I move—

I do not think that any hon. member will doubt the seriousness and importance of the motion. There is, I venture to say, no phase of our national activities and of our social and economic development, or of our wage determinations which is not affected by this question of the cost of living, and there is no phase of it that does not intimately affect the wellbeing and interest of every section of the community and of every individual in that community. It is therefore in no party sense that I bring forward the motion, and ask the Government to accept it, because I recognize that if we are to achieve anything in determining which are the factors determining the cost of living, and to arrive at any solution or achieve anything, it will require the assistance and support of all sections of the community irrespective of any party at all. Many enquiries have been conducted on this question, and I think every country has, at some time or another, conducted investigations, but from one particular angle, which is entirely different from the one I wish to put forward. In 1905 Mr. Aitken in Johannesburg read a paper on this question to the British Association, and in 1906-’08 the Transvaal Indigency Commission held a very exhaustive enquiry; in 1914 an economic commission was appointed, and the Railway Department held an investigation; as late as 1925 the report of the Cost of Living Committee, which was appointed by this House, was received; but without exception all these reports and investigations were held with a view to determining what was the cost of living and of commodities at the time the investigations took place. None was held into the primary cause to ascertain what were the factors governing the cost of living, and therefore this motion approaches it from an entirely different angle. The commission, if established, will prove of the utmost value to the country. I think it is necessary for me to give certain statistics in support of the terms of the motion, that there has been no fall or decrease in the cost of living over a period of years. I propose to quote briefly statistics for the years 1923 to 1929, and I am taking the year 1923 as a basis because that was the year when the abnormal deflation of the post war period may be said to have finished. The year 1923 may be said to be really the first normal year after that period. The figures I have taken are from the customs year book and are in respect of the nine principal towns of the Union. On the basis of the year 1910 and with an index number of 1,000, the retail prices for fuel, food, light and rent were 1,309 in 1923, in 1929, 1,336, and the average for the seven years was 1,334. There is therefore an increase of slightly over 2 per cent. over 1923. But if I take the index figures for food only on the same basis I find that in 1923 the index figure was 1,344, and in 1929, 1,323, showing a decrease of approximately one and a half per cent. below the 1923 level. The purchasing power of the sovereign reflects the same position. In 1923 it was 15s. 3d., in 1929 it was 15s., and the average for the seven years was also 15s. I think it is necessary that in order to get as wide a view as possible of this subject comparison should be made with oversea conditions, but I want to make those comparisons with countries which have conditions very similar to our own, and I want to be perfectly clear that these are not to be taken as an absolute comparison, but that they are merely indicative of the conditions which exist in other countries with very similar conditions to our own. The international comparison of cost of food, fuel, light and rent shows that in 1923 the South African index was 13 per cent. more, and that in 1928 it was 17 per cent. more than Australia. In 1923 the South African index was 34 per cent. more, and in 1928 46 per cent. more than the United Kingdom. With regard to Canada, we were 3 per cent. dearer than Canada in 1923, and now we are 1 per cent. dearer. With regard to New Zealand we were 25 per cent. dearer in 1923, and now we are 9 per cent. The international comparison for the same items show an increase in South Africa of nearly 1 per cent. in 1928 over 1923. It is quite evident from those figures that there has been no improvement in the cost of living conditions so far as South Africa is concerned. We have passed through a cycle of great prosperity which has been reflected in an affluent state of the exchequer. We have had a vast increase in the output of our industries. We have had an enormous increase in the output of our agricultural products, synonymous with a fall in world prices. That output has been far in excess of our power of absorption, and yet during that period there has been no fall worth speaking of in the price to the consumer. There are, I think, in South Africa several very disquieting features. In times of drought you find that the prices stiffen so far as the consumer is concerned, but the prices do not stiffen always to the same extent to the producer. When times such as those of the past year occur, when we have had an excess of production of nearly every form of agricultural product, and we are producing abnormal quantities of the necessaries of life, then we find that the producer is unable very often to sell his crops, or get a fair price, but there is no commensurate fall as far as the consumer is concerned. For instance, take the question of bread, the position is perfectly well known to hon. members. Whether wheat costs roughly 30s. or 20s. per bag the price of bread remains practically the same. The price of meat is the same, the price of prime oxen has fallen between 20 and 25 per cent., but if you make enquiries you will find that the price of meat to the consumer to-day is as high as it has ever been. That is one of the matters which would fall within the scope of this enquiry. I propose to go into the statistics of commodities which are very largely used and almost wholly produced in this country. They will be found in table 6 of the official Bulletin—bread, flour, wheat, oatmeal, rice, sugar, meat, bacon, butter, cheese, and fresh milk. The South African figures are for November, the United Kingdom figures for October, and the others for September. These items cost retail to the South African consumer 28 per cent. more than to the consumer in the United Kingdom, 21 per cent. more than in New Zealand, 10 per cent. more than in Canada, and 26 per cent. more than in Australia. I will quote one or two examples from the same hand-book. In South Africa cheese costs 37 per cent. more than in New Zealand, bread 13 per cent., bacon 45 per cent., and sugar 53 per cent. more. As compared with Australia bread is 40 per cent. dearer in South Africa, bacon is 35 per cent. dearer, but cheese is the same price, and sugar is 15 per cent. cheaper in South Africa. With respect to the United Kingdom, in South Africa bread is 65 per cent. dearer, bacon 23 per cent., sugar 39 per cent. and cheese 31 per cent. dearer. The one striking feature about this is that with the exception of rice, most of the other commodities are grown in this country, and in sufficient quantity to feed ourselves. I give you a few statistics. During the five years ending 1924, oatmeal 65 per cent., bacon and ham 92 per cent., butter 95 per cent., cheese 90 per cent., sugar 94 per cent., mutton 97 per cent., and beef 85 per cent., were locally produced, so that, of the items I have mentioned, the bulk of these articles are grown here. As I have stated, in spite of the fact that the United Kingdom imports practically all these articles, we show the cost of these articles to be 28 per cent. more, that is a matter which should be very fully investigated. I would like to make a comparison of pre-war wholesale and retail prices with current prices. The year 1910, which was a base year, is used in all these comparisons. The wholesale prices show an increase in October, 1929, of grain-meal 25 per cent., dairy produce 23 per cent., groceries 21 per cent., meat 26 per cent.; an average of 24 per cent. over the year 1910. But when we come to the increase in soft goods under this tariff, the increase there is 82 per cent. I will refer to that later on. Those are the wholesale increases; the retail increases for the same period work out on the same basis at an average of 30 per cent. I want to give some of the items that make up the retail increase. The increase over 1910 is very striking indeed—the bread increase is 42 per cent., flour 69 per cent., oatmeal 10 per cent., maize-meal 60 per cent., rice 42 per cent., tea 44 per cent., coffee 45 per cent., sugar 28 per cent., golden syrup 97 per cent., jam 26 per cent., butter 45 per cent., eggs 42 per cent., fresh milk 7 per cent., condensed milk 59 per cent., bacon 53 per cent., meat 25 per cent. During the last month, the House has been engaged in tackling agricultural problems, and during the past few months Cape Town has been the venue of many important conferences—the Agricultural Union, wheat, tobacco, hides, etc., and every one of these conferences has been concerned with this same problem—the securing of markets and a fair price for products. It is a most extraordinary feature that in a country growing insufficient wheat to feed themselves, our farmers should not be able to sell their products, and that we should find it necessary to increase still further the duty on wheat. We have an enormous production of butter, yet the price to-day is 47 per cent. above what it was in 1910. Take sugar—I am not going to deal closely with sugar—

Why not?

