as chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on the subject of the Motor Carrier Transportation Bill, reporting an amended Bill.

Report and proceedings to be printed; first reading of Bill discharged, and Bill withdrawn.

brought up the report of the Select Committee on the subject of the Insolvency (Further Amendment) Bill, reporting an amended Bill.

Report and evidence to be printed; first reading of Bill discharged, and Bill withdrawn.

I would like to be informed, and I am sure other hon. members too, what the proposed amendments this Bill deals with. It is a very important matter. We have had miners’ phthisis Acts before the country for many years, and many amending Acts. We do not know what line this Bill takes.

It is a very short Bill.

If hon. members can be enlightened, I shall withdraw my objection to the second reading being set down for tomorrow, for the time being. If anything requires amendment and improvement I shall be the last one to object. The Bill may be very far-reaching, and to-morrow is too short a time within which to set down the second reading.

Second reading on 21st May.

I move—

Does that also apply to sugar?

No, the position of sugar is different. I now come to sugar. I said that the position with regard to sugar is different. Hon. members must not forget that wheat is one of the products which we have hitherto not grown sufficiently to supply our own needs. Notwithstanding the good season which made our production very large last year our production is not yet large enough to provide for our own needs. In the case of sugar, however, the production is much larger than the local consumption. Only a certain quantity can be absorbed by the local market, and the balance has practically to be dumped overseas at prices which it will fetch in the overseas market. Here the principle we have followed is the one we have consistently followed in connection with primary products, viz., that the local market must be made secure for our local produce. That is what we have done in connection with wheat and all local agricultural produce, and it is also what we propose doing with sugar. The position with sugar is that under the existing duty the local planters and millers did not have the local market. If hon. members will read the report of the Board of Trade and Industries they will see how tremendously the importation of sugar has risen, sugar which is imported here under dumping conditions. We tried to improve the position by means of dumping legislation, but did not succeed in respect of certain countries. Dumping proclamations were issued against various countries, and they were effective there, but they could not be applied to two countries and in order to affect these countries it is necessary to act by way of increasing the general tariff. The proposal, therefore, is to increase the existing tax and to bring it to 12s. 6d. per 100 lbs. A part of the tax will still be imposed as a suspended duty, but the point I want to make clear is that with regard to sugar we have an Act under which the maximum price that can be charged for sugar is fixed. The increased duty will therefore not enable the industry to charge a higher price for our sugar than they do to-day, and this import duty is in fact high enough to keep all sugar from overseas out. We acknowledge frankly that that is the intention of the increase, and whether the duty is 12s., 13s. or 14s. does not affect the position. The price in the country remains the same, and in any case the local market is retained for locally produced sugar. I repeat, however, that the amount of the customs duty does not matter, inasmuch as the internal price is fixed by legislation. With regard to canned fruits, dried fruits, dates, etc., the object is to protect our fruit industry. Hon. members know that we are trying to create an important fruit industry and if they will examine the customs returns they will see that the importation of the articles mentioned has risen very much.

Why dates?

They compete with our dried fruits. They are chiefly used here by bakeries, instead of using the produce of our own industry they often use dates.

The dates are used for quite a different purpose.

They compete unnecessarily with our fruit. Then with regard to maize products, we have a particularly promising industry in Germiston which manufactures the product into starch and various other things. The factory can be considerably extended, and the consumption of those articles can he considerably increased if they can win the local market. The proposal we are making has that object in view. I now come to ready-made clothes. These proposals are also based on the enquiry and recommendations of the Board of Trade and Industries. The present protection for the industry is 20 per cent. Under that protection the industry has considerably increased. To-day it provides work for thousands of our boys and girls, but as a result of changed circumstances in the competition during the last few years, the Board of Trade and Industries has decided that the industry does not get the protection which was granted it a few years ago, viz., 20 per cent. The changed position is due to the fact that in the clothing industry overseas the raw materials are low in price, and that there is a custom to-day to distribute directly instead of through the retailers in the Union, On that account the board decided that the industry deserved an increase of the existing protection. I may say that the industry thinks that they are entitled to a protection of at least 35 per cent., and that the importation of second-hand clothes should be entirely prohibited. The Government was not prepared to agree to that, i.e., to the entire prohibition of second-hand clothes, nor was it prepared to increase the protection to 35 per cent. We are only proposing an increase of 5 per cent. here. I think that most hon. members during the last few weeks have been informed by the boot industry of its needs. Hon. members are, on the whole, acquainted with the history of the protection of the boot industry. The previous Government gave a protection of 30 per cent, on condition that the protection, after a certain period, should be gradually reduced until it came down to 20 per cent, again. Hon. members will remember how we repealed that provision a few years ago, and kept the protection of 30 per cent. Now the industry comes once more saying that they are seriously threatened with overseas competition, and especially by a country on the continent of Europe. The Board of Trade and Industries has carefully gone into the position, and made certain recommendations which amount to a specific tax in the case of boots sold under a certain amount; in that case, according to the recommendations, the special tax would be more than the present ad valorem duty. After receipt of this recommendation, I went further into the position and investigated it fully, and the Government decided that there was just cause for more protection against a certain class of boot, but that it was not necessary to go so far as the recommendation of the board, that it was not necessary to extend the increase of the duty to leather boots which have hitherto been imported, and against which our local industry can compete fairly well. The industry now represents that the protection will not help, that they will be seriously threatened by the importation of leather boots, which would be sold at low prices, but I am sorry that the Government is not prepared to accept that view, and to extend the protection to that class of boot.

Why not?

Because we think that the existing protection is sufficient to enable them to compete. It is different with imported boots not made of leather. Hence we propose to protect our industry better against that class of boot. As to matches, the object of the motion is to secure the market of our local industry against abnormal and unfair competition, especially from one of the European countries. In connection with this recommendation, the promise has also been referred to that the existing prices of the product will not be influenced. In the first place, the guarantee was given to the Government that the price would not be put up, and, in any event, the provision we are making is such that if the guarantee is not complied with the Government can at any time revert to the tariff which is now levied on the importation of matches. In connection with this matter they have to compete with a product which is made under abnormal trade conditions, and a price against which no industry in the world could compete.

The increased duty, however, hits the innocent as well as the guilty. It also affects the Scandinavian countries.

Yes, but that is the only way to protect the industry, unless we are prepared to differentiate between one country and another.

Where do the matches come from?

From Soviet Russia. I do not think it is necessary to say anything now in connection with the other proposals which are of minor importance. The proposals can be separately debated when the House goes into committee.

seconded the motion.

The proposals of the Minister are undoubtedly of great importance, and the House has listened with interest to his statement. The tendency of quite a number of the proposals will be to affect the cost of living. Under these circumstances, the Minister must be prepared to have a good deal of discussion, with reference to his proposals, in view of the fact that at a time like this, when there is grave distress in the country, the Government comes forward with proposals of this kind. They are proposals which mean additional burdens upon the people, and which will make their burdens all the heavier at a time when they find it very difficult to carry even their existing burdens. The remission of the income tax which has been given for a couple of years has been withdrawn, and we are called upon, as the Minister explained in his budget speech, to pay again income tax, both ordinary and super tax, at the old rates. However, most of the discussion probably will be in reference to the customs proposals which the hon. Minister has submitted to us. These additional duties protect ordinary articles of consumption in this country, such as wheat, flour, salt, sugar, ready-made clothing, women’s and maids’ shoes, matches, and the like. Most of them bear on articles of ordinary consumption—I may say articles that are a daily necessity in this country. It is a pity that, at a time when the country is in distress and everybody is suffering, there should be the necessity to impose these duties. I admit that we have built up certain industries in this country, the claims of which we cannot ignore. We are told that other countries produce wheat more cheaply than we can. We know this is so. We know that, if the position is left to unregulated competition as between our farmers and the farmers of Australia and Canada, our farmers cannot hold their own. We know that is so. Agriculturally, we are a poor country, and, as a wheat-producing country, it has not the capacity of other countries. We all admit, even those who profess the free trade faith, that it is necessary to see that our wheat farmers do not go to the wall in the great competition which exists to-day. But we must be very careful. The Government must be careful, and we, in Parliament, must be careful to see that whilst we are protecting our wheat farmers, we do not go a step further than is absolutely justified by the circumstances. Whatever we may intend, however good our intentions may be, the ultimate effect of our proposals must be to raise the cost of primary articles of living. The Minister proposes to raise the duty on wheat and flour, and, although after June a part of this duty may be suspended, and a part will remain, yet even the suspended part will remain hanging over the heads of our consumers. In these circumstances, I lay down generally that we should not go a step further than is necessary in protecting our farmers. I am not prepared to say that the Minister is going too far. It is very difficult for us to judge how far to go with a measure of protection. Naturally, the Government has sources of information at its disposal which the ordinary member does not possess. It is a matter, clearly, in which we are very much in the hands of the Government. If the Government tells us that for the protection of the wheat farmer it is absolutely necessary to impose the duty, well, then, so far as I am concerned, I am prepared to say that I will go to great lengths to protect the wheat farmers.

Parliament can get all the information it wants.

And Parliament must take its responsibilities. I wonder if the Government have explored the alternative idea mentioned to the House before, as to whether it is not possible, instead of continuing to pile on duties, as they have been doing now for a number of years, protective duties from year to year, whether it is not possible for us to try the alternative system which has been tried in other countries in regard to other products, and to say that there shall be a mixture of our locally-produced ingredients with the imported article in certain proportions. Is it not possible, instead of having protective duties, and raising the cost of living, to say rather that the imported articles shall be mixed with our local articles, in proportions to be determined by the Government, and, in that way, the total burden on the people will be checked? I do not know whether this suggestion, which has been repeatedly made, has been carefully explored before, but it is well worth exploration. In many other countries the same system is adopted. It is laid down by law that a certain proportion of the article or product shall be mixed with the imported product, and in that way, a necessary check is maintained on importation. I hope it will be possible for the Government, or for the Board of Trade, to give this matter very careful consideration.

made an interjection.

I am glad to hear that. The time has come for us to explore all other ways there are towards securing and protecting our producers. The mere piling on of protective duties raises such burdens upon the rest of the population that it is worthy of consideration whether other means do not exist to help the producers without the general burden of giving protection on the population as a whole. The case of sugar is different from that of wheat and flour. As the hon. Minister has pointed out, in the case of wheat we have under-production in this country, and we have to import for our requirements, in the case of sugar the position is different. We are an exporting country. Thus another problem arises. There again we are in this position, just as with wheat, that this country has not the most favourable conditions for production as compared with other countries. There are other countries which can produce sugar under much more favourable conditions than we can. Natal cannot compete with Mauritius or with Cuba, or with many other countries, in the production of sugar. Here again we have to admit that a great industry such as sugar requires a measure of protection. But the position here is different from that of wheat, because we are producing more sugar than we can consume, although we are not most favourably situated in regard to production. There are other countries that can produce more cheaply than we can in South Africa. We have over-production, and we are an exporting country of sugar. The natural effect of that is that we must help our sugar producers in Natal to some extent. Not only should we protect them locally, but we should help them also to put their sugar on the markets of the world in competition with sugar of other countries, which can produce more cheaply than we can. This leads to other difficulties. The Minister has come forward and made this proposal, simply creating a tariff wall as far as sugar is concerned, a tariff wall round South Africa. Under the duty as now proposed, I do not think it will be possible to import any further sugar into this country. We shall have to pay somewhat more for our sugar than the ordinary market price in other parts of the world. The effect of the Minister’s proposal is not to raise the price of sugar to the consumer here as the retail price is fixed by law, and will not be affected by the duty, but in the long run the result will be we shall have to pay a somewhat higher retail price for our sugar than other countries will have to pay. Although this matter is one for careful consideration and discussion, I have the same feeling with reference to it, as I have in regard to wheat, for in this case we have one of the great primary industries of South Africa to consider. We cannot allow an industry like this to go under simply because there is to-day a vast accumulation of sugar in the world. It is not only that other countries can produce sugar more cheaply than we can, but we have this vast accumulation of sugar—millions of tons surplus —on the markets of the world, and unless we adequately protect our producers in Natal, the industry will be completely dislocated. My own feeling is that we shall have to give them protection, but we shall have to watch the whole matter, otherwise our consumers may have to pay more than they should for sugar. But with regard to the next item—ready-made clothing— I doubt whether the Minister has made out any case at all for an increase. There is no doubt that every wearer of ready-made clothing will be affected. This is not a case like that of wheat or sugar, where you have two great primary industries already established, which must be kept going at all costs. Ready-made clothing is in a different position, and is a younger industry. To propose to raise the duty on readymade clothing under the circumstances of to-day, when the people are hard hit by bad times, is not to study the real interests of the country, and I think the Minister’s proposal stands on a very different footing to the other two to which I have referred. Then there is the proposal about women’s and maids’ shoes, where the Minister has tried to hold the balance even between the contending interests. There is no doubt that, according to the information laid before the Board of Trade, there is very severe competition with regard to certain kinds of boots and shoes, coming mostly from one country in central Europe. We are told that unless additional protection is afforded, the whole boot and shoe industry in South Africa may be in jeopardy. Here we have again a case where an industry has been built up over a series of years under the policy of the Government. There is no doubt that the boot and shoe industry is one of the most important secondary industries in this country, and if a fair case is made out for the protection of this industry against new dangers and difficulties that may emerge, then I am sure that Parliament will consider the case with every sympathy and care. The Board of Trade, after receiving evidence, came to the conclusion that the case could be met by raising the duty on all boots and shoes to 3s. 6d. a pair. There is an existing duty of 30. per cent., but the boot interests urge that in respect of the very cheap women’s and maids’ shoes which are imported from central Europe this 30 per cent, does not give any adequate protection, and that in addition to that it was necessary to have a minimum duty. The Board of Trade then recommended that there should be a minimum duty of 3s. 6d. a pair, but I see that the Minister, in his proposal, has taken a middle course, and has confined this minimum of 3s. 6d. only to the case which was directly made out before the Board of Trade. The Minister has not gone the whole length recommended by the Board of Trade, but proposes to give this limited protection. I hope the Minister will be able to explain to us in what respect he thinks the Board of Trade has gone too far, and why he has limited the proposal to women’s and maids’ shoes only. It is a matter upon which I think there will be a good deal of further agitation; I have had a number of telegrams referring to the matter. With regard to matches from Soviet Russia, I am glad to hear from the Minister that he will take the necessary precaution to see that this additional duty will not raise the price of matches. On the whole we are dealing with a set of proposals which, under ordinary circumstances, will be scrutinized very carefully; they are proposals touching the necessaries of life, and under the circumstances of to-day, they require an even more close scrutiny, because there is no doubt that some of them are necessary and inevitable. They will have the effect of raising the cost of living, and we should take every precaution to keep the cost of living down, and to see that we lay no undue burden on the population of the country.

The Government is continuing the policy of protection which it has followed ever since it has been in power, but this time I think they have excelled themselves. When one looks at the list of commodities they are proposing to tax, one is concerned almost to find any article of food or of wear they are not putting a tax on. Duties have been placed on wheat (and as a result on bread, maize, patent foods, preserved and bottled fruits, dates, peas, beans, lentils and sugar, which are all fundamental items of foodstuffs. These are all fundamental items of food; and one might say that practically the whole contents of a grocer’s shop at which the housewife buys food for her household is to have increased taxation. Following the housewife on her marketing we come to the outfitter’s shop, and find virtually everything of real importance there is also to be taxed. Ninety-five per cent, of the people of this country, be they white or black, wear ready-made clothing, and it is to have an increased duty; so are the dustcoats that are worn by vanmen, the suits worn by fitters and ordinary workers in engine-rooms, shirts, collars and pyjamas; in fact, the main contents of an outfitter’s shop. If she wants to buy shoes she finds that the price of the shoe the wife or the daughter of the workingman would wear is put up. Assuming that the house in which the working man and his wife live is of the cheaper class, the joinery is to be taxed still further. The films—the poor man’s amusement, that they go to see—

Films are not protected higher.

I beg the Minister’s pardon; here it is not a tariff duty.

It is not increased.

