seriously consider this. I claim that I am not putting forward any revolutionary ideas, so far as the Minister is concerned. I think in 1926 he regarded this suggestion of mine as something very terrible, but I notice that he is now carrying it out. After all, it is the thin end of the wedge. If he is against controlling the importation of any article, then I can quite understand him saying: “No, under no circumstances shall I go in for such a principle.” The Minister has accepted the principle and has embodied it in the Bill before the House. As regards the fixing of prices, he need not be afraid about that, because he has accepted the principle which we have been continually preaching, and because he has fixed the price so far as sugar is concerned. We are dealing with a principle which is a part of our legislation, and we should apply it in a practical method so as to protect the farmer as well as the consumer. I hope before this Bill goes through, the Minister will consider seriously the suggestion that the Bill as it stands is not going to help the farmers, and may seriously prejudice the consumer. Having accepted the principle of controlling importation and fixing the price, as in the case of sugar, I ask him to consider whether he should not go the whole hog and deal with the matter on the lines suggested.

The hon. member who has just sat down asks why Australia with its expensive labour and 8-hour day can produce cheaper wheat than South Africa can. He asks if it was because labour in South Africa is weaker than there. I will answer him. It is because the soil in Australia is much better than ours, and that the rainfall there is more regular. Here the soil is poor and there are droughs, etc. The hon. member made an insinuation that the farmer who grows wheat does not put the labour into it which can compete with the 8-hour labour in Australia. I merely want to invite him to come to my farm, or to any farm where wheat is grown, and at harvest time he will see that we do not work eight hours, but twelve to fifteen hours.

But the point is that you do not get for South African wheat what the miller pays for the same imported wheat.

I will come to that point. But on the first point the hon. member can be assured that our labour here is just as good, but I want to tell hon. members opposite, and I particularly want to ask a question of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McIlwraith), who says that this Bill has come from the heart, and not the brain of the Minister of Finance. I want to ask the hon. member’s brain if it is not necessary for us to produce enough wheat to feed our people, and whether we ought to import it. As a man of sense, the hon. member will, of course, say that we must produce ourselves. Bread is an indispensable commodity. We must produce it in the country, and hence this Bill has entered the brain of the Minister, because he wants to make certain that enough wheat will be produced to feed our people.

Will more wheat be produced if this Bill is passed ?

When the production of corn is made to pay, more will be produced than what can be consumed. In the past the price of wool was so high that the wheat lands were used for stock. Now that the price of wool has dropped, the farmer must produce wheat, and it is the duty of the Government to see that it is made to pay. The question is whether this result will be attained. Everybody will understand that the prices of grain must rise if the importation is stopped or restricted. I do not think myself that it will really happen. The millers stand together and they do not easily allow it to happen. In my parts the best grain is sold at only 19s. For most of the wheat only 16s. and 17s. is paid. The millers make what they like. Everything is in their hands. There the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is quite right. The bakeries also belong to them, and they decide the price of flour and of wheat. I thank the Minister of Finance for this Bill, but at the same time I feel that it will be of no use if the farmer does not fight his own battles. The farmers must erect co-operative mills, so that they can send their grain to the co-operative mill to be ground. Let the consumers in the large towns, on the other hand, also establish co-operative societies to buy the flour. They can also establish even co-operative bakeries. I do not agree with state mills, and state bakeries, and such like things. We hear here that we must go in for them. But I will agree to co-operative societies.

We will support it.

I am very glad to hear it. That is in a few words what we must do. In my area the farmers are very busy cooperating. That is the only way for them. The millers and the bakers will not have pity on them, and they must look after themselves by means of co-operation. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will assist to induce the farmer to move in that direction. If we do so we shall find that the Bill before the House will greatly assist the farmers.

I would like to congratulate the wheat farmers on having secured such a staunch ally as the Minister of Finance. That depressed section of farmers, the mealiegrowers, will also be coming to the Minister, and I hope when they do come they will find in him as good a friend as the wheat farmers have. It is an excellent thing that the Minister has realized at last that there are times when it is necessary to take a firm stand in the interests of primary producers, without raising the cost of living. He has indicated that he will, under no conditions whatever, allow the price of bread to be advanced in consequence of this Bill, and as long as the importation of flour is in no way restricted, the consumer of bread has no need to worry. That is so, but I am none the less at a loss to understand how the Bill will be of material assistance to wheat farmers. Within the last few months three new departures in legislation have taken place which tend to upset industries, which utilize wheat or its products. First, we have in the new Foods and Drugs Act the placing in the hands of local millers of an absolute monopoly in the use of bleached flour; secondly, we have a rise in the customs duties of 7d. a bag, and now we have this Bill. The effect of all these departures has been to upset those industries concerned in the utilization of wheat, or some of its bye-products, as their main article of raw material. I have received the following telegram from Durban—

How does the position affect the complaint in the telegram ?

I think the alarm comes about in this way. They are necessarily users of flour, and they draw their supplies sometimes from millers; and these interests are concerned to know whether their normal source of supply will be upset in consequence of the Bill.

What is your opinion about the matter?

I am going to ask the Minister to give me an assurance that their fears are unfounded. I confess I am not quite clear from the Minister’s remarks that these fears are of necessity unfounded.

They use imported flour—my Bill does not touch that.