If I take sugar, 110,000 tons of sugar is being sold overseas at a loss to the South African producer. What that loss is, is difficult to estimate, but if that is correct, and the sugar production continues to increase, what will be the position of the industry? This is one of the subjects which requires close investigation. The time is coming when we shall have to face the position in regard to the huge output of sugar. There is one other thing I would like to mention, and that is the position here with regard to customs tariffs. I have mentioned in regard to soft goods the consumer is paying 82 per cent. more than he did in the base year, 1910. What I think is not always realized by the farmer is that he is not only receiving an increase of 28 per cent. for his products, but he, being one of the large consumers of soft goods, has got to pay a proportion of this increase of 82 per cent.; but being somewhat different to the other producers of the country—being a primary producer—he cannot pass on any part of that customs tariff. Customs taxation affects the primary producer most, and he does not always realize that he is the one individual who cannot pass it on. It is, I think, a fundamental principle of such taxation that in the end it must fall on the primary producer, inasmuch as the price of his products are determined by the world’s price, which is not affected by local taxation. There is one other feature which, I think, should be stressed. Some people say it is not so much the cost of living that is at fault as the standard of living. I think there is a good deal of truth in that statement. It is obviously impossible, and I think there is no one desirous of lowering a fair rate or a fair standard of living to any section of the community. I think if the standard of living embraces unnecessary luxury articles, then only a process of education will eliminate that, and bring people round to a proper frame of mind. I would like to draw the attention of hon. members on the cross benches to this. They have been strongly pressing for a minimum wage of 10s. If they consider that a minimum wage to-day of 10s. is the lowest wage that can be paid, I ask them to remember that on the purchasing power of a sovereign to-day, a wage of 10s. is only worth 7s. 6d. Therefore, if they consider that a family can exist and maintain itself with a fair degree of comfort on 7s. 6d. per day, then I would urge that we should endeavour to make 7s. 6d. worth 7s. 6d., and not necessarily endeavour to bring the wage up to 10s. We should make 10s. or £1 worth its purchasing power of 10s. or £1, and by doing so, enable us to build up industries to compete in the markets of the world where the purchasing power of a sovereign is £1, and goods are purchased at that valuation. You have to contend with the markets outside South Africa. If you can make your sovereign worth its true value, you are going to eliminate half the trouble and dissatisfaction which exists to-day. I hope the Government will accept this motion. I feel that there is a very urgent need for enquiry. I think if it is conducted on the lines I have indicated, to find out what are the facts governing and maintaining the cost of living at an unduly high level, if they will accept this principle and appoint such a commission, I am perfectly certain it will meet with the universal approval of every section of the community. I can assure the Government that every member of this side of the House, as well as every member in business, commerce and industry, will give the Government their hearty support and do their level best to make such an enquiry useful and a success.

I second the motion. I am sure I am speaking for the House when I say that the manner in which he has brought forward this motion gives the fullest and widest possible information to the House. I hope that this commission will be appointed. If its duties are narrowed as much as possible, I think, in all probability, it will have better results. There are some items in this connection that the House and the country cannot be blind to. The first is, notwithstanding the index figures, notwithstanding the cost of living figures given us for the various towns in the country, we find only one opinion, namely, that the cost of living has never been more oppressive than it is to-day. That is the position that obtains everywhere. It gives one a doubt in one’s mind whether these comparative figures are really of very great value or not. Consequently, we regard this motion as dealing with what is really a very serious problem. It applies to all sections of the community. It is not among the white people of this country alone that there is this feeling of the oppressive cost of living. The coloured people and the native section of the community are feeling it equally badly. If I may be permitted, in seconding the motion, I should like to direct my own views as to where the commission should exercize its powers of enquiry, at any rate, should direct them more than in any other direction. I think the articles of produce in this country might be left out of such an enquiry. I say that for this reason. It is the cost of imported articles that is largely reflected in the cost of living. The other in of a more stationary character. My view is, ever since the Act No. 36 of 1925, that Act has changed really our whole basis, and the whole principle of taxation. It made conditions for deferred duties. I think that has been the foundation of the policy and of the persistent rise in the cost of living. I will endeavour to show you why I think so. Taxation by these deferred charges is taken away from Parliament. Right throughout the year these deferred duties may be applied. If there were no deferred duties, and when taxation is levied by Parliament, we should, at any rate, know where we are for the year that is coming. With the deferred duties hanging over the country as they have been doing for the past number of years, the country never knows precisely where it is. Take the deferred duty that is applied. It may be applied in a night. It is applied ostensibly for the protection of industry. That is the foundation of the Act. It is applied for the protection of South African industry. That is the reason the duty is put on. But South African industry does not replace the imported article immediately. It might not replace the imported article at all. If it does, it will take some months to replace it. What is happening? In the meantime, this high duty is paid by the consumers, and there is no corresponding benefit until the South African article pushes out the imported article, and it takes time to do that. That, to my mind, accounts very largely for the enormous increase in our customs revenue. I do not suggest for a moment that it is bad estimating that has brought this million or more increase every year in the estimates since 1924. No, it is that these deferred duties have been applied and put on, and they have simply swelled the revenue and increased the burden on the consumer, while in the meantime, the South African article, which it was intended should be protected, has not had that protection. You may give protection to an article to-day, but there is no immediate output for that article. It takes a considerable time, perhaps months or years, to replace the imported articles. When I look over the year 1925 I find the estimate was £8,280,000 for customs revenue, and the increase was almost £1,000,000 over the estimate. Now there is a further point in that connection. One appreciates the policy of the Government and perhaps it will be the policy of the country, because one hears of it on every side of the House—protection. The older protection, which we had for a considerable number of years, was easy protection. It was imposing upon the industry what the country could bear. To-day we have reached the point when we have a kind of get-rich-quick protection, and the cost of living has assumed enormous proportions. The increase is very largely due to higher customs duties. If this undue protection is continued for the next 25 years, farmers will be driven off the land altogether. As it is, they have to pay a high price for every article they purchase, but the price they receive for their produce remains the same, it being ruled by the world’s rate. The position is just as bad for the other primary industries, they being unable to pass on the higher cost of production brought about by excessive customs duties. The more protection that is given to our secondary industries the more the mines are crippled. Notwithstanding that there is a duty on clothing of 25 per cent., I was alarmed the other day when I saw that a deputation was coming here from Johannesburg to ask that the importation of second-hand clothing should be prohibited. The only clothing the native can afford to buy is second-hand, and there is a duty on each second-hand garment of 3s. 6d., which is equal to about 100 per cent., and the same with regard to hats. There seems, indeed, to be no limit to the ever-growing and all-embracing demands of the secondary industries. The Board of Trade goes gaily on, and invariably recommends increased protection; consequently the cost of living is rising all the time. This deputation from Johannesburg also asks that no shirts should be allowed to be imported which cost less than 7s. 6d. each in their country of origin. If such requests as these are to be granted, it will be quite impossible for natives to buy clothing at all. In 1924 the customs duties brought in £7,600,000, but in 1928 they had swollen to £9,900,000. The full import of this terrible burden on the consumer will be understood when it is remembered that the consumer pays not only the customs dues, but 20 per cent. in addition, as the higher the duties the more the importers’ working costs become. There is another item to which I desire to call attention. Owing to the wiping out of imperial preference in 1925, an additional burden has been placed on the consumer. The preference of three per cent. on some 200 articles was cancelled in 1925, and with the additional charges this means that the consumer has to pay an extra four per cent. for these articles. Then there are another two small points. There is the tax on every thousand pounds of stock kept in this country, which is an unusual condition not to be found in other countries. That is only one of those things that helps to make the charges which are passed on to the consumer, and I say with some confidence and experience that these are far too high. If the commission is appointed, surely this is one of those things that ought to be enquired into. It is the worst form of taxation, anything that is passed on, and this form has disappeared in other countries. Trade ought to be enabled to pursue its course with the least possible amount passed on. Our total expenditure is mounting up and up. Since 1924 we find the expenditure is getting more every year. Surely there is a tremendous amount of money that ought to be saved. Take the League of Nations, the costs of the many plenipotentiaries, our expensive board of trade and other bodies, all this means many thousands of pounds. It may not be serious at present, but will cost the consumer more and more as time goes on. We have to bear in mind that whether it is customs duties, railway rates, or whatever it is, the tax has to he found by the consumer, who has never been more pressed than he is to-day. I express the hope that the Government will not hesitate to appoint the commission, and if it accepts the motion it will satisfy the House, and the country will be grateful for it.