Leaving this aside, everything else you can say the poor man eats and wears is subject to this extra cruel taxation. I want to confine my criticism to one or two items of these proposals; and first of all, to the item of ready-made clothing about which my right hon. leader has already spoken. As I said in my budget speech, and as I say again, the vice of increased protection is like a drug habit—the more you get the more you want. I remember the Minister coming almost in fear and trembling in 1926 to bring forward a proposal to increase the duty on ready-made clothing from 15 to 20 per cent. Included in those proposals was a proposal to put the duty on boys’ clothing not made in the country, which I am glad he dropped, but he put through the House the increased duty on ready-made clothing from 15 to 20 per cent.; four years later he asks us to give another turn to this screw of cruel taxation, and he justifies his proposed increase by a report from the Board of Trade and Industries. I have read over the report of that board on the present tariff proposals, and if hon. members will take that particular report they cannot but be struck by the fact that it is almost as bald as the Minister’s speech was. Virtually what he said was that the industries “have already done well out of the protection we have given them; let us give them a little more and see whether they can do better.” That is what the board says. No enquiry seems to have been made as to the effect on the consumer of the increase and the increased amount he will have to pay. As my leader said, the protection of primary industries like sugar and wheat is one thing; protection is another thing when you come to speak of an industry which consumes nothing of the primary products of a country and imports everything used in the turning out of the finished article—clothing, buttons and so forth, and simply assembles it, if you are going to pick out any industry, that should be the last on the list. I say it is not fair to the people of this country, white and black, who wear ready-made clothing, that in order to build up a comparatively small industry which draws its material from overseas, the wearer of clothes should be taxed in this way. I cannot see why this additional protection should be given, even if that industry is to be protected. In 1925, our imports in this were £2,419,000. The duty was imposed, and next year, in 1926. it was £1,893,000; the following year it had fallen still further, to £1,402,000; and in 1928, it increased slightly, to about one million and a half; for the ten months of 1929 it was just over £1,100,000. The effect of that increase in the duty from 15 to 20 per cent, was a decrease in the annual importation from roughly two and a half to one and a half millions; in other words, the local industry has benefitted presumably by a million as a result of that duty, and almost to the same extent that has been paid. Why are they and the Minister not satisfied? Why cannot they leave well alone and carry on under the existing duty? I have read the report in vain for any real argument in favour of this. Hon. members ought to have that report in their hands as this debate is going on, and they should have an opportunity of reading it beforehand; but if there is only one copy with the Clerk of the Papers how can hon. members get to know what is in the report of the Board of Trade and Industries? It should be printed, especially in the case of a controversial duty such as this. Not only is it proposed to give them this increased protection, and piece goods of which these garments are to be made come in free, but the same remarks apply to shirts, collars and pyjamas. I do not know whether there are any members of the Labour party left in the House. If there are, they should listen to this particular item which concerns them. Then there is the item dust coats, butchers’, werehouse and factory coats, and overalls, motorists’ suits and leggings, new, of cotton, linen and silk.

You want one of those every day.

Boiler suits and overalls are certainly required by workmen and hon. members will agree with me in that, if they remember their working days. There is this further duty to be placed on these suits, and in that case the duty is increased from the present duty of 15 per cent, to 25 per cent. Where are we getting? The next item is the proposed increased duty on boots and shoes. I was extremely surprised when the Minister announced this duty some three or four days ago. I know the lobbies were full of lobbyists on behalf of the industries, about a month ago, but we did not hear any more about it, and I thought they had failed in their task. What does the Minister propose? He says that on fabric shoes, imported from overseas, there is to be a minimum duty of 3s. 6d. per pair. What is the rate of that duty? I believe that the average f.o.b. price of Czecho-Slovakian shoes imported into this country has been 6s. 9d. per pair, so that 3s. 6d. on 6s. 9d. is slightly over 50 per cent. In the case of shoes, worn by women of limited means, he is increasing the duty from 30 per cent, to over 50 per cent, I remember when the shoe manufacturers came along to this House and said: “Give us a temporary 30 per cent. duty. Put us on our legs by means of that duty, and when we have had a few years to build up our industry, under the shelter of that tariff wall, we will be satisfied if you remove that tariff wall brick by brick until it comes down to 17 per cent.” When 1928 came, when there should have been an automatic reduction by 2½ per cent., the inevitable happened, namely, that the shoe industry came along to the Government and said: “Unless you stabilize that duty at 30 per cent., we are all going to be faced with ruin.” The Government agreed to that proposal, and now, three years later, they come along and say: “Unless you raise the duty on the cheaper class of shoe again, we are faced with ruin.” How the Government could have been taken in by that story, I do not know, because little if any of that class of shoe is being made in South Africa to-day. This duty is being put on, not to preserve a line which is being made in this country, but to enable this country to make a line it is not now making. In point of fact, the industry is not making that particular line, yet because of this competition with Czechoslovakia, the Government is doing the most vicious of things. It is putting up the tax on the cheapest class of article. It is saying to the poor woman: “You will pay 50 per cent, duty on your shoes,” and to the rich woman it is saying: “You will pay 30 per cent." It is making the poorer people pay almost at a double rate. It is the same with doors. The doors for a poor man’s house pay more duty than the doors for a rich man’s house. What is the justification for this proposed increase? Can it be said that the firm in Czecho-Slovakia, whose competition is the cause of this particular recommendation, is dumping? No. Can it be said they are sweating? The allegation has been made that they are sweating, but on the whole the evidence seems to be that they are not sweating. I look at this paper, Industrial and Commercial South Africa. What does it say in the leather trades review for this month? It states that imports of footwear from Czechoslovakia continue on a large scale, and that the statement made by people connected with the boot and shoe industries here that the reason Czecho-Slovakia is able to flood this country with cheap boots is by means of low wages paid there, has been emphatically denied by the manufacturers’ agents. An article describing mass production in Czecho-Slovakia affords the reason why South African manufacturers cannot compete.

They work 16 hours.

No, they work on piece work, I believe. This great firm in Czechoslovakia seems to have absolutely revolutionized methods in the boot and shoe trade, and it is turning out shoes at prices with which the rest of the civilized world seems to find itself unable to compete. Where are we going to stop? Are we going to say that because an industry overseas is successful in its methods, does not dump, does not sweat, does not underpay, we must go on building a tariff wall against it? The proof that wages have very little to do with it is contained in another article, but I am reminded, in regard to the question of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), that Czecho-Slovakia was one of the first countries to adopt the eight-hour day under the Washington Convention. The main item in the cost of the finished product from Czecho-Slovakia is raw material. Raw materials represent 80 per cent, of the cost of the finished product, and the 20 per cent, represents overhead charges and wages. This manufacturer buys his hides in South America, and his coal and iron in upper Silesia. It comes down to a question of mass production, and super-efficiency in mass production. Is the consumer always to be made to pay the cost? The present duty on Czechoslovakian shoes works out at 1s. 10d. per pair, which will be increased to 3s. 6d. That will represent an increase in price to the consumer of 4s. to 5s. per pair. Your typist and school teacher will have to bear the burden, and the factories at Port Elizabeth and elsewhere will make an extra profit. You are making the poorest of the poor pay that extra price, and I raise my voice in protest. I am glad the Minister did not go as far as the Board of Trade recommended he should. A particular trade comes to them and says it is unable to meet with the competition of imported goods. You very seldom see an enquiry made into the industry concerned, or the disparity between the retail price and the factory price. The next item I want to refer to is matches. There is to be an increased duty because apparently Soviet Russia has entered the match-making trade and is exporting matches to this country at prices which appear to make it impossible for the local industry to compete. It is said that the Soviet is dumping, but no proof can be furnished that that is being done. It is stated the reason why matches are being sold cheaper is the enormous reduction in the freight on matches. That reduction is equivalent to 12 per cent, in protection, which the industry did not get before. Over and above these rates of duty, therefore, freight itself is said to be equivalent to 12 per cent, additional protection. Whenever the shipping companies reduce freights, the industry concerned can say to the Government: “We are getting less protection, and therefore please put on a further duty." That is an extraordinary admission from the Board of Trade, and next time the shipping companies are asked to reduce freight rates, they will simply refuse, because the Government put on an extra duty equivalent to that reduction in freight. That principle is most unsound, and I read that portion of the report with great astonishment. I do not want to take up the time of the House. We are going into committee on these items and I shall have a further opportunity. In conclusion I want to say that at this time, of all times, when the purchasing power of the community is so reduced, when everybody is anxious as to the economic output, for the Government to present a list involving increases in fifteen to twenty items—the main items which will affect cost of living—that is taking a great responsibility. We should be lacking in our duty if when proposals of this kind are discussed, we do not take advantage of the opportunity to express the great concern with which we view such proposals as those made by the Minister. Doubtless a case can be made out for some of the items, but so far as ready-made clothing and boots and shoes are concerned, a case cannot be made out, and nothing but general disadvantage to the community can result.

The protection policy of the Government is again under review. In general there is little that can be said that is fresh on this subject, but I propose to bring forward something which I may claim to be new. The old proverb says “Ex Africa semper aliquid novi” and I hope it will be looked upon in that light. During the budget debate the Minister of Finance, in referring to increased duties said—

It seems to me that the Minister of Finance cannot have it both ways. Either the result of the protective duty is going to lead to a restriction of imports, in which case the revenue from this source must diminish, or it will have no such effect, and in that case the local article will be produced in larger quantities and the local manufacturer will benefit. We cannot have an increase in local manufacture and an increase in importation. Whichever of the two happens, the increased duty leads to extra cost to the consumer, who is the most important person to be considered in this respect. That this is un avoidable cannot, I think, be contested, although several Ministers have said that an increase of duty does not necessarily raise the cost to the consumer. It may be said that my argument leads to free trade, but if hon. members will listen to me I hope to show that that is not necessarily so. Take the case of sugar. We have an import duty on sugar which, in the year 1928, produced a revenue of £175,000 on 22,000 tons of sugar imported. At the same time, we levied excise of 1s. per 100 lbs., which produced £200,000 revenue. In addition we exported 50,000 tons of sugar, which we dump abroad practically. That does not affect the argument I am leading to. The point is that we are taxing the sugar consumer to the extent of £200,000 in excise and £175,000 in duties, a total of £375,000, which naturally the consumer has to pay in South Africa.

Are you quite sure about that?

The poor man uses as much sugar as anybody else and has, relatively, to pay a larger portion of his income in this duty. I will indicate what I think should have been done. I think the hon. Minister of Finance should have given up this £200,000 in excise duty and £175,000 in customs, and he should have applied £175,000 be raised by way of customs duties to pay a bounty towards the production of sugar, which would nearly have covered the £200,000, and he would have saved the consumer £375,000. Of course, the Minister will at once retort, “Where shall I get it; where shall I get the revenue of £375,000. which I am to give up.” My answer is, “What did we do in 1928? You gave away revenue to the tune of £750,000.” He taxes the income of the poor man and, apparently, he lets the rich man off to the extent of £750,000 by remitting 20 per cent, of the Normal Income. Tax, when he could have let off the sugar consumer a matter of £375,000. He preferred to leave the rich man and tax the poor man; and that from a Government which pretends to be the poor man’s friend. This brings me to my next point. That is that we are at the present moment not taxing very intelligently. We started taxing luxuries for revenue purposes by import duties, and at the same time, we levied import duties for the purpose of protection. The two are so closely intermingled that it is very difficult to say where one begins and the other ends. Let us consider for a moment the case of an article produced by an industry not yet in existence in South Africa, and, therefore, not yet protected by this policy of ours. In such a case the article is imported free of duty, and its cost to the consumer is the lowest that it can possibly Be. The Minister of Finance does not look to that article for any revenue. He is satisfied to let the budget go its way, and by balancing up other means of revenue raised, he meets his ordinary expenditure. He does not look to it to bring him in any revenue. Then somebody starts manufacturing this particular article. In order to be able to compete against competition from abroad, the manufacturer runs to the Minister of Finance, who, after an examination of the case, extends protection towards him and imposes a tax for the purpose of protection, ostensibly. But while he is playing this benevolent part, at the same time, he puts into the Treasury, perhaps, £100,009 by way of revenue. Therefore, his protection serves a double purpose of giving revenue and providing protection. Having once got to that stage when he has £100,000 revenue, he finds it very difficult to depart from this policy, for on account of the expansion of business these import duties continue to grow, and wax on account of the large importations, and although the Minister of Finance may set his face against expenditure, when he has a surplus he can hardly hold out against the demands of his colleagues, who want expenditure for this, that and the other purpose, and they point to the revenue which is available. In the end, he finds himself in the position that where he at first imposed a duty for protection, it ultimately evolved into a revenue duty which he finds it practically impossible to give up. Once you have established your protection system, it is harder to give relief for the reason that the Minister of Finance finds the duty more necessary for revenue than the manufacturer requires it for protection. It has been stated that there is no other course open to us. The Government ask, " What else can we do? We can only protect our industries in this way, and we must found our prosperity on as broad a basis as possible to give employment to our people.” Well, the protection policy is sound enough up to a certain point. But there are other methods of protecting industries. I refer to the bounty system, in the first place. It is at present looked upon as the only other alternative system to importation by means of protected duties. The bounty system has this advantage. It does not raise the cost of the article in the importing country. The locally-made article has to compete against the article imported free of duty, but the local manufacturer with the aid of the bounty can bring his costs down to that of the imported article which comes in free. The main objection to it is that the bounty system requires revenue. The bounty has to be, paid and the revenue has to be derived from some other source. The Minister of Finance has to raise it in some other way. That creates difficulties, and may in the end also raise the cost of living. But it may be difficult to tax the richer taxpayer on his luxuries, any more than has been done before. There is a difficulty in that respect, The bounty system also has this further difficulty. It is somewhat difficult of application, and its administration is not too easy. It can be overcome, as Australia, with its large export bounty system, bas shown. The administrative difficulties can be overcome. Further there is the difficulty of the bounty system that it leads to political troubles. It gives rise to internal difficulties in the House and it is therefore rather fought shy of by Ministers. Now I propose, instead of a bounty system, a modification of the import duty system and the bounty system. I will make that system clear, and I will take a simple case. Supposing for the sake of argument that we wish to protect the tinned milk industry. Let us for simplicity’s sake suppose it costs 6d. to import a tin of milk into this country free of duty. That is to say the landed cost is 6d. The manufacturer in this country may wish a protection of 2d. per tin or 33½ per cent, on 6d. He wants that in order to compete because his costs work out at 8d. The result will be that he goes to the Minister and gets a protective duty of 2d. The milk will be sord in the country on the basis, not of 6d. per tin as hitherto, but on the basis of 8d. in the future. That is what we have been doing in the past. Incidentally, under such a system the Treasury at once benefits by the enormous quantity of milk imported, if the import duty is 2d. The Minister of Finance may perhaps get £100,000 from this source, which his colleagues in the ordinary way we have seen in this country, proceed to spend as rapidly as possible, and having instituted this additional expenditure, the Minister of Finance finds it very difficult to get rid of it. But suppose, instead of paying 2d., we paid a duty of 1d. on a tin of milk, and gave it to the local manufacturer as a bounty. In that case the advantage to the local article would still be maintained, but the cost of the manufactured article would be diminished from 8d. to 7d. and the cost of the imported article would be increased from 6d. to 7d. Thus the cost, instead of being stabilized at 8d. as it is under the present system, would be stabilized at 7d. under the new system. We should have protected the local industry by a combined system of protection and bounty and would have increased the cost of the article by only one penny But as a matter of fact, the position is actually much better even than this. It would not be necessary to place a penny a tin on condensed milk at the beginning, as the local industry would manufacture only a small portion of the total consumed. Therefore it would not be necessary to place a penny a tin on the imported article in order to pay the bounty of a penny a tin on the local article. For example if 80 per cent, of the tinned milk were imported and 20 per cent, manufactured locally, a duty of ½d. a tin on the imported article would be more than sufficient to pay a bounty of 1½d. on the local article. That would stabilize the price at 6½d. a tin, to which figure the price of the locally manufactured article would be reduced by the bounty of 1½d., as compared to the 8d., at which it stands under this present system. As the manufacture of the local article increased until ultimately it represented 50 per cent, of the consumption, then 1d. would be put on the imported article and that would yield enough revenue to pay a bounty of 1d. a tin on the locally manufactured article. If protection and bounty succeeded in enabling the local manufacture to furnish 50 per cent, of the total consumption, the young industry would probably be healthy enough to continue to prosper. In any case, if the imports diminished to less than 50 per cent, the amount of duty collected would also diminisih and furnish a smaller bounty per article, but the stabilized price could not rise above 7d. per tin. The same argument applies to a great many other articles, but obviously the system is not universally applicable. For instance, we could not apply it to wheat, but we could apply it to ready-made clothing, the duty on which is to be increased by 5 per cent. Under my system, there would be an import duty of 2½ per cent, which would be paid as a bounty to local manufacturers. Obviously, the Treasury would derive no additional benefit, but that is not a disadvantage, for in the past five years, with an expanding revenue from import duties which have increased to £9,000,000, our expenditure has also grown. If the revenue were not so buoyant the expenditure could be kept down within a more reason able margin. I need not go into further details of the proposed scheme. I suggest, however, that such a scheme would lead to the establishment of a bounty fund into which the purely protective duties—not the revenue duties—would be paid, and there would have to be a clear distinction between revenue and protective duties. Dumping is not dealt with under this scheme, and would probably have to be coped with in the same way as it is at present. In this way we could get out of the dilemma which all countries have found themselves in of having to choose between protection and free trade, as a rule they have chosen protection, and we see in Australia an object lesson of how extreme protection has greatly increased the cost of living. That has led to higher wages with a resultant increase in the cost of living and of manufacture, and this again to higher import duties, and so the vicious circle has gone on. That is where we are getting to. In Australia this system has had the effect of crushing out gold mining and we shall have to be careful that it does not do that here. As it is, it is already having an effect on gold production and unless we see to it it will have a still further detrimental effect. So I would like to raise my protest against these duties. In proposing to place an extra duty on miners’ acetylene lamps, the Government are taxing an article which is required for the safety of the miners. That safety depends very largely on the illuminant. The miner wants the best possible illuminant and so chooses acetylene lamps. I do not think it right to tax anything that conduces to increased safety for the miner.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) argued that there was no necessity to increase the duty on shoes, as the local trade had remained constant. I agree that it is a pity the House did not have an opportunity of considering the Board of Trade’s report, from which it is clear that in men’s boots and shoes the factories have been able to hold their own, and there has been a steady decrease in imported shoes, whereas in women’s shoes, exactly the reverse has taken place. The figures show that in 1927 1,009,000, in 1929 1,283,000 pairs of women’s shoes were imported into South Africa, and a difference of 280,000 pairs of women’s shoes is a large and appreciable amount, as far as this country is concerned. These factories in South Africa are employing much white labour—our sons and daughters, for whom we have to find employment—and we are more concerned with this than the greater amount which the hon. member wants to get in from Czecho slovakia. He gave us the impression that there was no necessity for this increased duty. If there is anything alarming, it is this rapid increased importation from Czecho-Slovakia. The Board of Trade and Industries directs attention to a certain firm which has sprung up in that country, for which the hon. member holds such a strong brief.