They do not necessarily use imported flour only, but flour made from imported wheat. Another point I wish to refer to is the indication made by the Minister that he has already been pressed to include flour in the same category as wheat. I trust in the interests of the consumers he will prove himself to be the strong man in the Cabinet by resisting all such demands.

First of all I think everyone sympathises with the farmers in their plight, and I am therefore supporting the Bill because I think it will give a certain measure of relief, but I also think that on principle the Bill is unsound. There are certain occasions, however, when drastic steps are needed to afford protection of a special kind and this is one. One of my chief complaints is that the position has been known for six months past by the Government. A month ago a motion was tabled to increase the duty on wheat with the object of affording relief to the farmers, but no opportunity has been given to the House to discuss the motion. If it had been discussed a month ago it would have been pointed out that the increased duty would afford no immediate relief as the position was absolutely acute and relief was required to be given before the end of February. Everybody knows that contracts entered into oversea cannot be broken at once, and even although an extra duty was imposed it would not stop wheat on order coming into the country. Where I think we have very just cause of complaint is that the Government have shown not sufficient foresight in dealing with this position. They were fully aware of the position, as their own reports have stated, many months ago, and today we are faced with a piece of legislation which the Minister admittedly states is extraordinary. I think everyone will agree that it is so, but as I have said, one recognizes that in certain cases drastic steps must be taken. The Minister should have seriously considered whether he could not evolve some scheme of assistance which would have placed the wheat farmers in a permanent position of security so far as it is possible to do so. Many proposals have been made in the House, and even in the Board of Trade report certain recommendations have been made which, possibly with amplifications, would meet the necessity, and would avoid the very drastic need of the prohibition of the importation of wheat as is proposed in this Bill. One point must be remembered; the Minister is going to be faced with a very large loss of revenue in the way of customs duties. Has the Minister considered whether a scheme could not have been evolved on the basis of the permit system for the importation of wheat based on the consumption of the local article. It has been stated, very definitely that farmers are getting together with the object of forming a wheat pool for the purpose of stabilizing prices. I think it is a sound move and there is nothing to fear on that point. But what I think the House should consider is whether, having now introduced the principle of a permit system, thereby controlling strictly the amount of wheat which will be imported, you could not go further and allow the whole of that wheat to be imported free of duty, because the pool which the farmers propose to form, will be in the position to regulate and control their prices which will be regulated by the world’s market price, and they will thereby get a fair price. But if this is so and the farmer is protected then he will be in no way prejudiced if the balance of wheat required is admitted to this country free of duty, thereby helping to reduce the cost to the consumer, who also has to be considered. I must say it is a matter for regret, that the Board of Trade report, laid on the Table this afternoon, has not been studied by hon. members, because, I think, it contains some very valuable suggestions. I regret we were not given more time but I would ask the Minister whether he will consider the terms of that report and evolve a scheme that will put this problem on a permanently sound basis, so that the farmers will not be subjected to the troubles they have experienced during the last few months. With regard to the prices quoted by the Minister, I want to be clear whether those prices are for the last two years or the last two months.

More than the last two months; practically during the latter half of last year, and this year they have been considerably below the import prices.

I have a list of prices paid during the last three years in Cape Town for Australian and local wheat, and it is only within the last three or four months that there has been any serious difference.

That demolishes your whole case, which you have been trying to make.

I do not see how it does. The Minister stated that there had been grave differences between imported and local wheat prices during the last two years, but it is not correct it is only within the last three months that there has been any marked difference. Dealing with the points raised of prices oversea. According to the last bulletin issued by the census department, wheat in November was 45 per cent. dearer in South Africa than in the United Kingdom, 19 per cent. dearer than in Canada, 15 per cent. dearer than in New Zealand and 36 per cent. dearer than in Australia. When we come to bread we find that it is 65 per cent. dearer than in England, 13 per cent. than in New Zealand, 40 per cent. than in Australia. In October, 1929, bread was 2.31 pence per lb., in Britain; 3.89 pence in Canada; 3.38 pence in New Zealand and 2.73 pence in Australia. It does seem extraordinary that in a country like this, producing two-thirds of out wheat requirements, the prices of wheat and bread should be much higher than in countries which have to import practically the whole of their requirements. There is one point that I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to, and that is the question of contracts. I don’t know what warning will be given, and how far persons who have entered into contracts will be allowed to fulfil them. But it is very important that there should be no question of our business people being unable to carry out contracts entered into bona fide.