After the very good case which has been put forward by the mover, seconded by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson), one would wholeheartedly support what has been said, but one cannot help taking notice of the fact that they are both very prominent members of the Chamber of Commerce.

There is nothing wrong in that.

There is nothing wrong in it, and it is good from their point of view, but we on these benches have to look at the matter from a different point of view, that is the consumer himself. Let us reduce the cost of living, and let the lower paid people get the benefit. In a country like this, the lower paid men, under 10s. a day are, unfortunately, as regards the bulk of them, in the employment of the Government. There should be no difficulty in concentrating on this and having the assistance of the hon. member who has just spoken. Of private employers and municipalities and other big concerns I do not know of any who are paying less than 10s. a day. Years before in the House, when Mr. Jagger was a member, I heard him put forward exactly the same arguments as have been put forward, and he was plainly a free trader. We must take care that free trade arguments are not allowed to be brought in with regard to doing something to give relief to the great majority in this country. With regard to the customs tariff, we do not want any of it to be used simply as a piece of revenue by which Ministers have been able to secure those big surpluses. We desire to protect industries, but at the same time see how far that protection has been successful in establishing industries in a substantial degree. It occurred to me when the hon. member for Hospital was speaking that we have the case of cotton blankets, which affects the native people very much indeed. We find to-day that the natives are being compelled to pay practically double for them what they paid before, and in spite of that there is a tremendous sum being paid in customs duties for the importation of these blankets, so that, although protection has been given, the consumer is getting no benefit, and while an industry has been set up it has not justified itself to the extent of the customs tariff. There is another important factor in the cost of living and that is the question of shop rents. About four years ago the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) was appointed a commission to enquire into rents, and he brought in a recommendation. It was unanimous. The hon. member recommended that not only should the Rents Acts apply to residences, but that it should also apply to shops. Unfortunately the Government did not see its way to adopt the whole of the report, but they adopted it to the extent of making the Rents Act a permanent measure instead of an annual one. I would like the Government to enquire into the high rents charged for shops in the principal towns of the Union. During the last few years a different type of property owner has appeared. The speculator has come in, who pays as little down for a property as possible, and carries a very big bond, and then squeezes the shopkeeper to purchase the property for him (the speculator). The speculator also increases the rental to enable him to sell the property at a higher figure. That type of property owner is not desirable from any point of view, and he is making things difficult to-day. I have had a communication from the South African Shopkeepers Protection Association, who say that they have investigated the conditions and the rents. They refer to a property in one of the large towns of the Union, consisting of three shops which had a rental of £62 10s. per month, which has now been altered to £250 per month. Another shop with a rent of £20 has been increased to £35. Other shop rents have been raised 60 per cent. In another case a shop with a rent of £60 per month has just been raised to £120 per month. Increases of 60 per cent. and 100 per cent., and in some cases more, are taking place. In one case the renter has been in occupation many years, and the lease is about to expire. The rent has been £177 10s. per month, and notice has been received by the renter that he will have to pay £650 per month if he desires to remain in occupation. Not only have the rents gone up that extent, but long leases are now refused. Leases used to be granted for five years, with the option of renewal for another five years. Now leases are for three years. The reason is quite clear, because the owner can show that the lease is only for a short period if he wishes to sell. This matter of shop rents is one to which I hope consideration will be given. The figures given by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock), showing that the main items of living cost are anything up to 40 per cent. higher in South Africa than in other countries, show the necessity for an enquiry. There is something wrong somewhere when these high retail prices obtain with regard to commodities produced in this country. There is something wrong either in the method of production or distribution. This is a matter which concerns every one of us, and I hope the Minister will accept the motion. Let us have an enquiry because it can do no harm, and as far as I can see, it may do a great deal of good.

The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) referred to the fact that the two members who moved and seconded this motion were members of the Chamber of Commerce, and seemed to imply that, on that account, less attention should be paid to what they had said than otherwise. Let me assure him at once that I do not speak as a member of any chamber of commerce, but only as one of the great army of ordinary consumers who are affected by the rising cost of living. I hope the Government will find it possible to accept the motion before the House. Questions of cost of living are of very great importance. There has been in the last few years a considerable amount of legislation dealing with customs tariffs and also with industrial matters such as wages; I refer more particularly to the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Wage Act. There is a danger, in dealing with these matters, that Parliament may not have a clear idea of the ultimate results of the legislation they put through. It is essential we should have a grasp of the tendencies of this legislation, so that we may know how it is likely to affect the life of the ordinary man in this country—his opportunities of employment—and its general effect on the standard of living. It is beyond question there has been an increase in cost of living in the last few years. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) has produced figures which prove this. I do not propose to do so. One may study the official year book of the Union which contains a lot of information on the cost of living, but study the information how one will, it is impossible to discover from the figures what the cause of this rise in the cost of living is. We find if we look at the list of wholesale prices in the four years 1923-’27—I have taken 1923 because conditions were normal—we find there is a heavy drop in the prices of imported goods and at the same time a rise in South African goods. The question suggested is, what is the rise in the South African goods due to? Is it increased tariffs, or the fixing of wages by the Industrial Conciliation and Wage Acts passed in 1924 and 1925? That is a question that should be gone into. This House should have information on which it can base a judgment as to the cause of the rise of South African goods.

Do you propose to reduce wages ?

No, I do not; but if we are going to fix wages so as to raise the cost of living, let us do so with our eyes open. Although we find that the rise in the cost of South African goods generally is slight—it amounts to 33 points—if we take food produced in South Africa its rise is greater, namely 60 points. This seems to suggest that the rise in the cost of South African goods was due rather to tariffs than to wages. If we come to retail prices, we shall find that the figures are difficult to analyze. Although we find a drop in certain articles of food, we find rises in other articles of food. For instance, dairy produce shows a drop of 35 points, and there is also a heavy drop in fuel and light. But, although there is a drop in these two articles, there is a rise in fresh meat and practically no change in other foodstuffs. This calls for investigation. The rise in the cost of fresh meat is a serious one; if it is due to a ring—and it has been stated that there is a ring—we should know about it, in order that we may take proper steps to deal with the position. Then, when we compare the prices of food in different parts of the country, the results are puzzling. The retail prices of food of the nine principal towns of the Union, compared, show a drop at Durban, a drop at Pretoria; and on the Witwatersrand, although there happens to be one slight rise, the general trend of prices is downwards. There is however a substantial rise in the three coast towns of the Cape Province; it is said the high railway rates are partly responsible. If that is so it would appear that they press more upon the coast towns than upon the inland towns. If we take the question of rent, we find again phenomena which are very difficult to understand, and which should be elucidated. The rent of three to six-roomed houses in the nine principal towns in the Union, in the years 1923-’26, shows a drop in Kimberley and Pretoria, and a considerable rise in the three coastal towns of the Cape Province, and also in Pietermaritzburg and Bloemfontein. It is difficult for the student to find out what is producing this general increase in the cost of living. It is impossible to ascertain how the legislation which this House has been putting through in the last five or six years is affecting the very important question of the cost of living. This question is clearly of importance, to the town dwellers because dear food means under-nourishment and it means that the physical and mental health of the new generation will be affected. But it is also of the very greatest importance to our farming population One knows that in other countries, more particularly in Australia, they are suffering, at the present time, under what is known as the vicious circle. The workers in the towns and in the country demand increases in wages. They get them and the cost of food goes up, and every increase in the cost of food and the cost of living results in a fresh demand for an increase in wages. So the cost of living goes mounting up. I should like to emphasize this, that it is the primary producer, the farmer, who suffers most from that vicious circle of continually mounting wages and cost of living. He cannot pass on the increased cost of living to the same extent as the manufacturer can, for the simple reason that he is limited by world prices. That aspect has been stressed by previous speakers, and I do not intend to elaborate it. I should, however, like to draw the attention of the House to what is contained on this subject in the very interesting report of the British Economic Commission, which went to Australia a few years ago. That commission, in paragraphs 45 and 46 of the report, said this—