Do you mean that literally?

No, not literally. I can always understand the hon. member taking up free trade with Great Britain, but when he speaks of the firm of Bata he forgets that this increase has taken place practically over the whole world, and not only in South Africa. Our normal production in South Africa, and our imports from Great Britain have remained practically constant.

The duty is against the British manufacturer as well.

But that trade has remained constant. I took the trouble to find the “Industrial and Commercial Review” for May, where they have a long description of the activities of this particular firm of Bata, and this is what they say—

I am quoting this to give the second part, which the hon. member did not quote; he quoted the first. There is not the slightest doubt that this boot factory has been very successful, but what South Africa is concerned with is that this firm has been so successful that it is making inroads into the boot industry here, so much so that our industry has to be further protected. As to matches, the Board of Trade and Industries have gone into this, and states that the industry is threatened with unfair competition; and if the Government can assure the low prices continuing, which have been charged to the consumers in this country, it is its duty to see that the industry here is protected. The hon. member is more concerned to be against protection than he is with regard to the consumption and use of the article made locally. I maintain that these tariffs do not touch the poor man a bit; he is better off, not only because he has employment for himself, but also for his children, and at the standard wages paid in this country they are able to buy these commodities.

I do not think, having regard to the importance of this matter, anybody who feels one way or the other, would keep silence; the criticism I have to offer is rather of a general character than directed against one or the other class of goods, and I think it best to make my point here at once, I think what is necessary is that we should come to a conclusion as to the philosophy of what is at the back of the proposal the Minister is making. What is the thought that lies at the back of the proposal, to propose an addition to the cost of living of these commodities in the interests of South Africa? The great assumption, as far as I have been able to gather from the speeches of the hon. the Minister, and those who addressed the House, is that it will be for the benefit of South Africa if all these goods are made in South Africa, and not elsewhere. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) argues it is to the benefit of South Africa if all the boots and shoes used here should be made here, for the employment it gives, regardless of the cost. That is a philosophy I can understand; but it has not been announced in such round, broad terms by the Minister, and I doubt whether the Minister will assent to it in such categorical terms as the hon. member for Vredefort has done. I doubt very much whether such a proposition would meet with the ready assent of the majority of this House, and hon. members will be inclined to say: “No, we want this thing in reason— we do not want unreasonable protection.”

Do you want it at all?

That is the question we are asking, and if we want it at all we want to know why we want it, and how much we want it. I think it will not be readily assented to that we want it regardless of cost. On what basis do we want it? It is said that we want it in order to prevent dumping. Let us put dumping on one side. Probably we are all agreed with regard to that, and we can rule dumping out, and say that anti-dumping legislation may be accepted in principle. Then again we may take another principle, that is anti-sweating, and here again we may all probably agree that we would not have this country used as a place where goods are to be sent to which are produced under conditions which we would not tolerate for our own people. That would be to expose us to unfair competition, and we should, indeed, be subjecting ourselves to moral reprobation if we permitted goods to enter the country produced outside under conditions which we would not tolerate for our own people. If your legislation is to be based on anti dumping and anti-sweating conditions, then it is agreed that the duties are good, and that even the prohibition of importation might be justified. But if we go beyond that, where are we? I think we are agreed that one of the phases of world conditions at the present time is the enormous production and surplus production that there is in various parts of the world, at the same time that we have got the phenomenon of a large portion of the world’s population being either starving or underfed. Why is it that in the world, and not only in the whole world, but in different countries of the world, you have one section of the population with goods that they cannot sell, and which another section of the population are screaming for and cannot get? There is something very wrong. I am inclined, myself, to attribute it very largely to the methods of exchange with which an individual country, and with which the world, is faced to-day, but passing from the individual country to the considerations of exchange, I have no doubt that the phenomenon of having a surplus of goods in one country and a shortage of goods in another country, is accentuated, if not caused, by the tariff walls which at present surround nearly every country in the world. I think that that has been admitted by economists of standing all over the world; certainly by economists of such outstandingly protectionist countries as France and Germany and Austria. Let us just consider then, that if that be the opinion of a very responsible portion of the pundits upon this matter, a case for enquiry is surely made out, and I want to urge upon the Minister that he makes an enquiry with regard to this path upon which he has embarked. I am not going to commit myself this afternoon to say that it is wrong, but I say it is perfectly clear from the history of the levying of duties in South Africa that we are annually progressing at an increased rate along, a path which was marked out some years before. Unless we are diverted from this path we shall go further along it, and at an increased pace. To what end? To our advantage or to our disadvantage? I urge upon the Minister that before going further he causes an enquiry of an exhaustive character to be made. It will be an enquiry, in the first instance, to see what has been the result in the past of the duties which have been imposed by our tariff upon the expansion of industry, upon the cost of living, upon the value of our wages, upon the wages that are paid, and last but not least, an enquiry as to its effect upon unemployment, and especially the unemployment of whites. I know that hon. members—most in this House, without respect to parties—are all committed to what they call a policy of protection. If so, they must have made an enquiry themselves along the lines I have indicated. They must, before they can come to a positive conclusion that this policy is good for South Africa, have made up their minds as to whether it is good or ill in respect of the cost of living. Has it raised it, or has it decreased it? Have the duties imposed in the past upon clothing, boots and food and everything else, had an effect upon the cost of living? If they have, has their effect been to raise the cost of living, or to reduce the cost of living? If it has had the effect of raising the cost of living, what effect has it had on the expansion of industry, on the cost of conducting our industry? You cannot raise the cost of living without raising the cost of conducting industry, and if you do that you make it less likely to be able to sell your products, and when you come to that stage, so far from having found more employment for your own population, you have, in the very terms of that conclusion, circumscribed the employment open to your population. In other words, although you may have one particular industry fed in this way, under the shelter of a duty such as 1s now going to be imposed, it may have the effect of closing down or restricting other industries in which a large number of your white population might have been employed. Have hon. members gone into that question? Have they thought it out? Have they tested it? Have they gone into statistics? Are they prepared to give a considered and a reasoned opinion on that point? I should have thought that this was an elementary proposition, which has got to be determined before you can recommend any increase, or the introduction, for that matter, of duties, and it is a matter of profound regret that the Board of Trade and Industries in their short and very pithy reports, more like judgments than reports upon the matters submitted to them, have not thought fit to consider this question. I do not know of any document they publish in which an enquiry into these elementary propositions has ever been tackled by the Board of Trade and Industries, and it is impossible for us to form a balanced judgment as to the propriety or impropriety of these proposals, until there has been a very searching consideration of these questions. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was content to throw the responsibility for this on the Government. I find great difficulty in entirely resting content to do that. I feel there is a responsibility on each and all of us, not only to those constituents who have returned us, but to the public of South Africa. I think we owe a debt to them to raise questions of outstanding importance, and to see that, so far as in us lies, no step is taken which may be fraught with danger to the general public, unless the most exhaustive enquiry has been made. We cannot shirk the responsibility in an easy way, which I should be delighted to do if I could do it with all honesty, and say: “Well, I had no hand in it, and I have no responsibility.” If duties are being imposed which so far from helping are going to hinder, we must point this out. I ask the Minister not to regard it as proved either that this in or is not good for South Africa, but to make exhaustive enquiries. I take one of these industries to illustrate the point. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) has mentioned the boot and shoe industry. Would it be for the good of South Africa if we had no imports in this particular trade, if every article for man, woman and child was made in South Africa regardless of cost. If we said “yes” to that, we should find it difficult not to give the same answer in regard to any other commodity, and you would be reduced to this position, that it would be for the advantage of South Africa that we should have no imports at all. You may say that is reductio ad absurdum, and I am bound to agree. Let me say at once that I accept, without qualification, the test of whether this policy is good for South Africa or bad, and, by way of testing its effect on the cost of living, the cost of industry, the expansion of industry, and the effect upon employment. I know of no answers that have been given authoritatively to these problems. I know of no serious exhaustive enquiry directed to these issues; but I venture to say that on the answers to these questions depends the whole of your justification, not only for voting for or against the particular measure now before the House, but as to the lines on which you will promote your industry for the future, and seek for the means of employing your population, and employing it at reasonable rates.

We have listened with great interest to the important speech delivered by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard). The difficulty with which he is faced, and the House is faced, is that whilst the hon. member has thoughtfully told us we require some investigation, he, for his part, does not appear to have indicated any alternative to the policy before the House. As he rightly complained, the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), the leader of the party, not only did not indicate a line of policy, but was content that the responsibility should rest with the Government. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), whilst turning round and saying: “If there is any member of the Labour party left, what is he going to say about it?” satisfies himself by criticizing the Minister, but the effect of his statement was, he is ready to raise his voice in protest, but he is not ready to record his vote in protest, or to submit any alternative proposals to the Government. The position as regards free trade and protection is being continually discussed without considering that these are not principles—they are simply details to give effect to a policy which we think is in the interests of the country. What do the requirements of the country call for? From that point of view it may be found to be a mistake to go too far along the road of protection, yet it may equally be a mistake not to go far enough in the direction of protecting industries. The hon. member for Roodepoort indicated that we have on the one hand in some countries over-production—they are bursting with goods to sell, and searching for markets—while in other countries where people require these goods, they have not the purchasing capacity to buy them. But the hon. member for Roodepoort has overlooked the fact that you have these two conditions arising in the same country. Take the sugar industry. Whilst our production for 1929 amounted to 299,000 tons, we actually exported 126,000 tons, and, on the other hand, we have been importing a very considerable amount of sugar into this country. The reason we are importing it is that many thousands of our people are not in a position to buy the sugar we produce, and we import because, in spite of the cost of freight, sugar can still be landed in South Africa to sell more cheaply than sugar grown in this country.

What about retail prices?

Slightly cheaper, or they would not be able to do it at all in Cape Town, for one. I think the hon. member for Pretoria will be able to reply to the hon. member for Durban (County) (Mr. Eaton). The position that my hon. friend and this House has to consider in these matters is that we have to see that the purchasing power of the population shall be so increased that, instead of having to keep on searching for markets overseas, the commodities we can produce in South Africa we should keep and consume in South Africa without being placed in the ridiculous, position of exporting, on the one hand, and importing on the other. Whilst we are dealing with these matters, I feel the difficulty that the South African party is placed in, and is placing the Government in, is that they have not put forward anything in the nature of an alternative.

Alternative to what?

To these measures at present before the House. I do not admit that these measures that are before the House at the moment are intended as taxation measures. I will give the hon. Minister the credit by saying that the object of these measures is not intended to raise the necessary revenue, but is merely intended as the result of demands made by industries from time to time to him for further protection in order to maintain those industries.

What did you say in 1924?

What did my hon. friend say in 1880? The point I put to this House and to the Minister is that whilst we are protecting industries, there are alternatives which should be seriously considered and adopted. The hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) travelled to some extent in that direction by suggesting that we should pay more attention to the bounty system as a means of fostering industry. But there are certain cases, some of which we have before us to-day, when even the imposition of a bounty would not really meet the position in regard to those industries. I take, first of all, the question of wheat and flour—the additional duty that was imposed there. I am sure that every member of this House is anxious to see that the farming population shall be protected so far as that industry is concerned. But I must say that I criticized the proposed increase on the duty on wheat and the proposed increase on the duty on flour, firstly, because the Minister himself, only a few weeks ago, indicated that, by increasing the duty, he was not going to help the farmer at all.

I am hoping to do so.

You are hoping! The Minister on a previous occasion told the House—

It will go a long way to assist the farmer.

On a previous occasion when the question of additional duty arose, the hon. Minister, who never speaks without consideration, told us that he had come to the conclusion that that duty would not be sufficient or helpful to the farmer, because the farmer would be in the hands of the millers in this country. On a subsequent occasion, he came along and said he must impose an additional duty on wheat—that was at the beginning of the session—and he said: “I am not sure now what the effect of it will be.” When we put it to the Minister that by imposing that duty on wheat without taking some steps as regards the millers, we pointed out to him that whilst the farmer was not being protected because he would still be in the hands of the millers, the miller would say: “I am going to pay you only so much regardless of the duty.” At the same time, the consumer in this country would be mulcted by an increase in the price of bread. The Minister, however, said: “No, this will not happen, because I am refusing to impose an additional duty on flour.” By reason of the fact that he was refusing to impose an additional duty on flour, the consumer would be protected. Since then, we know that negotiations have been going on between the farmers and the millers. They have come to an agreement amongst themselves by which they said: “In order to help the farmer, we have come to an arrangement by which there will be an additional duty on flour and we shall help the miller.” The Minister on that occasion said he would not accept it. Now, we are faced with the proposal by which the Minister is imposing an additional duty on flour. That is to say, that the Minister, a few weeks ago, told this House that if the millers are going to utilize that to exploit the public, his protection now, both as regards the farmer and the miller, would be that after the end of 30th June, the duty will be only a suspended duty. I think I understood the Minister correctly.

It may be taken off.

If he finds that either the farmer or the miller is exploiting the public it may be taken off. The point I make to the Minister in that connection is this: that in the first place, once you impose a duty it becomes very difficult to take it off. I say that as a convinced protectionist. In the second place, I put this to the Minister and to my farmer friends in this House. If the farmers are faced with the position that they know that at any moment after 30th June the Minister may take off that duty, they have no security whatever. The real object is to give the farmers some definite security for a certain period, and he will be able to produce wheat at a certain price and be able to sell it at a certain price. Unless you give him that specific guarantee you are not helping him at all. I am sure the farmers, generally, will admit that unless you give them some permanent security and not say that you may take the duty off after the 30th June, it will be no security whatever. I have submitted to the Minister and I submit to the House, and to my hon. friend, the member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard), the position that if you are to protect the farmer and the consumer in this country, then, instead of increasing your duty, you should definitely go in for a policy of controlling imports. The answer of the Minister to that in the past has been that he does not like to interfere with economic laws. Every farthing of duty which he imposes is an interference with economic laws. Once you have accepted the principle that this House is to interfere with economic laws, then his proposal falls away entirely. I say this: that these are proposals which are receiving to-day serious consideration in Great Britain under a free trade Government. Many of the supporters of the Government are realizing that something has got to be done to foster industry, and they are suggesting that method now. They are receiving consideration in Australia to-day, and I submit that it is a practical proposition. If you take up the line that you are going to regulate the importation of wheat and flour into this country, you find yourself in this position that you will say: “We will establish an importation control board. That board will know that the farmers are producing so much wheat in this country, that the public requires so much wheat, and that the millers require so much in order to manufacture the necessary flour, and the difference between what we manufacture and what we require will be imported under regulation by the board.” That additional wheat or flour would be imported by the board tree of any duty, and to that extent the public would benefit, because the price would be averaged. After seriously studying the matter for a long time, I brought a proposal forward three years ago for controlling imports; the Minister ultimately will be forced into adopting that, because his present proposal will not help the farmers permanently. Take the item of sugar, regarding which very little has been said by the Opposition. Sugar is even in a worse position than wheat, because it does not employ many people in proportion to its size. Last year we produced 299,000 tons of sugar and exported 126,000 tons, the local consumption being 173,000 tons. Under the Minister’s proposal we shall have to pay £12 10s. a ton by way of duty, because at present the duty is 9s. per 100 lbs., and the Minister proposes to increase that by 3s. 6d. per 100 lbs., in addition to a suspended duty if necessary. Assuming that a certain proportion of the 173,000 tons of sugar consumed in South Africa is utilized in the manufacture of jam, etc.—

The quantity is 25,000 tons.

We shall pay a total duty of £1,760,000 per annum. We shall be doing that to enable the sugar grower to dump his product oversea at a lower price than that at which it is being sold in South Africa. In 1928, according to the “South African Sugar Journal,” which writes on behalf of the sugar industry, only 675 sugar cane farmers, about 750 skilled employees, and about 250 Europeans were employed on the farms, making a total of only 1,675 Europeans employed in the industry. This means that the public are paying £1,000 per annum to maintain every individual engaged in the industry. That is not reasonable or wise, and it is not logical for us to continue to shout about dumping when we are among the worst offenders. I do not want sugar to be imported, but we should be doing more good to the sugar industry and the people of South Africa if, instead of imposing a heavy duty, we regulated the imports of sugar, and fixed a reasonable price at which the public could buy it. Judging by the price at which the imported article is sold, we ought to be able to retail South African sugar at 2¾d. or 3d. per 1b. By fixing the price on a more reasonable basis, we should be helping the sugar farmer by enabling South Africans to utilize South African sugar, instead of having to depend on a cheaper imported article, and instead of being taxed to enable the sugar grower to export an article which the local consumer desires, but cannot buy. With regard to readymade clothing, I pointed out on a previous occasion that the Minister was trying to have it both ways—to obtain increased duties, and to stimulate the manufacture of ready-made clothing in the Union. Unless some measure of security is accorded, the poorer section of the community will have to pay more for readymade clothing. I am not at all satisfied that the proposed additional 5 per cent, will result in increased revenue, while the tailoring industry will not benefit, as 5 per cent, is not a very substantial amount when it comes to protection. What the Minister told us about matches applies with greater force to readymade clothing. I understood the Minister to indicate that he would take the necessary precautions against the price of matches being increased. I am curious to know what action he contemplates taking against the increase in the price of matches, and in any case I say he should take precautions against an increase in the price of ready-made clothing.