I hope the House will distinguish in this matter between the consideration of the interests of the wheat farmer and general criticism of the principles of this Bill. I do not suppose that anybody will do otherwise than praise a real effort to assist any branch of industry in this country, and when I criticize the principle upon which this Bill is based, I hope it will be understood that that is no deprecation of a well-concerted effort to assist the wheat farmer or anybody else. The Bill is admittedly one of an extraordinary character. It gives into the hands of the Minister the most arbitrary power for an indefinite time, and enables him to interfere with contracts, and drastically govern, interfere with and control and affect in any degree which he likes one of the industries upon which we all depend. The Minister has not attempted to say that this is other than an emergency measure. He enunciated as a canon of economics, to which I subscribe wholeheartedly, that the less interference you have with the working of trade the better. Why is it that this Bill is for an indefinite period? I think the reason is pretty obvious. It is because the Minister cannot foresee how long it will be necessary to keep this in effect to secure the purpose he has at heart. Again, I take it that he is not prepared to make this a measure which will be automatically repealed, unless re-introduced and passed, because similar conditions may recur. What is the intent of the Bill? As I understand it, the object of this Bill, leaving our flour and preventing the importation of wheat, is to put the screw upon the miller. The miller must have grist to keep his mill going, and if he cannot get it from overseas, he is going to buy in South Africa. That is the method by which the purchase of South African wheat is going to be compelled. That seems to me a very crude and arbitrary way of doing it. I appreciate that the leaving out of flour is not due to hypocrisy of anything of the sort as was suggested by the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl). I think the hon. member meant to say that the Minister was not carrying out wholeheartedly the principle for which he stands. I see he is intending to leave flour to come in, so that the consumer may be protected in the price of bread. Very good, but why should the screw be put upon the miller to purchase South African wheat regardless of its quality and of economic conditions? “It is an emergency measure," said the Minister, and on that only do I gather that he bases the Bill. Now is there an emergency? What are the facts? There is more wheat in South Africa than is necessary for present consumption, or for consumption for some little time to come, and the millers are largely full up with imported wheat, and are not buying sufficient quantities at sufficiently attractive prices of South African wheat. That is the position. It is due to the inherent superiority of imported wheat, and the necessity of supplying the demands of the bakers and of the consuming public by giving them imported rather than South African wheat. It is either that, or it is due to the fact that the millers have brought wheat forward to a great extent.

It may possibly have been neither.

What else is it due to? I cannot see any other cause to which it can be attributed. I think it would be as well to consider them both. If they bought forward it only shows that the millers were prudent in seeing that their supplies do not fall short, and if this Bill is to be constantly kept as a threat for the millers, I can see that it will very seriously impede over in maintaining their ordinary sources of supply. I can follow in that respect the fear of the correspondents who wrote to the hon. member for Durban. It may in the future very materially hamper ordinary importers of wheat in getting supplies they have been accustomed to get. That is a very serious thing to do. You are interrupting an ordinary course of trade. You are going to depend on a foreign source of supply, and to interfere with that is to do something which is injurious to our real interests, and is bound to injure the consumer by increasing the cost—the cost being either in price or in reduced quantity. The superabundance of wheat in the stocks of the millers may be due to their preference for foreign wheat. From what the Minister told us I think it is pretty clear that largely the millers are influenced by that consideration, and I understand that it is beyond dispute that no South African wheat can be used with advantage for the production of bread in South Africa, wholly and solely. It is necessary that other wheat should be introduced to some extent. It is also notorious that only the best grain of South African wheat is really fit to be put into the manufacture of bread, and the lower grades of South African wheat are still in the hands of the farmers. So that we are face to face with a very real problem. This is no case of emergency. Merchants from time to time will overbuy in anticipation that the world’s crop will be less than it eventually turns out to be, but would you call that a case of emergency and pass drastic legislation of this kind? I submit it is not a case of emergency, but of an ordinary recurrent business condition where we have had favourable crops in the world; where the supply for the time being exceeds the demand. That constantly recurs, and is not an emergency. I listened with great regret to what the Minister had to say with regard to file quality of our land in South Africa for wheat production, and the figures given by the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin)—which are generally known—go to show that you cannot produce wheat in South Africa on lands on equal competition with other wheat producers of the world. The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) asked if we would welcome the time when South Africa could produce all the wheat it needed. I answer in this way: I will welcome it when it can be produced with advantage to the rest of the country. If the crop is to be produced at a price which assists only the wheat farmers, I say no; but if the crop can be produced so that it is to the advantage of the whole country, that time cannot come too soon. Now what is the test as to whether a crop can be produced with advantage to the whole country? It is the same test which may be applied to the production of any commodity, that is, can it be produced and consumed without raising the cost of living and the cost of producing other commodities in the country. If it is only this, that we are perpetually chasing; when wages and subsidies and protective duties are merely chasing each other— like a dog chasing its own tail—your cost of living goes up, your wages are low; then the cost of conducting secondary industries goes up, and your export and competition with the world market is in jeopardy. It is because I fear this legislation has been launched with no consideration for these points that I say the plea that it is emergency legislation has not been made out. The measures for the relief of the wheat farmer should have been in charge of the Minister of Agriculture, not the Minister of Finance. If you can produce wheat here with profit to the whole country, then it is a matter of mere organization of markets and improvement of your production. The Minister of Agriculture who is bold enough when he is applying his cooperative remedies should have come and told us what is wrong with the marketing of South African products. Whether the farmers are wrong in their methods of production or whether they are wanting in business methods. If he had come forward and proposed a remedy, it would have been welcome. We are simply told this fact that the buyers in South Africa are willing to pay more for the imported product than for the local product. I gather that the millers have been making large plant, at any rate their business has not been an unprofitable one, and an enquiry should be conducted into this position by the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Trade to see whether better methods might be devised in the interests of those consumers and producers. But your emergency is not proved, and this panic legislation—it is not calculated —does not mean that other avenues of approach have been tried and failed. The real difficulty it seems to me lies in the organization of the wheat farmers, and their marketing arrangements, and to resort to this panic legislation is surely unjust. The difference in prices between the bread in this country and the bread in other parts of the world has been mentioned. I represent a most important industrial part of South Africa, and I think it is right to say that if you are doing something at great cost which is an advantage to one section of the population only, and you neglect the interests of the large industrial population—the real interests of South Africa are neglected. You are not legislating nationally, but sectionally, and disregarding the great mass of the people It must be remembered that anything given by way of duty or bounty is at the cost of someone. If you forego a portion of your revenue, that is at the cost of someone, and it is other people who are making up the deficiency for the customs duty on the imported wheat which will be sold owing to this legislation. This is in the form of a national subsidy—a compulsory contribution from every man, woman and child who uses wheat or flour if the cost of living is raised. In these particular interests it is said the cost of living will not be raised; that the extraordinary high price of bread in South Africa leaves a sufficiently wide margin for a 2s. increase on a sack of grain without necessitating a rise in the actual price of bread. The price of bread is very high indeed now, an instead of issuing measures which are calculated to leave matters in status quo I suggest the Government would do well to consider what measures it can introduce to bring down the cost of living and the cost of bread and rendering thereby the taxation on food considerably lower. I want to say a word in regard to the suggestion that the fixation of prices and the undertaking of state milling is a remedy which we should pursue. I rather gather that the hon. member for Troyville (Mr. Kentridge) would welcome not only the introduction of State milling, but also a guaranteed price for farmers, and I rather expect he would not mind the State taking over farming and the distribution of food, and when he has accomplished all that he would open his mouth wider and get the State to undertake the conduct of other industries. If I mistake not, the ultimate goal he has in view is the introduction of the Soviet system of the management of industries which has landed a formerly great country in overwhelming disaster, has decreased the output of every industry and reduced a large population to beggary and ruin. Long may it be before we launch out on such a disastrous path in South Africa. The path of State industry and the nationalization of the means of production and distribution and ultimately of exchange is not the path of progress. It is a movement. It is a lurch backwards and not a movement forwards. I say this resolution cannot be accepted as a type of legislation which this House can accept with anything but fear or grave qualms, and I doubt if it will give the relief to the farmers which it is designed to do.