It refers, then, to the fact that the Australian Navigation Acts may have an effect upon these primary industries. It goes on to say—

That is a passage that deserves very serious consideration from us in this country. There is reason to think, although I do not say it has been proved, that we are reaching a stage when we are becoming the victims of the same vicious circle referred to by that commission to Australia. I submit that a case for enquiry has been amply made out, and an enquiry into these various factors can be only thoroughly carried out in such a way as to be of use to Parliament and the country by the appointment of a commission such as is suggested by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock). I, therefore, support this motion, and hope the Government will be able to accept it.

I rise to speak, with great diffidence, because I do not pose as an expert on this intricate subject. I wish to put my views before the House purely as being the point of view of the man in the street. I am not opposed to the motion put forward, but I cannot see that such a commission is going to be of any great benefit. It will certainly put a number of people to a lot of trouble, and the public to a certain amount of expense. The commission will submit an elaborate report, and make certain recommendations, and the probability is that the recommendations will receive the same treatment as the commission on the question of railway crossings. Now I am just anxious to see the cost of living reduced as anybody in this House, but I fail to see the object of this commission for the reason I have already stated. The cost of living, to my mind, is just what we choose to make it. If we wish to live under cheap conditions there is nothing to prevent us doing so. I know families of moderate means who live modestly, and they manage to carry on with a very small income. We live in a very extravagent age. The fact remains that the people are desirous of having all the advantages of modern science. They like to have their gramophones, and they like to go to bioscopes. They also like to have their wireless sets. I realize that that does not come within the scope of the cost of living. Nevertheless, people look upon these things as necessities. They think they are not living unless they have these little pleasures, and that makes it difficult for them to provide for the bare necessities of life. We are told that the cost of living in South Africa is very high. I happen to know the charges which are made by certain hotels in Durban. I do not wish to be parochial, but I only have a knowledge of the hotel charges in the centre from which I come. The hotel charges in Durban are very reasonable indeed. [Interruptions.] You do not want to hear the truth. The fact remains that you can live in a first-grade hotel in Durban for 15s. a day. There again, hon. members may say that that does not come within the scope of the cost of living. I contend that it does. You can live in second-grade hotels, and live very comfortably, for 10s. a day. It is a matter of comparison. We have heard the cost of living quoted in other parts of the world. Will those gentlemen who have given us these statistics tell us whether one can live in hotels in those countries at a lesser rate than you can live at hotels in South Africa? I contend that they cannot. If these hotels give you first-class accommodation and catering at from 10s. to 15s. a day, according to grade, well, then, I say there is nothing very much wrong with the cost of living in this country. One need not go far to discover the reason for the high cost of living, if living in South Africa is high. As the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) pointed out, we are subject to a vicious circle. First we have monopolies, such as the South African railways, which fix rates so as to make the lines pay. If we had competition we should probably find that the rates for the carriage of goods would be very much less. Then there is the Minimum Wage Act, which tends to send up the cost of living. Again the price of sugar is controlled by Government. I do not say that it is wrong as the sugar industry is a very large one, and, unless it receives some protection, it will go under, and the country will suffer. Yet again, we have the farmers’ co-operative societies, which are admirable institutions from a farmer’s point of view, but they contribute to raising the cost of living, for, if farmers have a large surplus, they do not throw it on to the market and give the consumer the benefit, but the farmers wait until they can get their price. I do not say anything against these institutions which I look upon as a necessary evil, but they help to constitute a vicious circle, and so long as it continues, the cost of living will be high. I am not opposed to a commission, but I do not think it will advance matters very much.

I am sorry at the attitude taken up by my colleague from Durban (Mr. Acutt). I also regret to see that the Government benches are empty. Are hon. members opposite not interested in the cost of living? I am astounded at the lack of response by hon. members opposite, especially when one remembers that they are very talkative over matters affecting farmers. On such an occasion as this they should indicate where their sympathies lie. This question affects people who have to live on £5 a month. Not five miles from here lives a family whose total monthly income is £5. The man works in a goods shed in the suburbs. They pay £3 a month for the rent of a shed, thus leaving £2 a month for the maintenance of the family, which includes three children. From the point of view of humanity, we should give this matter serious attention. I do not say that hon. members opposite do not do that, but on an occasion like this there should be some indication at least of the earnestness of Parliament. One reason why a commission should be appointed is that in their operation the cost of living index leaves a lot to be desired. The seasonal effect on food prices make the index unsatisfactory. It is all the more essential that the cost of living figures should be absolutely correct, because numbers of companies and municipalities, and, I believe, the printing industry, base their wage rates on the rise and fall of our index. Another factor proving the necessity for the appointment of a commission is that the general level of prices depends on the amount of money in circulation. Last April the deposits in the banks amounted to £61,285,000, but the advances were £47,000,000. The advances against deposits in the following months were: May, 82 per cent.; June, 8½ per cent.; July, 83.75 per cent.; August, 83.5 per cent.; and October, 84.0 per cent. According to the best authorities. With the inflation through increased credit, there are higher prices, which, of course, means an increased cost of living. I have a document here entitled “The Prime Minister’s Warning,” and it may be that since then there has been a restriction of credit.

So, if you reduce the circulation to nothing, we shall all be happy.

I believe the hon. member once propounded the theory that if we printed an unlimited supply of bank notes all of us would be happy.

Don’t misquote.

By striking a happy medium we may have sanity and stability in the cost of living. The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) quoted a report recently made in Australia, and I am glad he did so, because it is very important. One of the terms of reference was to what extent the cost of living might have been added to by protection. We have never made that thorough enquiry yet. We have become thorough protectionists, and some are in favour of bounties, but we have not yet seen to what extent it has affected the cost of living. Is not the time ripe when we should appoint a commission of this kind just to see how recent efforts in promoting protection have affected the cost of living? I think it is a fair claim, and something which we can ask for with some measure of right in the demand. I am very glad the mover has brought this forward, because I think it is one of the things for which the country is crying out. The cost of living is high, whether the farmers are getting a fair return for their products or not.

Naturally, one sympathizes with any effort that can be made to reduce the cost of living, but I must say I am rather disappointed that the mover did not give us some solution. He quoted a lot of figures which are available to all of us to show that the cost of living is high, but did not show us any way out. The whole burden of the song on the other side is to blame protectionist policy, which is the set policy, not only of the Government, but of this Parliament. This policy is not liked by the importers who wish to import goods and sell them over the counter rather than encourage local industry. The increase in the amount of customs duties complained of is due to the expansion which has taken place right throughout the country, and the very heavy duties on motor-cars, petrol, accessories and so forth, have been important factors. The customs duties are not entirely responsible for the cost of living being what it is. They do not apply to meat, for instance, and yet the prices are very high to-day, although customs duties do have some effect on the cost of bread. What the hon. mover might have told us is what effects overtrading, the indiscriminate giving of credit and retailers’ profits have had on prices. Then there is the question of the inflation of the currency, and when you buy a commodity at to-day’s currency—the sovereign being only worth 15s.— the price must appear high. The mechanic is really getting only 15s. for £1 worth of work, if the producer is getting only 15s. for £1 worth of produce, and to purchase £1 worth of commodities the consumer has to pay 25s. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) harrowed the feeling of the House with a picture of natives who would not be able to be clothed unless second-hand clothing could be imported; and he went on to mention that certain shirts imported for natives would cost 12s. 6d. each. The figure was so outlandish that I went into the lobby and rang up one of the manufacturers, who informed me that working shirts for natives can be purchased at from 22s. 6d. to 33s. a dozen, while shirts for Europeans are 33s. to 40s. a dozen at the factory. I am not saying what hon. gentlemen opposite put on extra for profit, but no doubt they will let the native off lightly, seeing that they are so interested in them.