It is not a standard article.

It is an article which is required. If the Minister said: “I am going to give you protection, but see your profit is limited to a certain amount,” that is one method. The other method is to fix the price of standard articles, and they are standard articles. Unless he does that, he cannot adequately protect the tailoring trade, and, at the same time, he very materially and unnecessarily taxes the poor section of the community. I think the Minister will remember, with reference to the Mozambique agreement, the Trade Union Congress and the Witwatersrand Tailoring Union sent a memorandum to hon. members, and I suppose to the Minister, in which they pointed out that the provision in that agreement by which the 7s. 6d. per head that used to be charged was taken away, and, instead of that, the native had to pay duty to the Portuguese Government on the articles he took out of the Union to Mozambique territory, would mean that the tailoring trade on the Witwatersrand would suffer to the extent of hundreds of thousands of pounds. I am not at all sure whether the difficulties in which some of the tailors are at present are not due more to this question of the Mozambique agreement and its effect than the importation of ready-made clothing. Unless you are satisfied that this is not the case, you are not justified in imposing a duty which may have the effect of hurting the consumer without benefiting the industry. Take the question of the boot industry. From what I have heard, I agree with the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) that Czecho-Slovakia is able to dump these goods, not only here, but also in other parts of the world, because of the low wages they pay, and the standard of life there being so very low. The conditions of labour there are not so ideal as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) likes to make out.

interjected.

I use the term “dumping” not in the scientific sense, but in the sense of sending out large quantities of goods into other countries at a low price. I want to put to the Minister that his proposal—and I am inclined to think he is not enamoured of it—is not going to protect the boot manufacturers in South Africa. The boot industry has been divided on the question. We know that one of the leading representatives of the boot manufacturers of South Africa, speaking at a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce in Johannesburg, pointed out that the duty they had at present was enough. Other people have had the same opinion. In any case, the duty you are imposing is not going to safeguard the manufacturer, because to-morrow you may find Mr. Bata—I do not blame him, he is a business man—to try to capture the trade of South Africa, will try to sell his article at an even lower price than at present. Are we to increase the duty still more in such an event? He may establish a factory in Japan and in China, where he can work his labour at 4d. a day, and send his articles to South Africa. Will you keep on increasing the duty until such time as you have excluded him? I submit the position is an impossible one. The most effective way of protecting the boot industry is by controlling the imports and protecting the consumer, laying down that no more than a certain charge should be made. By this you can build up a natural industry and also protect the consumer. By increasing the duties because the cost of living and the standards of life in some other country are so low, you will not protect your industry, but you will be unduly taxing the people of South Africa without securing them additional employment. I submit the Minister should now consider this alternative method, and I would like to know whether alternative proposals have been submitted, by rather controlling the imports instead of increasing the duties. Germany, which is a protectionist country, has actually been forced to adopt, as regards Mr. Bata’s shoes, what I am proposing to-day, and they have come to the conclusion there that it is no good piling up the tariff. They have adopted the principle that no shoes from Czecho-Slovakia shall come into that country. If the local manufacturer knows that the moment he starts putting up the price the doors will be opened to Czecho-Slovakia, he will be better safeguarded than by means of raising the duties. While shutting the door to Czecho-Slovakia you are probably also doing it to the article from Great Britain or other countries. These are all aspects of the question which have to be considered. I would like to ask the Minister to instruct the Board of Trade to carry out a searching investigation into the whole question, and I agree with the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard), except that it would take a long time to get the reports, you might have a minority report, and the reports would be pigeon-holed; but I suggest a committee to report to the Minister and the House at the earliest moment whether the time has not arrived when this alternative of controlling imports should not be adopted by this country.

I just want to say a few words in connection with the protection on wheat. I would like to call the Minister’s attention to the fact that the farmers have not yet had any benefit from the protection. That is due to the fact that the millers bought up to the capacity of their warehouses before the protection on wheat came into effect. The Minister said that he would reduce the protection on the 30th June, and on that date the stocks of the millers will not be exhausted.

Then the protection will not be reduced.

I hope the Minister will keep himself very well informed before he grants any reduction.

It goes without saying that a careful enquiry will first be made.

I am very glad to hear this, but it is my duty to point out to the Minister that some of the farmers have gone to great expense in building warehouses for their wheat in order to keep it until the price has improved. I am not certain whether the Minister knows that the millers have notified our co-operative societies that they will not buy from us, because they are opposed to co-operation. I would like the Minister to bear that in mind. With regard to the customs duty on wheat, I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). He said he would like to see the farmers protected, and, in the same breath he said that the protection was inadvisable because it would increase the price. I want to appeal to the hon. member to tell us frankly where he stands now, and all the producers want to know it. The hon. member says that if we examine the list we shall have to be very careful about the protection. It is the duty of the hon. member to say which protection he objects to then we know where he stands. I agree with the protection policy of the Government, and I was sent here to support it and we farmers stand or fall by it. Our producers are having a difficult time and we shall have to stand together to protect ourselves.

What will the wool farmers say?

They say that when they co-operate they can protect themselves. I feel that the salvation of the producer will eventually lie in the possibility of fixing the price of their products. We protect all industries, but just take the position of the maize farmers, unless something is done a considerable number of them will be ruined. We try every method of helping them, but the only possible one is that they by means of compulsory co-operation may have the power of fixing their prices. Take, e.g., the sugar industry where the people concerned are in the same position as the maize farmers. They fix their prices and they are able to do so because they co-operate. The sugar farmers dump their surplus of sugar on the world market, and the maize farmers must follow their example, that is the only practical way. Another thing I want to call the Minister’s attention to is the protection in the form of the raising of the customs duty on shirts, collars, etc. I quite agree that we must protect the shirt factories. In this connection, however, I want to urge the Minister to increase the tariff on the importation of artificial silk goods and goods that are partly manufactured from artificial silk. I believe the protection is now 30 per cent., and I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot make it a bit higher. We are a wool-producing country. The Minister will possibly say that it will make no difference to the price of wool, but if all the wool-producing countries took up that attitude it would mean a great deal.

The Minister’s proposals are of importance to the whole of South Africa. There is not one section of the community that is not interested in one or other of the proposals. I want to make one remark in connection with the income tax proposals. I am a little sorry that the Minister is reverting immediately to the income tax as it was before the 20 per cent, was taken off. There is at present, for the first time, a prospect of a deficit, and the Minister immediately falls back on the 20 per cent, income tax which was taken off, which means that about £500,000 which could have been used for the development of our industries, and of our country is being taken out of the pockets of the people. There is nothing which handicaps industrial development more than the taxation of the people, because, of course, the power of the people to develop its industries in that way is reduced. A great deal has been said about the duty on the importation of wheat. I want to say that there were so many proposals in connection with wheat that hon. members have already lost sight of the Minister’s original proposal. When Parliament met this year the Minister proposed to increase the duty on imported wheat by 6d. per 100 lbs. It came into force at once, but had no effect. The Minister then proposed to exercise control over the importation of wheat, and we, as wheat farmers, or as representatives of wheat farmers, voted in favour of it, but at the same time we pointed out that unless the Minister also controlled the importation of flour, the provision would lead to nothing as far as the wheat farmers were concerned. It appeared shortly afterwards and the Minister felt that it would be fair also to control the importation of flour. The Minister refused to exercise control over the importation of flour, and probably he had good reasons for his action. Then there was only one other solution, viz., also to increase the duty on flour by 7d. per 100 lbs. That produced no benefit.

The price subsequently dropped.

Yes, then the Minister took a further step to impose a higher duty of a further 6d. and 7d. on wheat and flour respectively. This had a good effect, and at present it is possible to sell good wheat for £1 or possibly over, but the demand is very poor.

Is it not a sufficient protection if wheat from abroad cannot be landed here under 21s. 6d.?

There is no demand. The Minister must understand that many of our farmers are not able to conserve wheat A large number are bywoners who live from hand to mouth.

They have now to buy fertilizer.

Yes, they are compelled in all sorts of ways to get rid of their produce. I, however, agree with the Minister that if the farmers can hold out until October the price will probably be better.

Much sooner.

I now want to speak about the duty on wheat. Is that the only salvation for our farmers? When I look at the world production of wheat then it seems to me that in a few years, or, at any rate, a short period, there will be such a great wheat production in the world that a tariff wall will not help much. The Minister will then have to fall back upon an alternative scheme that we have already discussed, viz., that the wheat industry will in respect of imports have to be regulated by means of permits for wheat and flour in such a way that the farmer knows the price he can get, and that the consumer knows what price he has to pay. In the long run that will be the only safe system, I think. At present there is no chance of that inasmuch as the farmers are not organized, and we must pass the motion before the House. It must, however, be clear to hon. members that taxation is uncertain, and that in that way we remain dependent on the world price of wheat. When there are years of big production in the world prices come down again, and the additional 1s. per 200 lbs., which is laid on wheat, disappears in a moment, and is of no further value. I therefore hope that the Minister will also consider the alternative scheme of controlling the importation of wheat and flour. Wheat, flour and sugar were referred to. If wheat growing and the sugar industry in our country are to be done away with, then I would like to see in what position South Africa, and especially the consumer here would be. Much has been said on behalf of the consumer, but if we do not protect these primary industries, and if Parliament were, for the sake of supposed protection of the consumer, to take measures which would ruin these primary industries, then I should like to know what would be the eventual position of the consumer if he is dependent on the world position. I think that we must do our utmost to keep our primary industries on their feet and to encourage them. In parts of South Africa, and especially in the south western portion of the Cape Province, our farms are practically suited for nothing else than wheat farming. We are therefore obliged to encourage this industry in every possible way but I agree with the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that we must consider an alternative scheme in view of the future because the world production is always growing, and a protection tariff will some day be of no use, or no longer grant the protection that we expect from it. I also want to say a few words about the additional duty on matches. The match factories have always been a credit to South Africa. Our population has never yet paid for matches. The factories have always treated us well, and if there is the threat from other parts of the world of injury to our factories and if we have the assurance that the Minister has given us here that the price to the consumer will not rise, then it is our duty to see that the factories are protected. They have great interest in South Africa, They are planting forests and consequently constitute a very important industry to the Union. In conclusion I just want to say something about the general industrial position in South Africa. I am afraid that we are getting into a vicious circle in connection with our industries. We do not know when our protection stops. In industrial matters South Africa is still a young country, but we have laws and regulations as if we were a long established industrial country. In many ways there is interference in our industrial business. Only read the reports of the manufacturers, the merchants, and the business men in general. There are inspectors, and boards, and they all increase the cost of production, so that the industry in the long run does not pay, and we have to give more protection. As a country which is passing through the initial stage of industrial developments, we must go very carefully to work, and not unnecessarily raise the cost of production by all kinds of boards and inspectors. I hope the Minister will bear this side of the matter in mind.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has developed into the friend of the poor man, and he complains that taxes are levied on everything that the poor man needs; on his boots, his shirts, his food, and even on bioscope films. I imagine that I have before heard how hon. members opposite represent themselves as the friends of the poor people, but I trust that our poor people will not allow themselves to be caught by the whistle of the bird-catchers. Is it not the case that the hon. member is more concerned about the factories, and the poor people of other countries. The object is to protect the industries in our own country, and to keep our own people alive by giving them work. When our industries are protected we give work to thousands of people. Let our people pay a little more for food and clothes, then we shall provide thousands of people in this country with food and clothes. I think that in this respect we can follow the example of the United States of America, because nothing is considered better by an American than American produce. They support and help their own industries; cannot we also do so? Cannot we also say that everything produced in South Africa is good and beautiful. We now have raisin day when everything is prepared with raisins, so we might possibly also have mealie days. In this respect we can be more national, let us buy South African produce. In this way we shall be able to make a great country of South Africa and build up our industries. Already the industrial development in our country has made great strides under the protection policy of the Government. As against a production of £79,000,000 in value in 1926, we, in 1928, had £97,000,000, that is an increase of £18,000,000 in two years under the policy of the present Government. The Government is extending our factories, and in that way gradually solving the poor white question. Give the people work and you give them food. I am astonished to hear that the levy has been referred to as a tax. It is not a tax, but they are protection measures, and I hope that the House will regard them in that light, viz., that the Government is out to protect our own industries. Then it has been said that the cost of living will go up. The Minister has, however, really pointed out in his speech that under the policy of the Government in spite of the protection the cost of living has dropped ten points.

I do not intend to enter into the general argument of free trade versus protection. I think South Africa has definitely determined that it stands for protection, and there is no purpose to be served in arguing the question. Free trade is merely an echo of the past. It merely stalks over the scene like a political wraith. The whole world has turned its back on free trade. We must ask our free trade friends to face concrete facts and realities. Even free trade in Great Britain with its vested interests in its inherited political faith of the past is vapidly going over to protection. There must be a relation, as I have said, to the concrete facts in the world in this discussion. The world is turning its back on free trade for the simple reason that it cannot do otherwise. There is a new industrial epoch approaching. The world is going in for mass production. It is manufacturing its goods on a massed basis for a mass population. The world is becoming cooperative. It is co-operative in every sphere of production and sale, rationalizing its industries everywhere, and great corporations are spreading their influences over vast territories. What is a young country to-day to do in face of this great aggregation of industrial activity, with the crystalization of intellect and machinery of industry in various parts of the world? If South Africa is to make an advance at all, and establish its secondary industries, it must do so by such measures of fiscal protection which we are prepared to afford it. I see no argument in South Africa for free trade. If the matter could! be considered solely from an economic position, from an economic aspect, there might be something to be said for it. But there are other considerations besides merely economic considerations which must influence our judgment. There is the national consideration, which is forcing us at any price to find employment for the coming generation. If we do not establish secondary industries now, it is certain in the greater effectiveness of mass production in the world that is taking place, and which will grow greater and greater, we shall have less opportunity of doing so in the future. But I have not got up to enter into this argument. I want to address my remarks to a statement of the position of the industry I represent in this House, the sugar industry. It is impossible for me to deal with prejudices in this matter. Prejudices do exist in this House, and outside this House. I want to deal only with the facts of the situation and to address the unprejudiced mind; to deal with the facts which have been disclosed in the statements made in the report of the Board of Trade and Industries. Those facts are open for anyone to study. There is no need for prejudice, no need to draw false pictures. The facts are on record. The first question which the House has to ask itself is this; does it want an industry such as the sugar industry to continue in South Africa? If so, can it be retained without this measure of protection which the Government is now going to afford it? That is the real question at issue in this debate. I do not think anybody in this House will deny that the sugar industry is of great economic value to South Africa. As the Board of Trade has pointed out, the industry bears the same relation to Natal as the gold mining industry does to the Transvaal. Both form part of the great economic fly-wheel of South Africa, the turn of which causes us to expand and prosper; so that from the national aspect I think everyone will say that the existence of the sugar industry is of great value to South Africa. I think they will realize that many people depend on it. Now, it is not generally realized that the sugar industry is the second highest agricultural industry in the country. The gross value of its production is about £6,000,000 a year, and it is capable of increasing indefinitely. Practically all that wealth is spent in South Africa, and the public revenues of this country are greatly benefited. That industry is limited to the Natal coast, but the employment which it affords is not confined only to the people who work in the fields and in the factories, as the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) imagines, there are thousands of people in the country, whom sugar supports, who never dream that they owe their livelihood either in part or in whole to the sugar industry. There are thousands of people working in stores, in shops, in factories, in forges and on the farms, who owe a great deal of their livelihood to sugar. The railways along the north and south coasts of Natal are maintained almost solely by the sugar industry. Sugar also forms a basis of other industries. For instance it provides the cheap raw material for the jam and sweet factories in the Cape. Under the arrangement came to five years ago the manufacturers are obtaining their sugar at the world’s price, plus a very small duty much to their advantage. It is a fact that if the sugar industry disappeared, as it would if some of its critics had their way, it would be a disaster to South Africa and the consumer would pay a very much higher price for the article than he has to do to-day. I will mention another point. Apart from the protection afforded through the customs, the sugar industry gets no other assistance of any kind from the Government. The Agricultural Department scarcely touches the sugar industry, which runs its own experimental stations at its own cost. There is no department of the Government concerned with sugar. It is an industry which has grown and developed entirely by itself. No part of the millions has been spent on it that have been spent on irrigation. It has had no share in other expenditure on agriculture, such, for instance, as millions spent upon the provision of maize elevators all over the country; it has no army of veterinary surgeons and agricultural experts provided from the public purse. It receives precious little consideration from the railways, a fact disclosed by the instance that alone of all the commodities carried on the railways to-day, sugar is paying 119 per cent, above pre-war rates. Yet the consumer has less to grumble about in regard to sugar than any other commodity. What price is the consumer paying for sugar to-day in comparison with pre-war rates? I will give some figures which have been taken from the report of the Cost of Living Commission with regard to the family budget in 1913, and the same family budget given in the last bulletin of Union statistics. In 1913 sugar cost the consumer 3d. a lb., in 1930, 3¾d., an increase of 25 per cent. According to the Cost of Living Commission the average consumption of sugar per head is six lbs. a week, which amounts to 1s. 10½d. a week, so that sugar is one of the least expensive of household requirements. I will compare sugar with some other articles of foodstuffs—Flour: 1913, 5s. for 25 lbs.; 1930, 7s., an increase of 40 per cent. Bread: 1913, 3d.; 1930, 3.96d., increase 32 per cent. Tea: 1913, 2s. per lb.; 1930, 2s. 10d. per lb, increase 41 per cent. Milk, 1913, 7d. a tin; 1930, 8.04d. or a rise of 48 per cent. These are facts beyond dispute. I have shown that the sugar industry is an economic necessity to South Africa and that it has served the consumer well. If the industry is of such economic importance to the country, which we admit, we have still to ask why is this protection necessary? I want to address myself to that point. Is sugar unduly protected in South Africa? Is the proposed increase unnecessary, and can the sugar industry do without it? Will the consumer be prejudiced if this duty is imposed? There is only one way in which that argument can be answered, and that is by looking to the world position, for the position in South Africa is ruled, not by what happens here, but by the sugar position of the whole world. Sugar, unlike any other agricultural commodity, is one that does not depreciate in quality by being kept; when properly refined it may be carried from one part of the world to another by ship and stored in warehouses for long periods. It passes from one country to another like gold. One ton of sugar prduced in Czecho slovakia is the same as one ton produced in South Africa of the same grade; it is a world product, and as such it has been subject to political control in all countries for hundreds of years. There are over 100 countries to-day which have excise duties and bounties, and all sorts of methods of helping their sugar industry. To place the world matter in a nutshell, in order that it may be understood. I will quote authoritative reports, not from South Africa, but from abroad. The sugar position of the world has become so bad during the last four or five years that it became necessary for the League of Nations Economic Committee to consider the matter of sugar from an international aspect and it has devoted a good deal of its time to this subject. I have here the report of the Economic Committee of the League dealing with sugar. In the beginning of the report the Economic Commission says—