I have listened to the Minister with great disappointment, because the wheat farmers are finding themselves in a position of great difficulty, and that position is due to causes which I fear are not purely local or purely temporary. They are due, I think, to world-wide causes; and those causes, if not permanent, are, at any rate, not going to pass off in a short space of time. The crux of the matter is contained in the figures read by the hon. member for Bredasdorp showing that the world’s visible supply of wheat rose from 323,000,000 bushels in 1925 to 583,000,000 bushels in 1930. I should have expected that the Minister would have devoted some portion of his speech to going into that aspect of the matter and indicating what measures the Government proposes to take with a view not merely to palliating for the time being the conditions now obtaining, but with a view to finding a permanent remedy for the plight of the wheat farmer. It has been said by members on the opposite side of the House that we are a party of no principles, but I cannot find any trace of principle or method in the way in which the Government has dealt with the question of the present price of wheat. When the present session opened, the hon. Minister proposed to raise the duty on imported wheat and to raise the duty on imported flour. The hon. Minister tells us today, about one month after the measure was announced, that it has failed, and that it has failed on account of lack of organization on the part of the farmers. The Minister must have known when he introduced that measure that the farmers are unorganized, and he should have realised that the raising of the duty on imported wheat and flour was not going to provide permanent relief for the wheat farmers. That measure has proved useless. Now we have this measure, which, in my opinion, is also going to prove useless. This is a stop-gap Bill. It appears to me as being the crudest and most ill-considered of all the extraordinary legislation put before the House this session from the other side. There are no details in it. The Act does not lay down conditions under which the Minister may exercise the power he asks for. He was silent himself as to those conditions. He told us that the local production of wheat this year was 3,082,000 bags of wheat or three-quarters of the country’s requirements. He did not tell us what proportion of the wheat was of good quality fit for making flour. I would ask him to deal with that aspect of the question in his reply. My information is that only 50 per cent. of our wheat crop this year can really be described as of good quality. Practically fifty per cent. is of inferior quality, and I am told that the millers are unable to use it for producing flour of good quality. The Minister says there is sufficient wheat to supply our requirements until October. I take it he indicates by that that he expects the whole of this crop of 3,000,000 odd bags of wheat to be used up before he will allow the importation of any wheat from abroad. It seems to me that eight months’ consumption pretty well exhausts the 3,000,000 bags referred to. The wheat which is of bad quality has therefore to be consumed before he will allow a bag of imported wheat to come in. If that is the intention, it will inflict the severest damage on the milling industry and also inflict harm upon the consuming public. If all of this low-grade wheat has to be used before any can be imported, then the consumer will have to be put off with inferior flour. Then the Minister drew attention to the disparity in price between Australian and South African wheat. He referred to the fact that 19s. had been paid for local wheat as against 24s. for imported wheat of the same quality. That disparity of 5s. may have existed at some particular period because one knows that the millers in this country had already bought their requirements, at one time were not anxious to make further purchases and, consequently, they offered a low price for the local wheat. The information I have is this, that in general, the disparity in price is nothing like 5s. It is about 2s. 6d. per bag. Then the difference of 2s. 6d. per bag can well be accounted for. I do not know whether the wheat farmers will admit it, but it is the contention of the millers that South African wheat, although of good quality, as a fact contains a higher percentage of moisture than Australian wheat of the same quality, probably on account of differences in climate. They make less flour or meal from South African wheat than from a corresponding amount of Australian wheat. Therefore, they cannot economically afford to pay the same price for South African wheat on that account. The difference in the moisture content results in a difference of about 1s. per bag against South African wheat in favour of Australian wheat. The Minister has not dealt with that aspect of the question. Further items also have to be deducted. The millers have to pay railage on South African wheat, which amounts to 9d. or 1s. a bag. Further the millers have to pay a buying commission on South African wheat amounting to 4d. a bag. Further they buy Australian wheat on 60 days terms from sight of documents in London, which gives the millers something under two months after receipt of the wheat before they have to pay for it. Two months interest on a bag of wheat represents about 5d., so we come to this result that if you want to make a fair comparison between the price of South African and imported wheat you must take 2s. 6d. per bag from the price of Australian wheat. A short while ago Australian wheat was quoted at 42s. 6d. a quarter which worked out at 22s. 10½d. per bag delivered at the mill in Cape Town. To make a fair comparison you would have a South African price of something over £1. I am told that a little while back when the price of Australian wheat was the equivalent of 24s. 6d. per bag, at the mill the price the millers were paying for South African wheat was 22s. This aspect of the matter the Minister should have brought to the notice of the House. The case for the Bill was completely given away by the Minister when he announced that there would be no limitation on the importation of flour because the price of flour would be a controlling influence on the price of wheat. The effect of that is that the Bill to all intents and purposes will be useless to the wheat farmers, because it will be impossible for the millers to pay more for South African wheat if they have to compete with imported flour coming in at present or lower prices. The millers cannot fix their prices at an arbitrary figure but always with reference to the price at which imported flour can be landed and they cannot go above that figure without danger of losing their trade. The result will be that the large importers of flour will benefit, the South African millers will be damaged, and I doubt very much whether our farmers will benefit to the extent of a single bag. A measure of this sort is useless unless the farmers are organized, and the Minister indicated that when he said that an increase in the duty did not improve the position of the farmer. Want of organization is really the crux of the plight in which the wheat farmer finds himself to-day. Their lack of organization hits them in this way— they have no storage for their wheat, and they have in consequence to sell it out of hand as they cannot keep it on their farms where it is liable to deteriorate on account of damp and vermin; and in addition they have no organized system for getting credit on their wheat. Consequently they have to sell. This measure, however, will not enable them to hold on to their stocks, for they are still without storage or credit facilities. They will still be obliged to sell in order to avoid deterioration of their wheat and to pay their bills. I would support the Bill if I thought it would do any good to the farmer, but in my opinion it will not. It will interfere with the business of the millers and particularly the millers in Durban, where bread is very largely made from imported wheat. If the Durban millers are forced to buy South African wheat they will have to pay railage upon it and consequently their wheat will cost them more. I wish to refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) that the millers bought only through one agent. That statement has been made repeatedly but it is a figment of somebody’s imagination. There is a dealer in the Western Province who makes contracts with the millers, and the evidence quoted by the hon. member for Benoni does not prove that he is the millers’ sale buying agent, but merely indicates that the millers have made contracts with him and that he buys from farmers in order to fulfil those contracts. That appears to be the position from the report of the Board of Trade and Industries in which it is stated—