They will make a reduction !

Before the present tariff was introduced, what are known as “engineers’ shirts” sold wholesale in Cape Town for 50s. a dopen, and to-day they can be bought at 42s. a dozen. I am authorized by the gentleman I rang up to say he has an unlimited supply at the prices mentioned, so I hope there will be no more talk about shirts for natives being 12s. 6d. each.

I am surprised that the farmers opposite are so silent, because it is a matter that also concerns them. The cost of living is not only a matter for the towns, but also affects the farmers greatly. If there is one thing that the farmer feels to-day it is the high cost of living. The cost of the machinery he requires has gone up a great deal since the war. A reaping machine which cost £30 before the war, to-day, in our time of trouble, costs between £50 and £60. A thrashing machine that cost £400 before the war is, to-day, £700 to £800. Moreover, the price the farmer gets for his produce has gone back to the pre-war prices, but his cost of production is practically doubled. I do not know whether the Minister will accept the motion or not, but if he does, I think that it ought to be enlarged a little by also making enquiries into the cost of living and the production costs of the people of the countryside. The farmer buys clothing, boots, etc., not only for his own family, but also for the workpeople on the farm. He provides them with clothes, and other necessaries, and ultimately the higher cost of living falls on the farmer. The farmer is in the difficult position, especially in these hard times, of not being able to get the price for his produce in his own country. The price is so low that it does not pay him to sell his produce here. He therefore has to export it, and he is consequently dependent on the overseas markets. What is the position there? He has his high cost of production in this country, and abroad he meets with the high tariffs prevailing there. When he has got inside that wall he has to compete in those countries against the whole world. I am a great advocate of protection, the time for free trade is past, and the man who advocates free trade to-day is a voice crying in the wilderness. But we can exaggerate everything, even protection, and ultimately the farmer has to pay for the high protection. Even in our protection policy we must go to work slowly and carefully in every step we take. We must only support the industries that can stand on their own legs, and which can produce the things the farmer needs cheaply and economically. The question of the cost of living concerns us as farmers just as much as the man living in the towns or villages. If it is possible to accept the motion, I hope that proper enquiry will also be made in that direction, because if there is one industry which ought to be properly investigated, it is farming. The primary industries are the real industries in the country. We may talk about secondary industries, but if the primary industries languish, then the secondary industries are practically of no use. Those industries must be established on a sound basis. If we look at the primary industries in South Africa that are stable, we find that the gold industry is the only one not subject to the rise and fall of a market. The price of gold stops more or less the same, and the country is practically dependent on the gold mines. The other industries are in a parlous condition at present, and when we are discussing a motion like the present one, it will be only fair to include the cost of production and living of the farmer, because the man in the towns and villages is no more dependent on those things bought in towns than the man on the farms is.

I have listened very attentively to the speeches on this subject. I must say at once that I agree with much the opposite side have said in connection with the high cost of living. Undoubtedly the prices the farmers get for their produce have gone back to pre-war prices. For nearly all his produce the farmer has to take the price that he had to take before the world war, and for all the things he has to buy he has, unfortunately, to pay still more than then. That is the difficulty with which the farmers, as producers, have to contend. I heartily sympathize with them. I also listened very attentively to what the mover and seconder said about the causes. I should like to have information about the factors which have made the cost of living being so high still. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) gave quite a lot of figures to show that our cost of living for various articles is higher than in other countries. As far as the figures go, I have no fault to find with them, but the figures he gave do not include everything. He only mentioned higher light, fuel and food, but he will get a more accurate figure, and nearer the truth if he also includes clothes and various articles. Then he will find that the figures compare a good deal more favourably with other countries than those he mentions. I do not, however, want to go into details, and prove that this article is cheaper and the other dearer in other countries. The fact is that the cost of living is too high. I have before me the figures of the wholesale prices for 1924 and 1929. They again are based on an index of 1,000 and the wholesale prices in South Africa in 1924 were 128.7, i.e., 28.7 per cent. higher than in 1913-’14 (just before the world war). Our retail prices in 1924 were 32 per cent, higher than before the world war, and reached 132. In 1929, however, the index figure of the wholesale prices was reduced from 128.7 to 114.6, from which it appears that our wholesale prices were only 14.6 per cent. higher than in 1914, and I want to ask the hon. member who introduced the motion to explain in this connection how the retail prices during the past five years have only been reduced by two points, viz., from 132 to 130, while, as stated, the wholesale prices have dropped from 128.7 to 114.6.

For the same class of goods

All the goods in connection with the cost of living on which the index is calculated. I cannot say why the retail prices —and this is in the long run surely the thing the consumer is concerned with—have dropped so little in comparison with the wholesale prices. The latter indicates a tremendous drop of 14.1 per cent., but the prices with which the consumer has to reckon—the retail prices—have only dropped 2 points. I thought that the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) and the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) would go into that a little, and would have indicated in what direction the enquiry in this matter ought to take place.

What do you ascribe it to?

Certainly not to the Government. I cannot say—

Then have it enquired into.

The hon. member can certainly not blame the Government. I want to accuse no one, but only mention the figures because they are important, and I mention them in contra-distinction to the figures which the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) gave, which were in comparison with Australia, Canada, etc., I am thinking of the position in South Africa. It is, moreover, a fact that in the index figure of 114.6 for the wholesale prices the customs duties are already included, and I refer to this because the hon. member for Hospital will immediately ascribe the high cost of living to the customs duties and the high railway rates, although the mover was more careful. The Government have taken 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 more out of the pockets of the consumers than in 1914. The hon. member for Hospital called out. Suppose it was true then it is still included here in the figure of 114.6, just as it was included in the figure of the cost of living in 1924, and the fact remains that our cost of living now, so far as wholesale prices are concerned, is only 114.6 more than in 1913, while in 1924 it was 28.7 per cent. more. That, in spite of our protection policy. There must be a mistake, and if hon. members on that side of the House can explain to me where it is, an a where we should make enquiries in this connection, I should be glad. It is no use talking about customs duties, that is simply the policy laid down by Parliament. Suppose, however, if we made an enquiry in connection with the wholesale and retail prices, and we found that the trade was not doing justice to the consumer, and that the increased cost of living was not due to the increased customs duty, or high railway rates, nor to higher wages, but to the terribly high trade profits, what would hon. members say then? I want the country to see that there has been a tremendous drop in the wholesale prices, but that the consumers have benefited precious little by it. I leave it to the country itself to judge where the difference lies, and to what the high cost of living must be attributed. If hon. members look at the report of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, which is always very interesting, they will find interesting figures about taxable incomes. Unfortunately, I have only the figures for 1926 before me, and from them I see that the total taxable incomes in farming were £4,306,000, but the taxable incomes of trade were £12,288,000. Other occupations, such as doctors and lawyers, also did very well, but the taxable incomes of trade were the highest of all the occupations. Suppose now that the commission hon. members propose should find that the actual cause was the terribly high profits in trade—

They will not find them.