It will therefore be seen that the present position is due to overproduction. The League of Nations pointed out these facts—that the world production has increased rapidly since 1902-’03 from 9,900,000 tons to 28,200,000, the latest figures, in 1930. The position was put in a nutshell by Lord Olivier, the British Labour Minister, who was appointed chairman of the Sugar Industry Committee to enquire into the West India sugar position. It is estimated that in the 12 months ended 31st December, 1929, there were placed upon the markets of the world 28,200,000 tons of sugar, but that the consumption was a trifle under 27,000,000 tons. The over-production of last year followed similar excesses of production in previous years. Dr. Mikusch estimated that from 1923 to the beginning of 1929 there had accumulated an unmarketable surplus of about 3½ million tons of sugar held in various parts of the world. In New York we learned that at 1st December, 1929, stocks of sugar in Europe, the U.S.A. and Cuba amounted to 5,218,000 tons. This is an increase of 1,181,000 tons over stocks at the same points a year earlier. This position of affairs has produced an intense depression of prices, the average open market price of sugar in London having fallen from 25s. 9d. per cwt. in 1923, and 21s. 9d. per cwt. in 1924, to 9s. 3d. per cwt. during the first five months of 1929 during which the representations from the colonies were received. We know that production and consumption of sugar to-day nearly balanced, but the world is faced with this accumulation of 5,000,000 tons stored in the world’s warehouses, ready to fall into the first available market. Sugar is mostly produced behind high tariff walls, much higher than we have here. The duties are given in the report of the League of Nations. That is the sugar which my hon. friend on the cross-benches would have poured into this country.

I do not suggest that.

It is the natural inference from your argument. What is the essential difference between bringing cheaply-paid workers to South Africa to undercut and undersell our own workers, and bringing in goods produced by low-paid workers in another country? What in theory is the difference between bringing in the cheap boots of Czecho-Slovakia and bringing in the cheap workers of Czechoslovakia? Both policies will put out of employment our own workers, or substantially reduce their standard of living. While we all desire that our industries should be subjected to a certain amount of competition in order that they should operate with maximum efficiency, the kind of argument we have had can be pressed too far. If you press that kind of argument too far, every kind of industry in South Africa would perish. I want to refer to the sugar duties in other countries. They represent duties on 100 kilogrammes and they are in dollars, but they nevertheless show what our competitors are doing: Spain 11.58 dollars, Czecho-Slovakia 10.05, Turkey 9.89, Roumania 9.47, Greece 7.26, Portugal 6.48, Finland 6.29, Bulgaria 5.76, Poland 5.61, Russia 5.15, Germany 5, United States 4.86, South Africa 4.29. Since these figures were published in 1928 other and higher duties have been imposed. In addition to these duties I may also point out that some of the countries have higher excise duties. Italy 20.95, Russia 15.44, Netherlands 10.82 and so on. It must be obvious that these 5,000,000 tons of sugar is the surplus production of those countries manufacturing behind high tariff walls, and it does not need much imagination to see that 200,000 tons of sugar landed in South Africa at any price the industries like, would smash our sugar industry, with the result that the continent of Africa would be open to development of their markets from other countries. This was recognized by the Government in 1925. From the figures you will notice that this over-production began to make itself felt about 1925, and the sugar industry expanding at that time owing to the higher prices of 1922-’23, began to find itself faced with an increasing volume of export of sugar, and sought the aid of the Government to put an end to chaotic conditions existing. We were then on a different basis to that existing to-day,. The planters were paid for cane on its weight, not on the sugar content, and the mills were working on an unknown ratio which nobody could check. The assistance of the Government was sought in order to make an economic survey of the industry to discover if it could be put on a better economic and financial basis. This was the first attempt in South Africa to rationalize an industry. The sugar industry lends itself to rationalization, because its product is a single article. The Government showed its sympathy by instructing the Board of Trade to make an enquiry. The Board of Trade’s accountants held a three months’ investigation of the industry. After going through the accounts for the previous three years period, audited accounts both of planters and millers, the board made certain recommendations to the Government, as a result of which a conference was called between the various sections of the industry to find if there was a better way of organizing the industry than had prevailed in the past. The conference sat in Durban, and was presided over by Mr. Fahey. After a month of earnest negotiation a new agreement was entered into between planters and millers which fixed the price of the cane upon its sugar content, instead of upon its weight, and which imposed a recognized standard of efficiency upon the mills. The planters were paid upon the amount of sugar in their cane according to the amount realized for sugar, while the mills were paid upon a standard recovery of that sugar from the cane. It was a system based upon that prevailing in Australia, and it was agreed that this was a fair division of the total proceeds between growers and millers. This opened up a new epoch for the industry. Another thing which came about as a result of this agreement was a central refinery. Before that date the mills were producing a large quantity of white sugar in their mills. The central refinery was very small, and unable to cope with the amount of sugar required in South Africa. As a consequence of this conference, a centra) refinery was established, in which every mill became a co-operator, a partner in the concern, together with the planters. It is a co-operative mill entirely which makes no profits, which refines the sugar to the raw mill, and charges the millers for the cost of refining. That has brought about, naturally, the selling of the sugar through one channel, and there emerged from this arrangement a crops disposal committee, which consists of planters and millers. This crops disposal committee has carried on magnificent work, selling the whole of the crop of the industry, valued at from £5,000,000 to £6,000,000. without any payment whatsoever. The distributive work carried on by the industry has been carried on in a true co-operative spirit. After the Fahey conference agreement, things went very well for a year or two. The amount realized for sugar was such as to give both sections the results anticipated under the agreement. The Board of Trade and Industries had established what that return should be. It cost a certain amount to produce the cane, and a certain amount to manufacture the sugar, and it was found that in order to come out, the industry should be stabilized at a selling price of £23 10s. per ton. To accomplish this the duty was raised by 3s. 6d. per 100 lbs. At the same time an obligation was placed on the industry to sell sugar to jam and sweet manufacturers and to others using sugar at the world’s price, plus the old duty, an obligation which has cost a very large sum of money to the industry every year. This new arrangement continued satisfactorily for two or three years. Then this surplus production I have spoken about in the world began to make itself felt in South Africa. The Sugar Prices Act had fixed the price of sugar in South Africa over the counter at the coast ports at 3¾d. per lb. Dumped sugar came to South Africa, which was imported by the merchants at considerable profit, which gave no relief whatever to the consumer, but which penalized the sugar industry.

Quite incorrect. It was sold down to 2d.

It may have been sold down to 2d. amongst the distributors, but not to the consumer. The Board of Trade and Industries have investigated this matter, and they have discovered that the price to the consumer has remained all through the country, with very little variations during the whole of this period. What has happened has been this: The distributor purchased this dumped sugar from abroad, obviously not for philanthropic reasons, but because he was making a larger profit, and he has had to bear none of the obligations imposed upon the sugar industry of selling at a cheaper rate to the jam manufacturers, the merchants have reaped the benefit, and the sugar industry, in addition to the loss occasioned by not obtaining the price that it should have obtained, in order to meet competition, has had to bring down the price by £2 to £3 per ton.

What is the price?

The price to the jam factories is the world’s price plus the old duty. The hon. member, who deals in sugar, probably knows to-day’s quotations. I am not connected in any way with selling sugar. Those are the facts. An attempt has been made to stabilize the sugar industry. The Government have attempted to rationalize this industry in a way which every industry in South Africa should desire to be rationalized. That attempt has failed to succeed, because of the dumping of sugar in South Africa.

When the House adjourned for dinner I was dealing with the Fahey agreement. I had pointed out that as a result of this agreement the Government had placed the sugar industry on a scientific footing and established a central co-operative refinery. The establishment of the central refinery has led to a central co-operative selling agency. The sugar industry got rid of the sugar brokers, who, in the past had prevented a reduction in the cost of distribution. The Government also fixed the price of sugar to the consumer, so that he was not prejudiced. This arrangement brought the industry into the light of day, but the financial results expected were not realized. It cost 15s. 6d. to grow a ton of sugar cane, and it is estimated that last year the growers received only 14s. 10d. per ton. It was discovered that it cost the raw miller £13 10s. a ton to manufacture sugar, and pay 15s. 6d. a ton for cane, but last year the industry got only £12 8s. a ton for raw sugar, so it was working at a loss of over £1 a ton during the whole of last year. This low price has been brought about by dumping and by the allowances which have had to be made to manufacturers. It is due also to the growing export of sugar on to the glutted markets. Now it is said we are just as responsible for the world’s troubles as anyone else, because we dump. We do not, however, send our sugar to competitive markets. We sent to Great Britain, which wants our sugar and gives us a preference, but even in that market we have to face the spill-over from the highly-protected sugar-producing countries. I want to explain how this has taken place. The report of the League of Nations said—

It is obvious that South Africa can take no action in the matter without co-operating with the rest of the world. There are a few facts which are not properly appreciated; one of these is the position in South Africa. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has referred to South Africa being a poor country. Though we say these things, we do not realize to what an extent we are handicapped compared with more favoured countries of the world. Java, for instance, produces a crop ever year; South Africa takes two years. Java takes six tons of cane to a ton of sugar; South Africa ten tons. Java produces 6 tons of sugar per acre; South Africa one. South Africa needs very much heavier machinery to mill its cane than Java, because the South African cane is hard. Java has 30,000,000 population and has workers in the sugar fields for 4d. a day: our natives cost 2s. a day. The economic conditions of South Africa are entirely against competition with a country such as Java. As it is with the great cane countries so it is with beet. This report says—

Our manufactured sugar is very expensive, and we have to plan years ahead. You cannot manufacture to-day and sell to-morrow. Sugar, to be on the market to-day, has been two, and sometimes three, years in the growing and planting. The development of to-day has been based on the anticipations entertained in the past. Swamps have been drained throughout the whole of Natal and forests cleared to plant the sugar cane, in anticipation of good markets in future years. South Africa is merely asking in this matter for protection, as is the rest of the world, and asking for the same measure of protection enjoyed by other countries. The price of sugar to the consumers was fixed at a time when no one argued that the price of sugar was too high. The price remains to-day, and will remain for the future, whether the world price rises or falls. The costs of distribution in South Africa are much higher than in England because of the long distances it has to be sent by rail compared with England, and because of the sparcity of population. The South African sugar industry has a great future before it. Thousands can be employed in that industry and in the industries allied to it: and its expansion and development is for the good find prosperity of South Africa.