It is therefore idle for wheat farmers to make these complaints that the millers have made a ring and only buy through one agent. If they want to eliminate this middleman they must co-operate and arrange to deal direct with the miller, which they can do. They held a congress some few days ago, and passed resolutions favouring co-operation and the formation of a “wheat-pool”. Those resolutions were all to the good, and I hope they will be put into effect and, if they are, I am sure that the position of the wheat farmer will be much improved. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) said that the South African party did not champion the cause of the consumer. I do not think there is any necessity to do so to-night, because this Bill is not going to be detrimental to the consumer in any way. If I thought the consumer was likely to be affected, I would be the first to say so. I am not one of those who consider that there is any essential conflict between the interests of the farmer on the one side, and the consumer on the other. In my opinion, the Minister could have dealt with the position on permanent lines, which would have been more satisfactory than this Bill, both to the farmer and to the consumer. It seems to me that although the Minister proposes to adopt the permit system, he has not thought out its implications. A permit system could be workable if it was accompanied by co-operation on the part of the farmers, and the formation of a “wheat-pool,” and would work to the advantage of the wheat farmer without prejudicing the consumer, if there was a system of the fixing of prices. I do not mean the fixation of prices by law, which, to my mind, is impracticable. There should be an organization of millers on the one side, and farmers on the other, upon which the interests of the consumers should also be represented. This organized body would fix the price of local wheat from time to time at a definite mean above world prices, so as to allow for the necessary protection to the wheat farmer. Then there should be a remission of the duty on such wheat as is allowed to be imported. In this way the consumer would get a square deal because flour could be produced more cheaply than under the present scale of duty. That is a scheme that might have been investigated. Then we know that in certain countries, Germany for instance, it is provided by law that the millers must use a certain proportion of home-grown wheat. I should have thought that before putting before the House a stop-gap measure like this, the Minister might have explored the possibilities in that direction; if they were impossible, he might have told the House why. I cannot help thinking that the Minister has been forced to put this measure before the House against his better judgment. We have heard him praised for the soundness of his principles in administering the finances of the country, but now that it seems to me we have reached times of difficulty and everything is not fine weather and fair sailing, these principles of his are being thrown overboard, and he is trying to meet the situation, not on sound business principles or with clearly thought-out measures, but by opportunism. As the Bill will not in my opinion do any good to the wheat farmer I cannot support it.