I only want to make the assumption that the commission says that trade is making too big a profit, then I want to ask the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) if he would support the Government if it introduced a Bill—I do not say it will be done—to restrict the profits of traders, he and his party ?

That is not a practical question.

I ask it of the hon. member because we have discussed these matters for years. Of the six or seven speakers who have taken part in the debate to-day four were newcomers, but when in the old days we debated the subject, we said that no restriction could be put on prices. We said that it must be left to the economic conditions which would themselves have to straighten out things. I still say what I always said: that there is only one way in which the consumer can protect himself, e.g., against his paying 1s. and 1s. 2d. for a lb. of meat in the towns, while the farmer only gets 4d., if he gets that, and that is for the consumers to co-operate. I know that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McIlwraith) does not like the word—

If it is only the right co-operation.

They do not like it at all, but in 1923, when we put it through, I preached in and out of this House that the Co-operative Societies Act should also provide for co-operation among the consumers, just as provision is made for co-operation among the farmers with regard to their produce. If the consumers form a co-operative society and can buy their requirements, like butter, eggs, cheese and the other articles which have been mentioned here, direct from the farmers’ co-operative societies, then the legion of middlemen will be got rid of.

That was tried, and was a failure.

The same old tune was sung when the farmers started co-operating. Doubtless there were failures, but they persevered, and, to-day, they can hold their own. They are a success to-day, and if I were a little younger, I might possibly still be able to do something in that way, but my advice to the consumers in the towns is that if they want to be rid of the high cost of living they must stand together.

Do you want to eliminate the distributors entirely ?

The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) asks whether I want to cut out the distributor. Yes, I want to cut out all unnecessary distributors. We can begin at Camps Bay and go right through to Simonstown, and we pass streets of shops on end. There are legions of them. I say this here with full responsibility of what such a statement means, but I do not doubt that there is over-trading in our country.

But appoint a commission then to make the enquiry.

But if the commission should say there are too many traders, will my hon. friends move that we should cancel some of the licences?

Yes, I will.

Ask the hon. member for Caledon what he says about it. He is one of the leaders on the opposite side of the House.

The more shops, the more competition.

That is a fallacy. What took place with the Indian traders in Durban? When there were a great number of them we soon heard the cry of over-trading, that there were too many traders. Competition is good up to a certain point, but when it goes past that point it is dangerous. I do not know whether the time has not arrived for us to enquire whether we have not possibly got too many traders. All I can tell the hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Robinson) is the difference between the wholesale prices and the retail prices, which I have already mentioned. I say that there is keen competition between the traders. Everyone in the House, even the hon. member for Caledon, will admit that there are enough traders in the country. There is enough competition, and why then is there the great difference between the drop in the wholesale and that in the retail price?

There are the costs of distribution.

Yes, I do not say that the costs of distribution of the different shopkeepers are not large. I have also mentioned, however, what the taxable incomes of the traders are, and my hon. friend will agree with me that the taxable income is calculated after the cost connected with the business has been deducted.

What is the number of taxpayers ?

I shall be able to give those figures also if required. Here we have the figures about the income, and the hon. member can find them in the report of the Commissioner of Income Tax. In 1926 the taxable incomes of the traders were £12,000,000; in 1928 they were nearly £20,000,000.

Yes, but how many taxpayers are there?

Let them be as many as they can be. It is far fewer people who pay that amount than the number of farmers who have paid £4,000,000. There are far more farmers in the country than traders. This shows us the position of the traders and on the other hand that of farming.

Do the wholesale traders include the retail traders ?

Yes, let me add that the position in South Africa is not much worse than that in other countries. The cost of living is certainly coming down. I have the figures for 1929 before me, and we shall see that the figures for food, fuel, light, and various in January, 1929, were 31 points higher, while in December, they were 29 points higher, i.e., there was a reduction of 2 points, or 2 per cent. In England the cost of living at the beginning of 1929 was 67 points higher, and at the end of the year it was still 67. With us there was, therefore, a small reduction.

Will you explain how the producer and the consumer are to come together ?

I would like very much to detain the House with that, and if I do not get the opportunity I shall do so later; then we shall anyhow be doing something, but I am not prepared to appoint a commission as suggested in the motion, which will attack the customs duty, and protection which has been instituted by the Government and Parliament, because it is anyhow the declared policy of the Government and Parliament for us to protect our industries as long as they need protection, whether they are primary or secondary industries, or whether to-day it is wheat and to-morrow blankets. If it is intended to attack protection in this way, then I am not a party to it. Moreover, the hon. member for Hospital mentioned the point that such a commission could enquire into the railway rates. I do not see the necessity for that. We have an opportunity in this House to debate the statement, and we have the Railway Board, to whom any suggestions can be made from day to day with reference to the railway rates. They go into all the grievances, and requests to appoint a commission to investigate these two matters cannot therefore be entertained. I do not see the necessity for it. That is the point which the hon. member expressly mentioned.

I did not mention railway rates.

Yes, the hon. member did mention them. He spoke about 3 per cent. imperial preference of protecting duties and also of the railway rates. No, let us understand now that this Government stands firmly by the protection policy. Then second-hand, or partly worn clothing that is imported, and sold cheaply to the natives was also mentioned. A great fuss was made about it. The position is that this kind of clothing was put up with for a long time in our country, whereas it ought to have been thrown on the dustheap in the countries of its origin overseas. It is sold here to the natives, and the natives already buy little enough of the materials produced in our country. When he buys boots, he carries them over his shoulder; the clothes he buys are second-hand or partly worn clothes. In 1924 clothes of that kind were imported to a value of £160,000. As a result of the protection this Government has granted, that amount has been reduced to £73,000. I hope it will completely disappear during the next five years. If the native wants to buy clothes then he can buy the same kind of cheap clothing which the poor man has to buy, and which was referred to by the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin). I am not talking now of the retail prices, because they kill anyone, but the cheap clothing which is imported, or made, can be bought by natives. The question of the cost of living is always with us like a ghost. It is not confined to tariffs and railway rates. It is a matter of broad dimensions, which includes the apothecary, the doctor, and many more people, and it will have to be a very courageous Government, more so than even this Government, which will try to pull down the prices in all directions. The Government is carefully watching the whole position by means of the Board of Trade and Industries. If improper profits are made, then that board immediately enquires into it, and the Government acts from time to time according to the best of its ability. I think it will be best to leave it to the Board of Trade and Industries to go into this matter. If we were to appoint a commission we should possibly get a report which would result in the two sides of this House differing from each other. I cannot accept the motion, but I am prepared to instruct the Board of Trade and Industries to go into the matter carefully, and I will lay their report on the table.

I do not want to go into the merits of the motion, but the Minister has made his reply in one language, and there are hon. members who cannot understand it. I put it to him, it is very noticeable, we have to interpret to hon. members. It is his option—

I think the hon. member does me an injustice. So far I have repeatedly—

On the contrary—

If the hon. member refers to Hansard he will find I have spoken in English. I have never before, here or elsewhere, been accused of discourtesy—

I am sorry the Minister does not give me the chance to finish. I have noticed it on occasions.

On what occasions?

The last. If I am wrong, I will be the first to apologize to the Minister.

The hon. member has explained what he wanted to say, and he cannot go further with it.

I am rather pleased that the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) intervened in the way he did, although he was a little bit unfair to the Minister, because my recollection of him is he has been wonderfully courteous in that respect, and I want to take this opportunity of expressing my pleasure and thanks to him for that.

This is not the subject to be discussed now.

I am only taking the opportunity; I want to pay my testimony to the Minister, who has almost consistently, except on one or two occasions, spoken in English, and we cannot expect him to speak English all the time. My quarrel is rather with the Prime Minister, who never addresses the House in English.

Why do you not express yourself in Afrikaans?