I am sure we have all been very interested in the speech of the hon. member (Mr. Nicholls), though we could not agree with him that the sugar industry is the key-note of the whole of the country. I am not going to deal with his arguments tonight, but hope to do so at some other time. When listening to the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), one could not help being impressed by the fact that he is still pursuing the “yes-no” policy on the subject of protection. After listening to him carefully I do not yet know whether he was satisfied or dissatisfied with any one of the items under discussion, for he adopted a non-possumus attitude on the whole thing. As a protectionist, I am very pleased indeed that the Government is pursuing a protectionist policy, and I am also pleased to notice that all the arguments on the other side were mere generalities. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and others spoke in vague terms of high protection and its effects, but no one can tell whether protection is too high or too low unless there is a thorough examination of all the circumstances. The hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) thought he found proof of the failure of protection when he referred to the “sorry example” of Australia. I would like to present this paradox to some of the financial pundits opposite and let them unravel it. I find the people in Australia are in such a “deplorable” condition that in the savings banks there £220,000,000 is deposited, whereas in South Africa we have £6,000,000 in ordinary savings banks and another £6,000,000 in Union Loan Certificates, which we may also take as a savings bank account, or £12,000,000 altogether. In other words, in Australia the whole population, men, women and children, have £35 per head to they credit in the savings banks, whereas in South Africa, taking the white population alone, it is £7 per head. Obviously there is a lot of sympathy wasted on the Australians, and if high protection is going to bring about a state of affairs like that in Australia, where apparently everyone has £35 in the savings bank, I am going to press for protection more keenly than ever. The Minister of Finance has brought forward several proposals for increased duties, these increases being required in consequence of altered circumstances, partly because of over-production in other countries and consequent dumping of stocks, and because we wish to pay our people better wages than are paid in some other competing countries. One of the questions before the House is the question of an extra duty on cheap shoes, shoes which are priced up to not more than 12s. 6d. in the factory. This alteration is necessary because Czecho-Slovakia, where the living and working conditions are much lower than ours, has tremendously increased its trade with this country. In 1927, it only sent here 27,000 pairs of shoes, while for the present year they have already on order 500,000 pairs of shoes of a cheap variety, and this is not all, for, in order to try and regain their market they can see they are going to lose, the English manufacturers are also turning out cheap and shoddy stuff, and we are going to be deluged with rubbishy shoes of all descriptions. What we want to get for our people is cheapness combined with value, and many things which are said to be cheap are in reality very dear. Low price and value are very dissimilar terms and have very different meanings. I should like to shoe the House this shoe. [The hon. member held up a shoe.] It is a very pretty shoe to anyone who does not understand the trade. They would say, “That is a very good article.” This shoe was purchased in England, and has got, “Made in England” stamped on it. It was bought in England for 5s. 6d., brought into this country, and sold in Durban for 10s. 6d. I want to show the House that there are very good reasons why we should not encourage the importation of articles of this description. I have got another shoe, the mate of the first one. [The hon. member held up another shoe.] This shoe has been partially cut to pieces, and we find that this patent leather shoe of good appearance has really no patent leather about it at all. The “leather” is actually ordinary American cloth, and as you can see from the way I can tear it with my fingers, the most of the sole and heel is absolutely brown paper. The only leather in this supposedly remarkably cheap shoe is a strip on the sole, worth about a tickey. My argument is that we are not doing a working man’s wife a service by allowing her to buy a shoe of that description for 10s. 6d., for, as a matter of fact, it is not worth anything, and the first time anyone wears it in the rain, it will come to pieces. This is the type of article hon. gentlemen opposite are saying we should allow to be brought into this country for working men’s wives to buy, under the delusion that they are getting a bargain. It is all very well for manufacturers seven thousand miles away to foist a thing of that kind on to South Africa. The local manufacturer could not do it, for he has his reputation to maintain, but who is going to trace a manufacturer seven thousand miles away? Our requirements of boots and shoes in South Africa and in the (hinterland are something like 6,000,000 pairs a year. At the present time, we manufacture about half of those, and our factories with a little encouragement could easily manufacture another 1,500,000. It is an ordinary business principle that the more trade you have got, the less will be your overhead charges, and the less trade you have, the higher will be your overhead charges and your costs all round. We have heard from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that the reason why this man Bata in Czecho-Slovakia can undercut our people is that he has gone in for mass production, and yet, when our manufacturers asked to be put into a position to go in for mass production on a small scale, hon. members opposite say, in effect, “No, we would rather import our articles, and have our people walking about the streets.” Before this continental raid, if I may call it so, began, our boot and shoo factories were working at full pressure, and the wages amounted to £700,000 a year almost exclusively for whites, a very substantial industry. At the present time, owing to the fact that merchants are looking for cheap imported footwear, the factories are only working about four days a week, and it follows that the wages Bill, which normally is £700,000 a year, is at the present time £200,000 less. For whose benefit is all this? Certainly not for the benefit of the poor people who are anxious, according to hon. members opposite, to buy these rubbishy shoes. The trade very much appreciates what the Minister has done for it in encouraging the industry, but I am sorry that he has not gone the whole way recommended by the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade, in addition to asking the Minister to increase the duty on fabric shoes, also recommended an increase of duty on cheap leather shoes which would keep out the low grade goods and ensure that wearers would get decent leather for their money. If the Minister were to adopt that recommendation, the factories would very soon be in full working swing again. The Minister told us this afternoon, speaking about sugar, that it is very desirable that the local market should be reserved for the local product. I should like him to apply that also to boots and shoes, and give our boot manufacturers the protection that they are entitled to, and enable the factories to be working at full pressure again. With regard to profits, we will always have people who will tell us that the manufacturers are making too large profits. The Board of Trade have the right to examine the books, they have an accountant, and I think we should allow them to examine the books, and, if the manufacturers are found to be making inordinate profits, the duties can be cut down in proportion. But the first consideration is the protection of the boot manufacturers against the unfair trade of Czecho-Slovakia and other people overseas. The price the consumer has to pay for goods is not so much a factory price as a price the retailer puts on. The retailer, on account of over trading and the credit system has to put on a high price to come out, and the middleman often gets more for retailing a pair of boots or shoes than the manufacturer does for making it. What we should aim at is a condition whereby the manufacturers can indicate a price at which their goods will be sold as is done in other countries, but so long as the retailers can easily import, the manufacturers are powerless to enforce such a condition. If they were able to do it it would be a good thing for the consumer, because he would get factory prices plus a reasonable retail profit. It is futile for us to pass Wage Acts and Factory Acts to protect our workers if we allow workmen in other countries working under conditions of low wages and long hours, to come in and undercut our factories. If we want to protect our workmen we must do it thoroughly and not encourage the importation of low-priced goods which are not cheap and only benefit the merchants who live by importing goods. I want now to refer to the duty on flour. When the Minister introduced his Bill to prohibit the importation of wheat, he said he would not put on a duty on flour because he wanted to protect the consumer. Now we find he is going to increase the duty on flour in order to protect the millers. That is somewhat amusing, because of all our traders, the flour millers of this country are well able to look after themselves, judging by the huge profits and dividends they earn. According to the Minister the duties are to safeguard the wheat-grower and the miller, without militating against the consumer, but the Minister admits that the price of bread remains the same while the price of wheat fluctuates. The farthest the Minister will go is, in his own words, “If the present increase in the duty on wheat and flour is made an excuse for higher bread prices, the Government will have to take steps to counteract this.” This indefinite threat refers only to the raising of prices, and does not say anything about the reduction of prices, which the present price of wheat calls for. All the Minister’s well-worn arguments about competition, supply and demand, etc., have gone “phut” in the bread question, because there is really no competition, and we must look for relief elsewhere. The Minister continues to believe that the wheat and flour prices are really the key to the bread position. As a matter of fact, they have comparatively very little to do with it. The price of bread was eight pence a loaf when wheat was 35s. and is still eight pence when wheat is only £1 or less. At the present value of flour the flour in a 2 lb. loaf is only worth 2½d., so that 5½d. is absorbed for baking costs, distribution and profits. Everyone will agree that this is altogether disproprotionate, and the heavy middlemen’s costs account for the fact that bread is twice as high here as in England. There is also further proof that in Durban where they use the same flour as we do, they can sell bread over the counter for 5d. a loaf. What remedy has the hon. Minister to prevent bread being sold at 8d. a loaf throughout the country when it can be sold for 5d. in Durban? And what is his remedy for reducing the cost of living generally? All he says is that “there is great danger in interfering with the complex and intricate economic machine.” As a sort of despairing appeal he says: “There is one way in which things can be improved, and that is through our friends, the merchants, and the distributors. If they will make an effort I think they will be able to do something.” I have always regarded the Minister as a practical man but I must say this is a futile suggestion. Does not the Minister know that a man who can extract big profits and keep on doing it is looked upon by his confreres as a smart man and any merchant willing to accept 50 per cent profit when he can get 100 per cent, on an article would be ineligible for membership of a chamber of commerce. The Minister continues to regard bread as an ordinary commodity, and does not appear to realize that the present exorbitant charges bear very hardly on thousands of people who have a right to expect bread to eat as a staple food but to whom it is unfortunately a luxury. What would the House say to any town council which would allow its water supply to be controlled by private individuals or corporations who, through high profits or wasteful expenditure, put up the price of water to a prohibitive level? They would not say that it was impossible to interfere with the complex and intricate economic machine, but they would say that the Government must interfere. Bread is of very little less importance than water, and therefore the Government must interfere in this case instead of leaving people in the hands of the bakers and the milling ring. The Minister was so afraid to interfere with commerce that he would not follow the advice of the Board of Trade, yet no more damning indictment of a body performing an essential public service has ever been made than that of the Board of Trade and Industries in regard to the baking industry. The board says the baking trade is handicapped because it has inefficient native labour, because it has obsolete machinery, because it gives indiscriminate credit, because it holds out no inducement to buy for cash, and that the wasteful distribution costs at least 1d. a loaf. In regard to wasteful distribution I will mention two instances in my own knowledge, one where the economic machine is recognized and one of Government interference. The first case is in my own constituency of Boksburg. There we have bakers who provide very good bread at the standard price of 8d. a loaf, but nevertheless we have about half a dozen motor vans coming from Johannesburg daily distributing bread. These motor vans have to cover backwards and forwards some 30 miles, and they supply bread in Boksburg at exactly the same price as the local bakers. It is quite a common thing in a small street to see three or four of these motor vans delivering bread at the same time. If all that trade were reserved for the local bakers they could easily perform it and charge about 2d. per loaf less, because they would have a larger turn-over and save heavy delivery charges. But the result of leaving this business to what the Minister calls the intricate economic machine, means that customers pay 2d. more for a loaf of bread, and the only people who gain anything are the petrol companies who supply the petrol. The other instance I will quote is where we have the advantage of Government intervention. This particular instance is in Wellington, New Zealand, and I had the opportunity of studying this question when I was there three years ago. Incidentally I would say the system I shall mention would be most useful for Cape Town at the present time, when the milk supply is under suspicion. The Wellington instance refers to another food commodity, not bread, but milk. For reasons of health, the city council of Wellington got Parliamentary authority to handle all the milk that was coming into the city. It is the law of the city that all the milk from the farms is taken to a central municipal depot, where it is pasteurized, put into nice, clean bottles, and distributed to the consumers. Instead of the indiscriminate delivery, such as I have explained we have for bread in Boksburg, a municipal milk van with two delivery men, starts at the beginning of each street and takes the milk to every house as it goes along. There is no waste in delivery and the work is expeditiously done. I investigated this system and found that everybody seemed to be pleased with it. The farmers got more for their milk than they did before, because they supply to one marketplace and not to individual customers, and their expenses are very low, and through the system adopted the consumers get pure milk at a lower price than formerly. All wastefulness is avoided, and the small profit that is made is used for paying off the capital cost of buildings and plant. It is probably too much to expect a municipal body, the Government, or any other public body in this country to undertake a scheme like this, but the Government with little trouble could call upon the Board of Trade to fix the price of bread and put the onus upon the bakers of carrying out the business in such a way as to cut out all the extravagance that we have at the present time. If the Government would but do this, there would be a big reduction in the price of bread which will be a great benefit to the whole country. As the hon. Minister knows, I have consistently supported his protection policy in the House, but I will not continue to do that if the Minister —

What is the matter?

I will not support protective measures to bolster up any industry which is extravagantly run to the detriment of the public. Therefore if the Minister will not take steps to see that the baking and delivery of bread is brought more in accordance with up-to-date methods, I am sorry, but I shall not be able to support this measure for increasing the duty on wheat and flour.

I think we all admire the self-denial of the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) who informed us that the thing is quite simple. We have only got to go in for the baking business and there is a fortune waiting for us. The hon. member goes a little bit further, and I admire his protectionist ideas. He is not only prepared to protect the Union against outside importations, but he is even prepared to protect Boksburg from any imports which come in from Johannesburg. I was very interested in what he said about milk.

I can give you the details.

I should like to have them. I would like to point out to him that his system in New Zealand is not as good a system as the one they have in Naples, there they bring the goat round to the door! I should like to deal more with the general policy and the trend of matters as they are going with regard to tariffs. Last session I urged upon the Minister not to increase the burden on people through the customs to any further extent. With great temerity I suggested to him that, if he had to increase any items on the tariff in order to protect industries, he should at the same time reduce some other item of the tariff on a similar class so as, at any rate, to save any additional burden on the people. Since then, this afternoon the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotze) made a suggestion by which the hon. Minister would not get any monetary advantage when he fell a victim to the wiles of the Board of Trade and Industries. I do suggest that he should examine the proposal of the hon. member for Springs, and ask the Board of Trade and Industries to examine those proposals, because, I believe, there is a good deal in them, and it is a very interesting deviation either from the pure protectionist idea, or the pure bonus idea. If we look at this list of new duties we find that they are, without exception, duties which affect the poorer classes and the classes of medium means. So far as I can understand the Minister, he does not suggest that he will make any counterbalancing reductions on any of the other necessities of life to help them bear the extra burden. I take it in this way. If a may has to pay 5s. per year tax on his morning coffee with milk and sugar, it does not make very much difference to him if the hon. Minister increases the duty on sugar and decreases the duty on coffee to the same extent. That individual is as well off or as badly off as he was before. But the position to-day is that we continuously increase duties that affect the man of moderate means, without dreaming of giving him any counter balancing relief. If the price of a commodity goes up in the world market, he has to pay the increased price. If the price goes down we immediately put on a duty which takes away any advantage he gets from such a reduction. We are going in the wrong direction. When there is a decrease in price the consumer does not, as a rule, even get the whole of that, because the cost of distribution is put up through means of wage determinations and wage boards, and probably more so, because of the increased cost of taxation throughout the country owing to the increased expenditure of the country. The difficulty of wage determinations is that it is so easy to add to wages in sheltered industries and thereby to the cost of distribution. This has been done in the case of hairdressers, carpenters, masons and so on, and we are now proposing to add bootmaking to the list of sheltered trades. We can add what we like to the wages of employees in this trade provided that at the same time we give increased protection to the manufacturers. The ultimate result will be that you will then arrive at a position you have reached in the case of other sheltered trades. In addition we are lulling the farmers into a position of false security as every one of these increases affects them. If he is a maize farmer, he has to pay for his own clothing and food, and the clothing and food of his family a great deal more estimated in bags of maize than before the Government came into power. But the trouble is that he gets no more for his maize. Tomorrow I think the maize grower will appreciate this, although he does not do so to-day. One person, however, should be happy—the Minister of Finance who, when he attempts to do something for an industry by affording it increased protection obtains not only more revenue, but kudos for helping an industry.

I get more kicks than kudos.

I think the Minister is getting a great deal of kudos for generously protecting industries we are trying to establish. Dealing with some of the items on the paper, we are agreed as to the necessity of keeping the wheat farmer solvent, but I am sorry the Minister did not adopt the suggestion to establish a ratio between the amount of South African wheat milled and imported wheat. Then, without giving this extravagant protection, we should have reached a stage at which the South African farmer would have been able to market his wheat. It is rather illogical for the Minister to ask for increased duties on wheat when he has the power to prohibit the importation of wheat—the most effective protection there is. As to sugar, as we have sugar-growers in Natal, we have to see that they do not go under. If we had not a sugar industry there the Minister’s suggestion would be absurd, but we do want to see that no inducement is offered to the South African sugar planters to increase production. The present state of affairs cannot go on because nearly all the nations are producing more sugar than they can consume, and, unless we have some restriction on output, the consumers will have to be taxed still further in order to support the industry. The readymade clothing industry is an apt illustration of how, from a protectionist point of view, “the appetite grows on what it feeds on.” When the Minister came into office the duty was 15 per cent. Then in a sudden spurt of generosity he raised it to 20 per cent., but now he is going to make it 25 per cent. At the same time, I do not think he is going to do much good to the industry, and I am perfectly certain that the wearers of ready-made clothing will pay another 5 per cent. This is a most unsatisfactory additional tax imposed for reasons not worthy of consideration. Then the Minister is going to add to the cost of the poor man’s house. I dislike a rated duty as it always means that the poor man pays a higher percentage than the rich man. So far as joinery is concerned, the poor man’s house is going to cost him more. If the Minister had adopted the suggestion I made last year and had decreased some of the items that add to the cost of the poor man’s house, I would have no quarrel with this protection of the joinery industry, but without that countervailing advantage the increase is neither fair nor just. Now with regard to shoes. I may suggest that the shoe which was produced here by an hon. member was a stage one manufactured for the purpose. The Bata shoe cost 5s. 5d. wholesale, and it is proposed to place a duty on them of 3s. 6d. a pair. At present the landed cost of these shoes is 7s. 5½d., and the shoe is retailed here for 10s. 6d. But with the duty of 3s. 6d. a pair, the landed cost will be 9s. 3d., and they will probably be sold at about 12s. 6d. The Bata shoe is neither cheap nor nasty. It is quite a decent shoe, and marvellous value for the money. I cannot find any proof that that shoe is made under sweated conditions, and I have made enquiries. I think it was mentioned this afternoon that Czecho-Slovakia was one of the first countries that subscribed to the hours and regulations of the League of Nations. There is nothing about the Bata shoe except that it is made in very large quantities, by a very clever organizing brain, and it is to the shoe industry what the Ford car is to the motor industry. I do not believe that shoe will cease to be imported because you put 3s. 6d. duty on it. My belief is that duty will go into the pockets of the treasury, and will be so much more taxation on the people. Here is an instance of what the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) mentioned this afternoon. Under his system, if you put on a duty of 2s. 6d. the difference between 30 per cent, ad valorem and the 2s. 6d. would go as a bonus to the boot manufacturers in this country, who would benefit, and, at the same time, the public would not be mulcted in the increased cost of commodities to such an extent as they are under the present system. I give that as an instance of the working of my hon. friend’s method of taxation. There is another point which enables shoes to be made more cheaply in Czechoslovakia. Since 1926 there has been no increase in the expenditure of that country; the result is they live cheaply, they are hard-working people, and not heavily taxed. The manufacturing interest has everything in its favour for the production of cheap shoes, and the Bata shoe is one that can be obtained in no other country at the price. Are we to take up the position that everything that is well-turned-out and cheap in other parts of the world we will refuse to have in our country? There is no real reason why the Bata shoe should be kept out of this country.

No reason whatever; if you are prepared to allow our shoe industry to go.

The industry is not going because the Bata shoe comes in. It is only one phase of the boot industry, and our boot industry can go on and hold its own in other shoes without worrying about the Bata shoe. But when it comes to putting on 60 per cent, to 70 per cent, duty to protect your industries, it is going too far. I am a protectionist myself, and one of the reasons why I object to this is that one day there will be a revulsion of feeling if an industry says it wants 60 per cent, or 70 per cent, protection. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) has said the reason we should keep the shoe, he showed us out is because the working men’s wives should not be defrauded by such an article. The hon. member may not know working men’s wives; but I do. Putting a bad article on the market will kill the sale of it within three months. The working man’s wife knows a good shoe very much better than he does. The Minister is putting rather over 100 per cent, on matches; I do not know why. The match industry has always been a very profitable one, and within my recollection the match companies have done remarkably well. Why does not the Minister do something we asked him to do last year—with regard to cotton blankets? There is a chance to give back to the people some of the money he has taken out of their pockets.

I have taken no money out; my customs proposals mean less money to the treasury.

Will the Minister give me 50 per cent, of the extra duty he puts on the shoes? It is a matter of opinion; I should be delighted—

If these duties are worthless to protect the shoe industry, I will let them go at once.

I contend at the moment, from enquiries I have made from people who ought to know something about it, that the 3s. 6d., instead of the 1s. 10d., on every Bata shoe that comes into the country, may stop some of them, but the general trend will be to increase the Minister’s wealth. We have the case of kafir sheeting—certain cotton piece goods—and under the decision of the customs people a great many varieties have been classed as kafir sheeting, with a very big duty; as a matter of fact, on the average, 70 per cent I suggest that the Minister should take off the special duty on kafir sheeting and allow it to come in at the same rate as cotton piece goods. As it is, the only effect of this duty is to increase the cost of the commodities to the poorer classes.

The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) gave us some Australian examples, pointing out how high protection meant larger deposits in the savings bank. I think the last thing this House will do will be to follow Australia, We do not want to get into the mess Australia is in, and I think the less advice of that kind we adopt the better for the country. Then he advocated high protection and cheap bread. It sounds remarkably well. It is one of those extraordinary, impossible, foolish and amusing utterances which should not weigh with anyone. During the course of debate it is easy to find out the geographical position of an hon. member’s constituency. From Natal we expect that sugar will be well looked after. When boots are discussed, the hon. member in all probability comes from Port Elizabeth, and if we talk of wheat, the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) immediately comes before us.