While listening to the speeches of hon. members opposite the thought crossed my mind, what would have been the attitude of these hon. members if it had been the sugar planters of Natal instead of the wheat farmers? The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) has shown that the Board of Trade and Industries regard the prices of bread as unduly high. If this Bill is for the greatest good of the greatest number, I can give it my support, if accompanied by the limitation of prices or profits I think it would be to the good of the country. I think our whole fiscal policy with regard to wheat and flour tends to foster the milling industry at the expense of the rest of the community. This, sir, is owing to the impression that we are building up a great industry to provide employment. An hon. member of the other side has shown how few employees are employed in that industry. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has been very elaborate with regard to increased wages having been the cause of the increased price of production. On the other hand are we not faced with this, that real wages have not increased but decreased? I think that the idea of an increase of wages adding to the cost has been exploded by the Board of Trade and Industries. The Minister of Agriculture gave the increased cost per loaf due to higher wages as 1-10th of a penny per loaf. We have been told that from one sack of wheat costing 19s. 100 two pound loaves can be baked, which, at 8d. bring in a return of £3 6s. 8d., allowing £2 6s. 8d. for the intermediate process between the price paid to the producer and the price paid by the consumer. If we reduce the price of the prime necessities of life there will be a lesser demand for higher wages, and the cycle of the wheel will revolve in the opposite direction. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to guard carefully the interests of the consumer by limiting the price of bread and flour in conjunction with the protection offered to the producer.

I am just wondering how the public outside this House can have an opportunity of reading this Bill. Because of this I will read the first clause [Clause read.] The Minister of Finance comes forward asking for these enormous powers. I think the proper course would have been for some hon. member to have moved the discharge of the order for second reading, and for the reference of the matter to a select committee.

Do it now.

It is no use doing it now. Hon. members have committed themselves. These powers are asked for an unlimited time, and the Minister can make any regulations he likes to carry them out. Would any Minister come into the House and ask for such powers but for the fact that he has such an enormous support behind him ?

Hear, hear.

I am glad the Minister is honest enough to admit that what I am saying is correct. Take the hon. members who are behind the Minister. How many of them represent towns? I would like to commend to the careful consideration of hon. members the speech we have heard from the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard). A more destructive speech could not have been delivered against any Bill. It was a well-reasoned speech, and I, like the hon. member, would ask if we start with wheat where we are going to end. The Minister is laying up a source of trouble for himself. Next year he will be told that he asked for autocratic powers in relation to wheat, and he will be asked to apply them to something else. This is only the beginning of this class of legislation. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamim) gave us the lowest and the highest figures wheat has reached, but despite those figures, what chance is there of the consumer getting his loaf of bread, even for 7d.? Whilst there has been an increase in the crop of wheat throughout the world, I suppose there has been an increase of population, and therefore more mouths to feed. One almost hesitates to forecast what regulations will be issued for the purpose of carrying out this particular Bill. It is said that the idea of this Bill is to enable the Minister to force up the price of wheat, and then the question arises, who will pay for the increased price? Somebody must pay for it. It has been said the millers will pay. What sort of a combination the millers must have if there is any likelihood of their having to pay? This extra outlay plus the profit thereon will undoubtedly be passed on to the consumer, who in the long run has to pay. The Minister has been very lucky; money has been flowing into his coffers but the warning—only much too late—has been given out by the Prime Minister as to the future increased cost of living. Where you put a tax on wheat or anything else, it is the consumer who pays. I have been told the farmer is the backbone of the country, and I will do all within reason to help him, but we have been told that this Bill is not going to help him.

I think the debate on this Bill has shown that we are on the right lines. A good deal of extraneous matter has been introduced into the debate but there has been no serious criticism so far as the object in view is concerned. A few hon. members—one at least—think the Bill is crude and will serve no useful purpose. Fortunately, that is not the opinion of those on both sides of the House who are more entitled to speak on this question. That hon. member started by showing wonderful solicitude for the farmers, but as he proceeded the whole burden of his speech was in defence of the milling interests and I quite understand his view. Another hon. member has said this is panic legislation. He told us there was no enquiry and that the whole wheat position had not received the full consideration of the Government. I began this afternoon by pointing out that the subject has been carefully examined by two courts of the Board of Industries and the results of those investigations should be carefully borne in mind. But while this hon. member characterized this legislation as panicky, and introduced without adequate enquiry and consideration, other hon. members told us that the measure was long overdue; that they had warned me long ago that steps should be taken to alleviate the position of the wheat farmers. Well, I think there was no ground for that; it was simply a party score. Another hon. member informed the House that representations of wheat farmers had been made at the end of last Session on the wheat position at that time. I told them that it was quite impossible to take action during that Session, but I also informed them that the whole position was carefully gone into two years ago. On the first day of this Session I introduced a motion to deal with that position. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) demolished his own case by stating that the position we are seeking to remedy had only arisen a few months ago. Now this Bill never purported to deal with the whole wheat position, it does not presume to be a panacea for the whole of the ills of the wheat farmers. The Board of Trade has reported that one of the causes of depression is that our land is poor and the cost of production must be brought down by improved methods. Hon. members have compared costs of Australian and South African wheat but there is no comparison in the quality of the wheat lands in the two countries. We know that the wheat farmers are suffering from poor land and low productivity, but by research work we have been trying to ascertain what can be done to increase productivity. The other trouble is lack of co-operation between wheat farmers in marketing. Well, this has been preached constantly.