I cannot; the Prime Minister can speak English.

Why cannot you speak Afrikaans ?

Why does the hon. member not see that all his Ministers address us in English? But we will not go very far if we go on like that. What I have taken umbrage at is that while in substance the Minister agreed with everything that has been said on this side of the House, as to the tremendous margin of difference between the prime cost and the cost to the consumer in everything, yet at the finish he refused to accept the motion for a commission which would enquire into all these circumstances and would tell the House and the country what precisely is the cause of the tremendous difference. He leaves us exactly where we were. As I understand, he made great play with the tremendous amount of loss to the country by reason of the very-much-over-the-mark amount taken by the distributor over the amount earned by the producer. I agree with him. We have always felt, especially on these benches, that we are paying much too high a price to our distributors. We socialists believe, unlike the statements which have been made against us, that in a properly organized socialist state, you must have your distributor. The Minister of Mines and Industries wants to cut out all unnecessary distributors. People who think soundly on public affairs agree that what you want are fewer distributors, and that those should not receive too much. It is a very significant thing that the mover is himself a distributor, and because of that and despite that fact, he feels constrained to draw the attention of the House and the whole country to the fact that there is a tremendous loss between the originator and the final distributor of an article. To me it shows that he, with all his peculiar opportunities of finding out what is what, so far as that end of the stick— the distributing end—is concerned, finds himself perfectly helpless to do it, and is in the grip of a system which makes it impossible, however well-meaning he may be; and more and more is taken by the distributing class. Conversation with the hon. member makes me wholeheartedly believe in his, sincerity. In consequence of this, he comes to the House, where all interests are, or are supposed, to be represented, and quite rightly says, “Let us have a commission which will enquire into all these things,” find where the shoe pinches, and where is the waste, and having found that, report to the Government—which, however, does not take very much notice of the report. I believe that where the interests of the whole community are vitally concerned, a report by a commission to the Government would have so much of the weight of public opinion behind it that the Government would be forced to take some action. I want to say that I agree to some extent with some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson). Whilst I am, for certain purposes, a protectionist, I do not wish to be misunderstood when I say that. I believe that where you desire in a new country to turn your own production into your own manufactures, and to sell to your own people and abroad as well, it is necessary on occasion to institute protection. But we have a right to insist that the form of protection shall be right. Here I agree with the hon. member for Hospital, namely, that when you are receiving revenue through the customs as the result of the imposition of a tariff, you are not protecting, you are only bleeding the public; because you are still importing, and if such an industry is started in the country, you are only enabling the proprietors of that industry to increase the price to the consumer. If you put on 100 per cent. customs duty on a certain article, by the time it reaches the consumer that 100 per cent. is increased by over three-quarters.

Who is responsible for it?

The distributors in between. It is an extremely costly and generally ineffective method of protecting an industry. Your importer, in addition to taking his profit, whatever it may be, upon the home cost of the article, takes his 25 per cent. or whatever it may be upon the home cost, plus the freightage and the additional tariff. The wholesaler takes his percentage upon the whole of it, and the retailer takes his percentage on the whole of it again. We are very foolish if we allow such a state of affairs to go on any longer. May I support the point of view of the Minister of Mines and Industries? But the Minister does not carry it to its logical conclusion, namely, to agree to the motion. He says there were £12,000,000 shown as income made by the distributing community of South Africa I would like a commission, if only for one thing, namely, to enquire into the state of affairs resulting from the operations of the milling companies. The other day the hon. the Minister of Finance asked the House to pass a Bill to bring the millers to heel in one respect, namely, that the millers should take up all the wheat produced in this country before bringing any from overseas. I ventured to suggest to the Minister that he would not succeed while they could import flour, because the millers could play with the situation just as they liked. In yesterday’s paper you find that the millers, according to a statement made by wheat farmers, have decided to cease buying operations.

They have got enough.

They will always have enough while they have flour to fall back upon. He said. “Do you think the millers would be so unpatriotic as to cease buying operations, and import flour in order to beat the wheat farmers?” Of course they will. They are primarily money makers, and if it pays them to import flour they will certainly leave their rollers idle for as long as they please. Owing to the kind enquiries of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig Gen. Byron) which resulted in some of a challenge for £100, an hon. member got delving into some report by the Board of Trade and Industries, where it says that the two milling companies operating in the south-western districts of the Cape made profits of no less than 42 per cent. and 40 per cent. respectively. Of course, percentages reveal nothing. What you have got to get is the actual effect on the country in hard cash. A little further down I find an example of the profits earned by the four milling companies referred to, which yields further convincing proof of the fact that during the last three years the millers enjoyed undue protection and took full advantage of the protection granted to them by law. These companies are in a strong financial position, and have created large reserves, so that whatever mere percentages may be we have to add to the profits such little things as reserves. One company has a reserve fund of £170,000, and a dividend equalization fund of £150,000. They are very fertile in their inventions of expressions in describing little funds they have. The nett result of course is that the sums of money made as the result of milling ultimately come out of the pockets of the consumer, and are put aside by the millers to their own advantage. They go on—

These are figures which require some attention from the House—

Well, about three times as much. Their tangible assets known to the Board of Trade and Industries represent three to one of their issued capital. I agree with the Minister of Mines and Industries; this is only one little thing. As a result of enquiry we may multiply this kind of thing perhaps a hundred times, because there are so many firms, so many organizations engaged in distribution, all making their money out of it. But it is in itself sufficient to ask the Minister to institute a commission with the widest possible powers. They would also have an opportunity of enquiring into the books of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) to find precisely what he is making out of the country; also the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson), to find what effect tariff imposition has had on his business; also on that of the hon. member for Langlaagte ((Mr. Christie). We heard only the other day of a war between some chemist and an association of chemists; and this chemist, like the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock), was much concerned that that form of distribution was dragging more money out of the pockets of the consumer than is justifiable. He at once rushed to the public—a very courageous thing to do—but he risked their displeasure and told the world the facts. How many of these things there are going on we cannot discover; all we can do is to realize their effect. I am surprised that the Minister of Mines and Industries has decided not to accept the motion that a commission should be appointed.

I think the board of trade can do all that is required.

No, I must strongly disagree. In the first place does the Minister himself know all the ramifications of this system; would be have time to enquire into them all and place the facts before the Board of Trade and Industries? No, he has not sufficient time. No, you have enough to do with your administration, and you know it. I ask the Minister not to beg the question. He knows—and his colleagues know—their time is so occupied running their departments that they have no time to investigate even such vital matters in the interests of the country. I have been told that when I dealt with the cold storage, I was quite wrong; that there were no profits being made by the Imperial Cold Storage. Yet the primary producer of beef gets practically nothing for his animals, and the consumer is paying a tremendously high price for his meat. If that is the case, there must be a tremendous amount of waste in the process somewhere, and the commission is the very thing to enquire where the waste is. The difference between 4d., the price to the primary producer, and 1s. 2d., the price to the consumer, requires some enquiring into. I am not going to dogmatize: I will not ascribe the difference to abnormal profits or waste, or the credit system. They all play their part. But it is the business of the commission—certainly of the Government—to find out how much it is due to each of these. The Minister has fallen far short of my expectations. I believe this is one of the most important motions ever brought before this House. Before you can alter circumstances as they exist you must find out their cause. I suggest to the Minister that he should reconsider the matter. We have not the information, nor has the Minister the information to find out what accounts for this difference. All these things are being considered by the Board of Trade and Industries, and it has not the time to enquire. Even if the Minister had the time to make out a prima facie case he would find the board would not have time to make the enquiry. My hon. friend said just now that the loss to the consumer worked out at about £400 per individual. Look what value the Minister’s testimony would have before a proper enquiry. Now, I honestly believe this to be one of the most important motions before the House. I say this team of all the talents, this Minister of all the talents, have been sent in on the ground that they were to look after the interests of the poor man of South Africa, and they burke at taking any action which may bring about something decent to help the poor man of South Africa. I ask the hon. the Minister to give his consideration to this matter, and even if he does not go back upon his word, to urge upon his colleagues the desirability of having such an enquiry and to appoint such a commission. Incidentally, I support the motion and I commend the manner in which it was introduced and I thank the hon. member for having introduced it.