And Johannesburg?

It is Johannesburg, the patient consumer, who I think will give the most disinterested advice to the Minister, which he will not take. I think he might be well advised to listen to Johannesburg, because after all, that is where he will get the view of the consumer. The consumer is very often overlooked in matters of this kind. I assure the Minister that we are tired of listening to the story that the putting on of duties will not raise the prices to the consumer. We were told that story with regard to bread, and we have been told it with regard to other items. We were told it to-day with regard to sugar and matches, etc., but when we are told that the price will not be raised to the consumer that is no information. What we want to know is how much is the price coming down to the consumer. The world’s crops are the biggest ever known, and prices are lower than they have ever been in our history, but what is our position in South Africa? It does seem to me to be a fair thing to say that the policy of the Government is to maintain the prices at the level that they were at when the world crop was an ordinary one. I thought a little time ago that the world crop was going to beat the Government, and that prices would come down on commodities of an essential kind. Now it appears to me that it is just possible that the Government will win, and that all these duties, which will probably pass this House, may maintain prices where they were, and that the consumer will get no benefit from the fall in prices.

I hope the consumer will get the benefit of the drop where no duties are imposed.

I do not think the consumer is getting any benefit from the policy of the Government. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) in a speech the other evening said that 3½d. for sugar was a price arranged by the Board of Trade some years ago. Now that the world’s price is so much lower, you are going to maintain the sugar industry, but what are you going to sell sugar at? Are you going to maintain the sugar industry in a position to get the same price as they did when the world’s price was 25 per cent, higher than at the present time? While agreeing to the Minister’s proposal may I ask what the retail price is to be? Are you going to put on these duties, and allow the price to the consumer to be the same as if there were no fall in prices at all? If that is the case, then the consumer will be very badly treated. We have helped the wheat farmre and the sugar producer, but what will happen in the future? Surely this is a process of socialism, taking from one to help another? Suppose the mealie farmer gets into the position the sugar producer is in to-day, or suppose that the wattle farmer gets into the same position? Are you going to take something from somebody else to help the mealie farmer and the wattle farmer? The whole thing is developing into socialism—taking from one to help another. My main objection to these duties, to a portion of them at any rate, is that they seem to have been thought out for the purpose of taxing the man who is least able to pay. It is remarkable that, when matters of this kind have been brought forward on a report of the Board of Trade, they have always tended in the direction we have seen to-day. The duties are to be imposed on boots, shirts, collars, pyjamas and so forth, and it is specially provided here—

This is really to hit the man who buys the ordinary article, and to protect the man who buys the superior article.

Where did you get that from?

I have got it here. We have increases on shirts, collars, pyjamas other than silk, or artificial silk, or mixtures thereof with any other material. Against that we have dust coats, overalls, boiler suits, motor suits—

You say I am hitting the poor man and protecting the rich man, but in what way.

You exclude the best articles. The position is this; you are leaving the rich and his garments alone, but you are increasing the wear of the poor man. It was generally expected because of a statement made by the Minister, that we had come to the end of this taxation and reached a point where the consumer could bear no more, and that there would be an enquiry into the matter. The Minister said in 1927—“The Government are not disposed at this stage to meet the demands which have been made, but they feel the time has come to investigate the whole position and consider the protective policy which promoted the reversal of the tariff.” Why is not this investigation made before these duties are put on? If ever there was a time when the country is least able to bear increased taxation, that time is now. This is a time for a reduction in the cost of living. This enormous taxation, that will bear on those least able to bear it, will be the greatest hardship. We have a definite promise that before any further taxation is placed on the people an enquiry will take place. I want to deal briefly with the boot position. No manufacturers have been more unfortunate in the selection of their advocates than the boot factories of this country. I notice in the press statements made that are not true —exaggerations that can only injure the industry. Then we get the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) defending the industry, and I think the industry might well say-— “Save us from our friends.” The duty on boots is intended with one object—to keep out the Czecho-Slovakian article. I do not want to discuss that, but why not confine the duty to Czecho-Slovakia? Instead of that you are going to penalize Great Britain. Surely that is not the Minister’s intention. I want to go into the question of clothing. Of all the proposals to increase the taxation of the people this one with regard to clothing is the worst. It is one for which I say there is no defence. I will endeavour to show the House that it ought to be dropped unless the whole object of this is for revenue purposes. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) this afternoon quoted figures of importation of clothing. I want to refer to that because it is on this position that our whole policy ought to be guided. This is the Board of Trade report, and it shows there has been a very considerable reduction, and that that reduction has continued under the present tariff, which I maintain is far too high. They did not want 20 per cent, with an addition of 10 per cent, for freight. Without this increase of 30 per cent, the whole of the clothing industry will be in the hands of the South African producers in three and a half years. At the present rate of reduction there will be no clothing at all coming into this country in three and a half years. What is the meaning of adding another five per cent? It would be difficult to get an answer to that question. I notice that the Board of Trade and Industries draws attention to some of the small establishments and clothing factories which are closing up on the Rand and elsewhere. Does the hon. Minister know the class of people these manufacturers are to-day, I honestly do not think he does. I am prepared to say that you will not find an up-to-date manufacturer who knows his job and whose machinery is up-to-date and is paying wages provided by the Board of Trade, who wants any more protection. He does not ask for it. Who has asked for this protection? It does not come from the Board of Trade entirely by itself. Someone has asked for it. In the report they say that the employer and the employees have, as a deputation, visited the Board of Trade and requested an increase in protection. I should like to know who those employers and employees are I think there is room for the suggestion of collusion. I do not mean on the part of the Board of Trade. You get this class of employer and employee who come to Cape Town from the Rand and elsewhere and make these representations and try to batten on the taxpayers and get something out of them. There does not seem to be any reason why they should not divide the spoil. I should like to know from the Minister if the Board of Trade have had these firms’ audited balance sheets. I should like the Board of Trade to show the hon. Minister an audited sheet from a factory whose conditions are good, whose machinery is up-to-date and whose management is efficient, and if there is not a fair profit made on that audited balance sheet, I shall withdraw any opposition I have to this increased duty. It does not exist. The present protection of twenty per cent, is too high. I had the privilege of seeing a balance sheet less than 12 months ago and I can tell the hon. Minister that on that 20 per cent, on clothing, the profit is all that could be desired. There was no reason at all for an increase in this duty. The hon. Minister stated this afternoon that there are thousands and thousands of our brothers and sisters who are working in this business. Does it matter how much employment we have got if the thing is wrong? Will it increase employment by increasing this tax five per cent? Not at all. It makes no increase in employment. The price will go up of the imported article and it will end there. There is another point. There is the question of taxing again the poor man’s clothing or anything the poor man wants. What do the Board of Trade say? I think it does show the way in which the Board of Trade are developing in this regard—

Once he taxes these people who cannot afford to buy the ordinary garments, it is a decided imposition upon the poor people of this country. I venture this remark I think it will be found, when we come to this enquiry into the position of the native in this country, that it is largely economic that is the trouble of the native. I have nothing to say against the Board of Trade, but their reports are quite remarkable. It seems to me that you can get a report from the Board of Trade whenever you want one. They were able to give very sound reasons in the report on wheat and flour why only 6d. or 7d. could possibly be given. Later, they give the same sound reason for raising the duty to 2s. 2d. or 2s. 4d.

Because there was a drop in the price, which makes all the difference.

I venture the suggestion that the Board of Trade will find just the same reason if a report had been wanted from them, and there was no change in the world’s market.

You have no right to make that suggestion.

I am giving my personal opinion.

It is not reflecting upon my dignity. The hon. member has no justification for his statement.

I should be sorry to make an attack upon anybody. I am not making an attack. I am giving the House my impression, and that is what I honestly think and what I honestly believe. However. I shall not pursue it any further. I will draw the attention of the House to other matters. The Board of Trade, in finding reasons for this increase, are giving somewhat remarkable reasoning and I think it deserves to be examined. They make the statement in the report that prices of clothing and garments have decreased overseas. They give that as one of the reasons for recommending an increase in this duty. If there is any decrease overseas, that is immediately felt in South Africa and in other parts of the world. You do not have a decrease overseas for any great length of time and no decrease here. They say, further, that large quantities of clothing are sold at reduced prices at the end of the season. That is really not quite true. That is just one of those Board of Trade reports built up upon statements of that kind. I do not suggest for a moment that the Board of Trade have any intention to mislead, but unquestionably they have misleading information in these reports. They may have been written with perfect honesty, and the Board of Trade may know no better, but some of the facts stated in these reports are certainly not correct. I want the hon. Minister to take this into consideration. The present duty on ready-made clothing is too high, and the manufacturer who knows his job can conduct his business profitably with the existing protection. Why then increase the duty And I care not what the Board of Trade says on the point, for the present duty is far and away too high. If the duty were reduced to 12½ per cent, the factories would still be well protected. As it is, manufacturers now go to the Board of Trade for increased protection, although in reality they are already battening on the taxpayer. The question of controlling prices is important and not a new one, and when you have a sheltered industry built up by the taxpayers’ money, then I submit that a reasonable control of prices may be desirable. Three things are badly wanted in our secondary industries. First, assistance to obtain markets, and here the Marketing Board or the Board of Trade should be able to help. Second, the standardization of quality, for nothing can be more damaging to an industry for a purchaser to find that the quality of the goods is good to-day, but bad to-morrow, and thirdly, let South African goods stand on their own feet. Prices should also be regulated. The commerce of the nation has no association at all with these secondary sheltered industries, to which we hand over millions of the taxpayers’ money annually, and it is only reasonable that prices should be controlled. There appears to be some dispute with regard to the high prices, for the manufacturers blame the distributors, and the distributors blame the manufacturers. Although these sheltered industries have been built up at the expense of the taxpayer, manufacturers in effect are able to charge what they like, but the poor consumers who supply the money are forgotten. The Government will be justified in going in for a certain amount of price regulation. With regard to the other taxes, there are many arguments in their favour. Unfortunately the tendency is to maintain prices in almost every direction, but their continuance will be oppressive to the people, and detrimental to South Africa.

I want to appeal to the representatives of the farming industry, and to warn them that this so-called stabilization of prices will be stabilization of high and not low prices. If that is the case, what will happen to the wattle, wool and maize farmers who are receiving no relief? We had the Board of Trade saying that because of the low outward freight on matches, the South African match is to be further protected. Then the Minister of Agriculture is agitating for a low-homeward freight on maize, but when the stuff comes back from Holland in the shape of starch, the South African manufacturers say that they must have a duty of 1½d. per 1b. which is roughly 60 per cent. On account of purchasing our cheap maize and perhaps further assistance by means of low freights. We have had no consistency from hon. members as a whole. One is in favour of helping a primary industry, and also in favour of helping a secondary industry, but I am not in favour of helping any if it is putting a burden on the general consumer. Those who export, are those who are going to feel it. I suppose I will not influence the Minister of Finance, but it is my duty to let him know how I look upon the position. I will deal more with the question of sugar because that it a primary industry. The general impression is that a primary industry is the first that needs assistance; one that uses South African goods comes next, and one that uses imported goods should be considered least of all. We must look at the matter as it affects the industry of South Africa. Some are interested politically, and some as distributors. Some hon. members on the other side are not interested apparently, and they have made up their minds evidently. The whole point is how far are you going to protect the interests of industries without affecting the consumer. We naturally want to see all our industries grow. As distributors, may I say, our interests are negligible; for many years, we have looked upon ourselves as agents for the sugar industry, but without pay. Therefore, my outlook on this, as in all matters, is influenced by the economic effect this change is likely to have on South Africa. As South Africans, we must wish to see the sugar industry developed profitably, but the assistance must be limited to reasonable bounds. Sugar throughout the world has proved to be a ticklish problem. European countries forced the growth, only to find themselves as a result forced to dump on outside markets. Shutting out of foreign sugar which is dumped and below a certain figure is a policy with which people will be in accord. But a new problem faces us, which is the large crops of lava and Cuba and sugar grown in favourable natural conditions, which can be produced at such a low cost that South Africa, even with a duty of £7 per ton, freight, and preferential railage, cannot live against that competition—so the sugar people say. I totally disagree with that view. It is a fallacy, and is upset by the Board of Trade and Industries’ own report. They indicate that the price paid for cane to the planter, 14s. 3d. a ton for 1929-’30, fell from 17s. 6d. in 1928 ’29, and 19s. 6d. in 1927-’28 because of increased imports. It is not the increased imports, because the £238,000 is trifling compared to the South African sugar production of £6,000,000. Where the shoe really pinches is in the increased and increasing South African production, and so seriously does the Board regard this, that they even suggest curtailing the area of cane growing. The production in South Africa is roughly 300,000 tons; 100,000 tons is exported and 200,000 tons is consumed in South Africa. The whole of our export goes to Great Britain which is the only one to take our sugar, and gave us last year a preference of £390,000. Britain must get her manufactures out into the markets of the world, and she pays millions in the way of preference, to other dominions as well as South Africa. I ask the Minister of Finance very seriously to consider this question; Great Britain takes our products and pays for them by sending us her manufactures. As the surplus of sugar in South Africa grows so will the lot of the planters become more and more difficult. How is it possible to restrict development with perhaps as rich or richer fields than some of the Natal fields opening up in Rhodesia and the North— countries with which we hope to unite later? Protection always tends to restrict the capacity to develop an export trade. The solution rather lies in producing more sugar per acre. The trouble is they have not the cane to cut every year in South Africa. With research, there will be more production per acre. When the Uba cane is generally established, and the poor fibrous cane of Natal ousted, the industry will recover from its imaginary dilemma, by way of less cost of production and of milling: by manufacturing and marketing golden syrup, treacle and cube sugar, and by selling cheap yellow sugar, and the old style of cheaper raw white sugar; and the poor man will get cheaper sugar. I give all credit to the industry for benefits South Africa derives from its establishment in our country, and I know everyone appreciates that any industry must help with employment to some extent, but the question is at what cost to the employees and the country generally? As an off-set to those benefits, remember it costs the consumer £1,200,000 per annum for his sugar at £7 per ton duty, and the railway must lose over £250,000 in preferential rates for South African sugar. That is a hefty off-set against the benefits. Then the Minister of Finance received from the 20,000 tons of imported sugar £160,000 in duty, which he loses if it is shut out. Another fallacy is the parrot cry that the retail price will not be increased. What they mean is that the retail price at the coast cannot exceed the fixed Government price of 3¾d. per 1b. But the price is already higher, first increased at the instance of Natal, and the wholesalers and retailers were forced to put up their prices, which under outside competition went as low as 3d. per lb. Even that large emporium in Adderley Street was selling sugar as 3s. 3d. for 12 lbs. Despite this low price to the consumer, the Board of Trade calmly says “Nothing more than a fractional benefit reaches the consumer,” meaning because of the lower landed cost of imported sugar. Little do these theorists know of business and what competition means. Such a remark by the Board of Trade is most unfair, and I am afraid their preconceived notions on protection and theses on tariffs have prejudiced their findings, or is it possible that factors not appearing in their report have influenced their recommendations for the increased duty. To sum up the situation, Natal, with the £8 duty, less £1 excise, sea freight on imported sugar and preferential rail rates, enjoys protection in the neighbourhood of £10 per ton. She suffers mild competition from the imported sugar to the extent of say 20,000 tons at £12 per ton c.i.f., equalling £240,000 value, which under the present duty, landing, etc., costs landed £21 per ton. This sugar is a competitor only in the coastal belt, the preferential railage precluding the importer from selling outside those areas. And why should not this price prove remunerative to Natal? In any case all commodity prices have fallen. Wool, fruit, oats, etc., have fallen, and if the sugar farmer is to be singled out for assistance in a time of depression, which we hope is temporary, is the Minister not putting a noose round his neck with which the rest of the community will strangle him and South Africa when their calls for assistance are pressed? One concession I consider unnecessary, and that is the rebate the industry is forced to grant manufacturers. Surely this can be withdrawn seeing that the confectionery people enjoy a duty of about 30s. per 100 lbs., and the jam factories of 20s. per 100 lbs. The drawback on export of jam and fruits should continue, and in any case it is not a heavy item. I therefore consider that with £10 duty and railage preference the industry is receiving sufficient support. The millers appear to be doing fairly well, and the sugar farmer is in no worse plight than his brother farmers, and other members of the community. For the next few years he will have a struggle, and so will we all, but I do plead with the Minister to consider the facts I have given, and to stay his hand at least until this time next year. It should always be borne in mind that even if we place an embargo on imported sugars the planters’ troubles will increase in proportion to the increase in his exportable surplus. How will the Government help them when the exportable surplus reaches the 200,000 ton mark? It must stop somewhere. If we start trying to bolster up our sugar and other industries, then we follow the disastrous policy of Australia. May I read what the Premier of New South Wales said—

In South Africa wool can also be exempted if what the farmers tell me is correct. How many realise that in 1929 we exported 286,000,000 pounds of wool, against 120,000,000 pounds in 1920 and last year the value was less than 1920 by almost 1,500,000. And that reveals the position which is fairly general in South Africa. Can the Minister with a clear conscience apply further hardships to our people who are now facing difficult times many with anxious hearts to know where the wherewithal for the family larder is to be found. May I plead with the Minister to think of the unfortunate position of Australia, admitted by Mr. Bavin as the fruits of their protectionist policy, and to be thankful that in refusing to be coerced into this disastrous bolstering of industries, our Minister can refer his supplicants to the Australian example where white labour is largely employed. I therefore earnestly suggest that he stay his hand in regard to all these increased duties on commodities which are the chief food of the poor. Wait at least a year and let the producers look for other methods, if not then, the Government will soon be called upon to assist not only every farmer in South Africa but even the gold industry if South African prices are to be further increased. In a general way my remarks apply to wheat and flour, the exception being that the wheat farmer cannot supply South Africa’s needs and therefore has not to face the low prices of an export market.