Won’t this legislation stop them co-operating ?

Now, this legislation does not attempt to deal with the position of the wheat farmer as a whole. It deals with only one phase of the wheat question. But during the last few months the prices offered by the millers have been considerably lower. The question of the price of wheat has been constantly introduced into this debate I do not think it has much to do with the Bill, but the very members who raised this issue are those who urged bringing down the price of bread. I think we should have as little Government interference with industry as possible. I do not seek these extensive powers because I wish to be a Mussolini. I hope the passage of this Bill will lead to the farmers and millers settling their own difficulties. The position is such that it is absolutely necessary if we want to improve the position that similar powers must be asked for. Another ground of criticism has been that this Bill has had the effect of raising the price of bread. I think hon. members who have spoken have effectually disposed of that. We do not touch the flour position. Flour always has been the controlling factor so far as the price of bread is concerned, and through not interfering with flour there is no reason for any increase in the price of bread.

You hold on to that.

Hon. members on the other side of the House have urged me to include flour. I have not done so because I think it is the duty of the Government not only to protect the interests of the primary producers, but also the interests of the consumer. That we have been doing by the steps we have taken here. I do not think it is necessary to interfere more than is necessary But if you do not succeed by those steps I shall have no hesitation in coming to this House and asking this House to take further steps. From the speeches made by hon. members I am sure that Parliament will not hesitate, if this legislation does not have the desired effect, in going further.

That will put up the price to the consumer.

No, not necessarily, because the Government will be entrusted with the duty of regulating the importations, and naturally the Government can remove the embargo or restriction as soon as the condition comes about which necessitates the removal of that embargo because the price of bread is being raised. We have to deal with it in that way. I am sorry that some hon. members during the debate, and the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) made a statement that we have not been mindful of the interests of our primary producers; that while we have been prepared to protect the secondary industries we have not protected the interests of the primary producer. I do not think there is any ground for such a statement. There is not a single product which is not adequately protected, and if the protection is not adequate the Government is prepared to consider it. The hon. member knows that I have laid down repeatedly that where there is a conflict of interest between the secondary industry and the primary producer, the interests of the primary producer come first. That is a policy we have always carried out. Of course, I think there is a limit to the protection which can be given both for the secondary industries and the primary producer, and I do not think that the hon. member will be doing the primary producers a good service by insisting on a measure of protection which would jeopardize that good feeling which exists today between the secondary industries and the primary producers in this country. I do not think the statement is warranted that we have not been mindful in the past of the interests of the primary producers. I have been urged to make this a temporary measure, but hon. members will see that now having had the experience of the position which obtains in the wheat industry, it is possible for the miller to depress prices if the Government is not armed with these powers. It has been proved that this continuous threat of importation hanging over the heads of the farmers and the millers has had the effect of the miller telling the farmer “I shall import my wheat” and that has succeeded in depressing the price to the farmer. Consequently, it will be possible for the same position to arise later on, and I think it is advisable that the Government should be armed with these powers to use when the occasion arises. The question of the prices that have been offered has also been raised by certain hon. members. I wish to give the House the facts as disclosed in a report which the Board of Trade has furnished me with as far as the prices which have been ruling during the last few months, of wheat, are concerned. From this you will see that it is an undoubted fact that there always has been a considerable discrepancy between the prices obtained in this country and the price at which similar wheat can be imported. I find that the price offered for wheat at Malmesbury ranges from 20s. to 20s. 6d. per bag. A higher price was paid during the season. The highest price was only 21s. 6d. The same figures apply to Maraisburg. In Caledon the price ranged from 20s. 3d. to 20s. 6d. We have this remarkable fact that during negotiations between the millers and the farmers the millers were prepared to offer the farmers 22s. 6d., provided the farmers were prepared to bring pressure to bear upon the Government to increase the price of wheat. I turned down that request. I would not be a party to such a bargain. That is the fact. That is conclusive evidence that the millers under conditions prevailing can afferd to pay a better price to the farmers than is offering to-day. On those figures there is a difference of over 2s. per bag between the price they were prepared to offer under those conditions and the price to-day. [Interruption.] At the conference held in Cape Town the millers told the farmers that they would be prepared to pay a maximum price of 22s. 6d. a bag for wheat if the farmers would get the Government to increase the duty on flour. I naturally turned it down at once. I think the question of reducing or taking the duty off wheat has been urged in this debate. I do not think it crops up for consideration now. I would point out this fact. Although there has been a discrepancy between the price of wheat which rules to-day and which ruled some years ago, of 10s. per bag, the price of bread has not come down. It is very doubtful if I reduce this duty or take it off whether the price of bread will come down. Some members have advocated various methods for improving the wheat industry, further control, stricter control—I have already dealt with those points. I can only say that the whole question of the wheat industry has no relation to this Bill. We are attempting in this Bill to ensure to the farmer that he will get a price similar to that for the wheat imported from Australia. I think we shall achieve our end without increasing the price to the consumer.

What guarantee have you?