Hon. members opposite speak so often about the high costs of commissions. We still remember how they attacked the Government with reference to the remark in the report of the Auditor-General about the high costs caused by the commission. During the last few years, only a few commissions have been appointed. We, and I think everyone in the House, have gradually got great confidence in the Board of Trade and Industries, and where would you find a better body for making an enquiry than this one? Say, however, for argument’s sake, that the Government were to appoint such a commission, which found that the cost of living was high, because there were too many retail traders. Will hon. members on the opposite side, who are responsible—I am not now speaking of those hon. members who have come here for the first time, and want to make a reputation and to talk to see their name in the newspapers, and to catch votes at the next election —but I ask responsible members what they will do if such a commission were to say that the too high costs were caused by the middleman, the retail trader, who makes too much profit out of buying and selling produce? If that were the result would hon. members opposite then wish the Government to fix the price of all produce? No, hon. members will immediately say that we cannot do so. In a free country we cannot act in that way against trade. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) pointed out what great profits the traders were making. He mentioned that the taxable incomes of the traders in 1926 were about £12,000,000. I find here, however, in a report just published that the taxable incomes of traders, excluding liquor dealers, amounted to £23,413,000 for the year ending 31st March, 1929. It is, therefore, about £23,500,000 which the traders have got in profit and the number of traders is comparatively small, that is the largest group of taxable incomes of any section of society in that year. The farmers all together had taxable incomes on nearly £6,000,000, including the sugar planters. Even the ordinary people in employment did not have £23,500,000 taxable incomes. Does not the heart of the trouble lie in that? Will hon. members opposite agree to this Government, or any other Government, interfering with the fixing of prices in trade. This motion is like so many others introduced with the object of misleading the public, or as an hon. member here remarks “throwing dust in the eyes of the public I think that when the Minister has said that he will ask the Board of Trade and Industries to make an enquiry the House ought to be satisfied and the hon. member ought to withdraw his motion.

I did not intend to take part in this debate, but I cannot allow some of the statements of the Minister of Mines and Industries to go unchallenged. I cannot understand his negative attitude. Here is a simple motion asking for a commission. Your Board of Trade and Industries, to my mind, are theorists, although they are excellent men to make out reports, and I have nothing against them. But you want something more than a report. We want real help in this matter. We do not want any theorists. Let us by all means have one of the gentlemen from the board of trade. A farmer and a couple of business men on the commission to bring up a report, and do not ask us to commit ourselves as we have been asked to do and say, “If they say so and so, will you say yes”? Let us have the report and then we can decide for ourselves. The hon. Minister takes up a negative attitude. If there was anything to be afraid I could understand it. When he takes up such an attitude, it makes me wonder what he is so nervous about. Perhaps he would not like them to go into the question of cooperative societies. If the co-operative societies will tackle the question of the distribution of vegetables and fruit, then I would say I would welcome it. I welcome all cooperative societies, but I say that they must work and carry on their businesses in the same way as I have to carry on mine. They must not get protection from the Government, or exemption from taxes, or money at lower rates of interest through commercial men.

I never suggested it.

But he knows the co-operative society to which I refer. The hon. Minister asks whether businessmen in South Africa would be satisfied with their profits being limited. So far as I am concerned, I would say, “Yes, but you must give me protection and put me in the position of a sheltered industry and I shall be willing to have my profits limited”. But if I am to go into the open market in competition and then have my profits limited, I say I cannot afford it. In such a position as this with bad debts facing us, how can you put a limit on profits? If the Minister will limit my nett profit to seven and a half per cent.—is that too large ?—I would gladly agree, and most people would gladly say, “Thank you, but you must guarantee us that,” if you place a limit on the amount of profits. What astonishes me is the price of meat. I cannot say it is too high, although I think it is, but I cannot say that definitely, without knowing the cost of distribution. Distribution and other costs certainly must be taken into consideration before people condemn the retailers for over-charging. For instance, it costs 6d. to distribute a box of fruit in Cape Town, and it must not be forgotten that railway rates are high, and many other factors are involved. The retail price of sugar is fixed by Government at 3¾d. a lb., but at Port Elizabeth it is sold for cash in some shops at 3d. a lb. If people think retailers are making too much profit, let them try to run a shop. I have been amazed at some of the low prices obtaining in Port Elizabeth and also in Cape Town. The official figures regarding the cost of living are not quite correct. A Government servant recently transferred from Johannesburg to Port Elizabeth tells me that he is very much worse off financially in Port Elizabeth than he was on the Rand, which is cheaper than Port Elizabeth. He told me that the rents of houses shown in the cost of living figures do not reflect the correct position so far as public servants are concerned and the rents for them are as high in Port Elizabeth as in Johannesburg and Pretoria. The Port Elizabeth figures include a proportionately larger number of houses of the cheaper type than is the case in Pretoria, but these are not the type suitable for many of the public servants. Is the Minister afraid that in order to bring down the cost of living—that reductions must start with the highest Ministers, members of Parliament, etc., railway rates and customs revenue may also have to suffer. I ask the Minister to remember that difficult times are ahead, and he should not turn everything down, as the proposal is calculated to be of assistance at this period of uncertainty and should be welcomed by him.

I must express very deep regret at the attitude adopted by the Minister in not accepting the motion. He assumed that I had concealed a very important fact by not including sundries in my figures, but if he had gone to the Department of Census he would have found that it is not considered that a fair comparison of cost of living is arrived at by including sundries in a cost of living return, because the price of certain articles coming under the heading of sundries is ruled by conditions overseas where these articles, such as clothing, are manufactured—conditions which are of no concern to this country. That is why I excluded sundries so as to give the House an accurate representation of South African conditions. The Minister has taunted us with expressing the commercial point of view; business men are becoming accustomed to the taunt from the other side (whenever we discuss a matter of interest to the country), that we look at it primarily from our own pocket and our own point of view. If we, on this side, who are business men and merchants were afraid of any enquiry into our affairs, we would be the first to burke an enquiry. Are you afraid of holding an enquiry which will impartially enquire into the different factors which must enter into and govern the cost of living? I have pointed out that the factors here are many and varied, and if it turns out that these factors include such matters as customs and railway rates, the knowledge of that fact, without affecting the Government, would be extremely valuable to whatever Government is in power and assist them in determining their future line of action. The increased cost due to customs and railway rates may be comparatively small in recent years, but whatever it is the ultimate burden must fall on the producer.

Well challenge it.

I have made a statement, and hon. members on the other side have tried to get away from it and are afraid to meet the issue. The statement has been perfectly fair and reasonable, but it is put aside by the statement that a business man has put it forward. As to the question raised by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) it is perfectly true the taxable income is £23,000,000, but why did not the Minister state what the number of taxpayers was?

How many farmers produce a taxable income of £500 to £600?

The assessment of farmers is different from that of business men, and you know it as well as I do. The Minister has made a remission to the farmers—I am not complaining— but I would not have mentioned it except that I was challenged. I have given figures from the official publications. I have used no other. With regard to reductions in the retail price, the Minister may be right, but he may be wrong. Why not hold an enquiry? It is being alleged that undue profits are being made. Well, test it. Hold a commission and get down to facts. If such an enquiry is held, by the knowledge we shall gain we shall be able to tackle this problem, which is a matter of burning interest to every section of the people of South Africa.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.