This Bill does not affect the position at all. I do not see why the price of bread should be increased. There is no reason why the price should come down for the price of wheat may be very much lower than what it is to-day.

The miller may recoup himself by increasing the price of flour.

If he starts importing flour, he will ruin his own milling business, and if such steps are taken, it will be for Parliament to deal further with the question. The debate has shown that the Bill has the support of most hon. members. There has been very little serious criticism of the main objects of the Bill, and if hon. members who are against the principle will challenge a division, the country will know who they are.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee to-morrow.

I move—

I trust, Mr. Chairman, I will have your sympathy when I ask the Minister to accept this motion.

No. There is too much work to do.

Seeing the Prime Minister cannot even have the courtesy to listen to my reasons before giving a reply, I will not give any reason, but will move that progress be reported.

It is all very well for Ministers who have hardly been in the House since the wheat debate started to object to the House adjourning, but some of us have been sitting here all day. Human nature, being what it is, and as we are getting older and older, we are tired, and we cannot put through good legislation after a long and exhausting day. I hope my appeal will have some weight.

I hope the Prime Minister will listen to the appeal. This is a very important measure, and I am sure the Prime Minister does not want to take any undue advantage of the position. It is almost impossible at this late hour to give proper consideration to this measure. I think the Prime Minister will realize that assuming we continue to sit and discuss this clause, very little result is to be gained, should we sit another ten or fifteen minutes. We are now committed to the position that the present law will come into force on the 1st of May, and surely the position is not to be prejudiced whether we pass an additional two lines tonight or to-morrow.

I wish to add my appeal too. If the Prime Minister had given us any real reason why at this late hour we should have proceeded with this Bill, it might be a different matter, but without a word of reason he turns it down. We have been sitting here since two o’clock, and this is not the time to start with this. The House is weary. The Minister of Finance has treated us with courtesy, but we are not prepared to listen when we are treated cavalierly. I think in common courtesy the Minister ought to reconsider this.

I want to voice my protest against the Prime Minister interjecting that he was not prepared to accept the motion, without hearing the reasons, probably very sound ones, which caused the hon. member to suggest that the motion should be accepted. There is no question about it that on the principles of this Bill the Minister receives the support of ninety per cent. of the members of this House. The principle of the Bill has been accepted, the important clause has also been accepted, and the provisions of the measure are practically already in effect. Now we are asked to consider the remaining clauses at the end of a long and tedious day occupied in considering the question of wheat control. The Wheat Control Bill has been accepted. Quite a number of representatives of urban constituencies might have had a good deal to say on that Bill. Quite a number of us could have spoken for forty minutes. There were a number of things I could have said, but out of consideration for this House and for the Minister, I refrained from putting forward a number of earnest enquiries I might have made of the Minister. I refrained in order that the Minister might have an opportunity of carrying the second reading of this Bill before the House adjourned. One would have thought that that consideration would have been recognised, and that the Prime Minister would have welcomed the suggestion of an adjournment now. Consideration of Clause 2 of this Bill is not going to carry it one stage further. The Prime Minister would have been well advised had he allowed free play to his natural courtesy. There is no more courteous man in South Africa than the Prime Minister. That I have on the assurance of “Die Burger” and also the “Cape Times.” My own personal association with the Prime Minister is such that I am sure he will yet agree to an adjournment. I am told the hon. the Prime Minister has gone out. Whoever happens to be deputising for the Prime Minister—I am told the Minister of the Interior is here. I would like to appeal to him and I am sure he would not overlook an appeal based on reasonable grounds. He has sat through a long day, and it is not, in the interests of good Government to try to force this committee by refusing to entertain a vote of adjournment. I know at least three hon. members who will, so soon as I resume my seat, immediately address you with arguments more cogent and pertinent than mine which I am sure will receive recognition from the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister to allow this motion to report progress to be accepted without any objection.

As one of the eleven— shall I say fortunate—members who oppose the Bill I appeal to the Minister to accept the motion. We have sat all day, and, what is more, have to meet again to-morrow, and sit another whole day. What is the hurry? The Clause will surely not pass in a few minutes, because we shall take a long time over Clause 2.

Now you are wasting time.

We are told to do it by the Minister.

I am surprised at the Minister of Finance. He has introduced the Bill of a fairly drastic nature and we have given him every support. The Minister will admit that we have honestly supported him to assist the Bill to get through the second reading today. Although we foresaw difficulties we assisted him, and this is the thanks for our assistance.

I thank you for that assistance, but it has nothing to do with this matter.

We have always given assistance, and as the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Buirski) has shown, we have another session at 10.30 a.m. to-morrow. We ask for the adjournment most politely so that we can get home at a reasonable time. That is not the way in which the Government treats a responsible Opposition.

I have been in this building: since nine o’clock this morning attending select committees, and we have to prepare for tomorrow. When an appeal is made for an adjournment at 10.30 o’clock, I think it might be granted. I do not want to say the Prime Minister is unreasonable. He is far too much of a gentleman to be unreasonable, but he is over-anxious to push on the work of the House. We have been suffering from long speeches of 40 minutes’ duration, and I think any Minister, having regard to what he has suffered in listening to these speeches, should pay some-attention to an appeal for an adjournment at 10.30 o’clock.

Business interrupted by the Deputy-Chairman at 10.55 p.m.