I hope that the hon. member who has just sat down has succeeded in converting a group of his friends opposite. We, on this side of the House, have long since made up our minds on the subject, and decided what the policy of this country ought to be in connection with the protection of our industries. I do not know, however, whether the country will be much wiser about the policy of our friends opposite in connection with the important matter after the debate of this afternoon. It is an important matter. One of the hon. members said that great responsibility rested on us in connection with the proposals. They are important proposals and the Government realises its responsibility. We have thoroughly considered the matter, but we cannot agree with the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that it is merely a responsibility to the Government. No, Parliament will also have to bear its responsibility. It is, indeed, easy to speak in this debate, but presently we shall be in committee, and then every hon. member will have to decide on each of the proposals. If one of the proposals is not in the interest of the country, then it is the duty of the House by its vote to say that it is not in the interests of the country. It is pathetic to hear from some of my hon. friends opposite from time to time of the burdens that are being laid on the consumer. That wonderful concern about the consumer. It is, however, so noticeable that it generally comes from our mercantile friends opposite; they are so concerned about the rights of the poor consumer. Who was it again this afternoon? The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), Hospital (Mr. Henderson), and Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McIlwraith), these are the people whose hearts bleed so much for the poor consumer. They groan about every increase of or 5 per cent, which will so severely affect the consumer. We have, however, had a little experience in the country; it is no longer a matter of theory, but we have already had the experience in practice, and often seen what the effect is of a certain reduction we make and how much of it reaches the consumer. Most of our tariffs are of such a nature that, although they bring in large amounts in revenue, five and 10 per cent, reductions could easily be made without it being possible for the distributor to pass the benefit on to the consumer. The hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) said this afternoon that he wanted to suggest something original, a new policy, that we should try and should follow. He said that protection by means of customs tariffs was unsound, that subsidies also met the difficulties, political difficulties, and then he said that we must combine the two things. I think that our difficulties would then be doubled. My hon. friend gave an illustration and said, “Look, instead of putting 5 per cent, on clothes, put 2½ per cent, on them and give the 2½ per cent, in the form of a subsidy to the clothes factories, by which the burden will not be increased and the consumer will not be punished.” I would like to see how much the poor consumer would get out of the 2½ per cent, on readymade clothes? When the hon. member explained his proposal he said that he could not understand a statement by the Minister of Finance, who had said in his budget speech that the proposal in connection with clothes would bring in a fairly large amount this year in revenue, but that it would also assist the industry. The hon. member stated that this was conflicting, that it was a theoretical argument. It is not so. It is based on actual experience of the matter. What will happen is that the duty will not immediately be effective in stopping the importation. It will continue awhile, and in that way we are going this year to get a little more out of this item, but in time the protection will be effective and then it will assist the industry. That is what I meant by my statement and there is nothing conflicting in it. I said at the start that we did not know what hon. members opposite thought about this important matter. What did we hear this afternoon The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) rose and he has always hitherto been consistent, he has always been out and out in favour of protection, he not only defended the proposal in connect on with the industry he represents, but he also expressed his views on the policy of encouraging other industries by protection, by which work is given to our own people. He is quite in favour of it, and he has no doubt about the matter. Then we have the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), it is difficult to know precisely what he thinks about the proposals, and as I understand him he finds no fault with them, he thinks they are necessary. He spoke about the sugar industry, the wheat industry, and primary industries that are being protected by the other proposals, and he appears to be in favour of them. He is not quite certain that the proposal in connection with the boot industry is quite sound, and he wanted to know why the complete recommendation of the Board of Trade and Industries had not been accepted. He further said that the proposal with regard to the clothes industry was possibly not sound. One would imagine that the leader of the Opposition interpreted what his party thought. Then we come to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) who sits on his left. He is much more enthusiastic and thinks the proposals in connection with wheat are very sound. He is in favour of protection. Then, however, we have the discord, then we hear the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) who considers it his duty to protest against the proposals. Other protests by hon. members opposite are even a little stronger. They are all protectionists, but each proposal is opposed. We cannot, of course, prevent them from talking as they please, but they also are surely responsible to the country. They hope possibly some day to sit here again, and I think we ought to know where they stand as a party in connection with this important question. Let me say that the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) is still a new member, he has not yet made up his mind on this matter, and he wants us to have a proper enquiry made into the whole matter. If the hon. member had been here at that time he would have known that this matter was fully debated, and that the country has already made up its mind on the matter. In theory we can always make out a good case for free trade, we can always show that protection means a tax on the consumer, but we have had the experience and practice that our country has been built up on two industries, viz., the agricultural industry, and mining, and those two industries are not able to give work to all our boys and girls. We have seen that we are obliged to establish certain other industries in our country to find avenues of employment for our young people. The hon. member was quite right when he supposed that my scheme was not that of the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) that nothing at all should be imported into our country. I would not be so mad. But what I do say is this, that by assisting certain industries in our country we are providing an avenue of employment for our sons and daughters which agriculture and the mines cannot give them. That is what experience has taught us. We cannot rely only on those two industries, and consequently we must, from time to time, give this protection to industries. But we are not going to do so on the basis on which other countries who exaggerate the thing have done, and where we have had experience of the results of too high protection. All these tariffs, especially those we have been discussing this afternoon, are still much lower now than what similar tariffs are in other countries that have protection. Take the tax on readymade clothes and sugar, our industries are not so highly protected as is sometimes stated. Our tariffs are on a much more reasonable scale. We admit that there are limits and that we must not exaggerate protection. Therefore, I was not prepared, in connection with the protection tariff on readymade goods, to grant the protection that that industry asked for. If an industry cannot exist with a reasonable protection, then I say such an industry is not in the interest of the country, and that we ought not to have it. But as long as an industry can exist with a healthy amount of protection and as long as no burden is placed on the population, we are entitled to protect such an industry, because in that way we get more opportunities for work for our sons and daughters. The hon. member for Standerton asked me why we had not gone further in connection with the boot industry, and adopted the report of the Board of Trade and Industries. Well, I want to quote what one, who understands the boot industry, communicated to the press. As I have said, he knows the industry well, and he expresses himself as follows about it—

That is what he tells us. The interview goes further—

What the hon. member said is true. The view was expressed here that with this duty of 3s. 6d. we shall not succeed in keeping the satin shoes out of the country. Well, if that is really so, if the industry thinks that the increased protection will not assist them, then I am willing to drop it. The intention is not to get additional revenue. Our intention was to grant a measure of fair protection, but if the industry says that the 3s. 6d. on this particular class of shoes will not assist them, then I am prepared to drop the proposal. In connection with the customs duty on wheat and flour, the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) said that the suspended duty would not assist the farmers. Let me say at once that provision is made for a suspended duty, so that it will be possible to remove the duty by way of a proclamation when prices on the world market have risen to such an extent that the ordinary duty is sufficient for the protection of our industry. I also want to say about matches that I have been guaranteed by the industry that the prices will not be put up if this guarantee is not complied with we can revert to the lower duty. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) said that the suspended duty on wheat ought not to be removed before the farmers had sold their wheat. It is obvious that we will not do so, because we have passed legislation to enable the Minister of Finance to control the import of wheat, so that our farmers can have a reasonable market for their produce. We shall not remove this duty, before the position of the wheat market is stable. The hon. member also suggested that we should tax artificial silk to encourage the sale of woolen goods. I have already had this matter investigated by the Board of Trade and Industries, but we decided that it would put unnecessary tax on the public because the wool farmers will get no benefit from it. Our use of wool is so small in comparison with the use of wool by the rest of the world, that the tax on artificial silk in South Africa would make no difference. This, I think, is all that I have to reply to on what was said this afternoon and to-night in connection with the proposals. I hope that we shall now go into committee and if any hon. member objects to a specific proposal then we can debate it in committee.

Motion put and agreed to; House to go into Committee now.

House in Committee:

I move—

1. (a) In the case of companies the sole or principal business of which is mining for gold or diamonds, for each pound of taxable amount, three shillings;
2. (b) in the case of all other companies, for each pound of taxable amount, two shillings and sixpence;
3. (c) in the case of persons other than companies, for each pound of taxable amount, one shilling and as many two-thousands of a penny as there are pounds in that amount, subject to a maximum rate of two shillings in every such pound.

Agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

I move—

(NOTE.— “Sound films” shall include synchronized or sound-on-disc films.)

I move—

Agreed to.

Items 15 (a) to 43 (b) put and agreed to.

On item 65 (b)

In spite of what has fallen from the Minister I continue to feel that the proposal in regard to ready-made clothing is a mistake, that the benefit to be secured in the protection of a nascent industry is small in proportion to the burden which is to be placed on the people of this country. There is no doubt we have a very small industry indeed here. I do not know what its dimensions are, but it must be very small under the circumstances, and the people of this country wear read-made clothing on a large scale. What is the proportion of people who can wear bespoke clothes, go to a tailor and have clothes made? The vast bulk, I should say 95 per cent., wear ready-made clothing, and they are going to be taxed very severely.

If you are right it means a very big sacrifice of revenue.

Over the course of years— but in the next few years it will mean a very substantial increase in revenue. But that ought not to weigh in a case like this. We ought to bear in mind the privations of the people, and I think the Minister ought not to persist in the proposal. I can understand the other items, but as to this proposal with regard to the item of ready-made clothing, under the circumstances of to-day we should not embark on taxation of this kind. I am not in the least moved by the argument used. He is making a great mistake. He is going to hit a very large section of the people very hard. I do not think this is a time for taxation of this kind.

I would like to add a few remarks to what the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has said. I want to give one or two figures which will very much support the argument he has put forward. In 1924-’25 the output of the clothing factories amounted to just on £2,000,000. In the next three years, under the duty yon imposed, they had increased the output to £3,154,000; that is to say, in the next three years, under the protective duty the output increased by 60 per cent., and the number of employees had gone up from 5,044 to 8,142, an increase of 61 per cent. Of that number I think I am correct in saying that 40 per cent, was in respect of non-Europeans. The point I want to make is that the Board of Trade recommended very strongly in 1926 that this industry should be given a 25 per cent. duty. The Minister felt then that he could not give 25 per cent, and as a matter of fact gave a 20 per cent. duty. That was quite sufficient to enable the industry to increase its output by 60 per cent, in three years. The employment figures there show that in this particular industry employment has steadily increased during the last three years, which is a verification that the output must also have increased. I will give the figures from the official bulletin. The progressive yearly increase on the base year of 100 is as follows: in 1927, the average monthly employment was 169; in 1928, it was 196; and in 1929 it was 218. It is perfectly true that during the last month or two there has been a falling off in employment but you find every year that during certain months there is a falling-off due to slackening trade. The Board of Trade has made a strong point of the fact that owing to certain duties certain firms of insufficient financial stability who started industry have not been able to stand and meet the set-back which has come about. In point of fact, the sound and well-established firms in this country are holding their own. You will find that many of the old-established manufacturers in various parts of the country are very well satisfied with the tariff they have at present, and can hold their own. On the evidence put forward the duty which you have laid down before is amply sufficient, and will enable firms established on a sound basis to continue to hold their own. I would ask the Minister not to press this.

I think the hon. the Minister should now accept the adjournment, as it is too late to adequately discuss the many important details to lie gone into, but if he intends to use his majority to carry the matter through, there is no more to be said. I would like te say I am pleased the Minister has told us he does not intend to derive revenue from this taxation. Therefore, he might agree to adjust the duty. At the present time he taxes the raw commodity, the cloth being imported, 5 per cent., so that 25 per cent, duty is only an effective duty of 20 per cent. Why not then remit the tax of 5 per cent, on raw materials, and make the duty 20 per cent., which would remove a lot of criticism and give the manufacturers the same protection. There is another point—the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) does not appear to know very much about this subject, judging by his remarks. Probably he has not had time to study the various reports. The contention is that there will be a heavy impost in the poor man. The Board of Trade which has gone into this matter more thoroughly than the right hon. member, says that the industry has already captured the trade for the lower-priced articles. The only trade they have not got is for higher priced articles, and in these cases people who are prejudiced against local goods prefer to buy imported clothes. It is also well known that at the end of each season a lot of goods are dumped from overseas. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) spoke of the clothing business as if it were a “tin-pot industry.” The wage bill is £800,000 a year; I think more than that of the sugar industry, and the hon. member would not have admitted the sugar is a tin-pot industry. The surest way to give our factories the opportunity to expand their trade and bring down production costs is to give them the chance to go in for mass production, and this can only be possible with security of adequate protection. I would like to suggest to the Minister that he should make this duty an effective duty of 20 per cent, by remitting the duty on cloth for manufacture and bring the import duty on clothing at 20 per cent.

I think the hon. member is an excellent representative for the Labour people in this country, when he suggests that the duty on ready-made clothing will only affect the rich man.

The Board of Trade says so.

That is not correct; it affects the poorer classes and the men of medium means who cannot afford to have clothing made for them. I suppose the Minister Knows that of all classes who wear ready-made clothing, the farmer and agricultural man use the most.

And he is prepared to carry the burden for the sake of his son.

Another point is that butchers’ and warehouse overalls and boiler suits are not worn by rich men. I recommend that also to the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin). I suppose he considers that it is only the rich man who wears a boiler suit. Now, I do suggest that, if the hon. member will take the trouble to read these items, he will recognize that it will be the working man and the farming man who pay this tax. I put it to the hon. Minister that he should accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and delete this item 65 (b). I do not think it will be any good for trade, and I am certain it is only an extra charge on the man who wears ready-made clothing, and on the working man who wears factory over-alls, boiler suits, and so on.

I think the hon. member will agree that I know a little about boiler suits. I believe this duty that is proposed in regard to ready-made clothing is absolutely necessary. We are developing an industry in this country. I take the article spoken of— boiler suits—and I say that we can make them cheaper in this country. The reason for that is that the overseas firm who supplies them will not allow the retailer to sell below a certain price.

Rubbish.

The principal firm in the world, who makes that article, has put a price upon it, and a retailer dare not sell below it. I have documents to prove that, if a merchant decided to sell these articles at a lower price than laid down by the firm who manufactures them, the supplies would be stopped.

There is another thing. We are developing a large industry in this country. In my own constituency there has been a large number of factories opened up during the last few years. I have been over them on more than one occasion, and it is a pleasure to pass through those factories. They are built on modern lines, and the ventilation and light are very good, and they are employing hundreds of girls in those factories whose wages at the end of the week are a regular god-send. In my own constituency 1,700 odd girls are employed in those factories.

What wages do they get?

The weekly wage in those factories is £4,000. Because of the development of those factories, we are opening up avenues of employment and, even if the wages are not high, by increasing the amount of trade, they can increase their wages and better their conditions. The factories are springing up and the articles they are producing are of really good quality. One merchant showed me articles manufactured in a factory in Cape Town, and he assured me, as an experienced man, that the quality was equal to anything that he could import, and he could have sold the article to me cheaper than the imported article.

We have heard some remarkable arguments in favour of these increased duties, and I think the Minister must be sorry for some of the support he has received from some of the Pact members. First we had the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) threatening the Minister with all sorts of penalties for raising the cost of living of the poor, and then the hon. member suddenly discovered that these higher duties are really going to benefit the poor. Then we have the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) very courageously supporting the proposal with some most extraordinary arguments. He said that South African manufacturers could make certain articles cheaper and better than the imported. At the same time he alleged that these wicked overseas manufacturers threatened to cut off supplies if people sold below a certain price. But why does not the South African manufacturer cut out the overseas manufactures? Will the trustful and agile member for Boksburg deny that the poor man will have to pay a higher price for the articles on which it is proposed to impose these increased duties?

The cheaper quality goods are not imported.

The Minister must be sorry when he sees the camouflage which is being used to bolster up these increases.

I am sure the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) would not try to mislead the committee, but there is no such thing as a restrictive price on the articles of ready-made clothing, enumerated in the tariff.

Oh, yes.

I hope the hon. member does not suggest that he knows these things as well as I do. I have had a life-long experience of this class of goods, and if I know nothing about anything else I do know something about this. There is no such a thing as the regulation of prices from abroad for those articles enumerated here. For the life of me I cannot understand Labour members supporting protection like this and taxation on the people whom they are crying out to protect. What has gone wrong?

The hon. member should confine himself to the item under discussion.

This duty will not increase the output. What will happen is that whatever taxation the Minister puts on, the local article will have its price put up to that. We are putting an extra five per cent, taxation on the man who wears the cheapest clothing. It is the worst form of taxation, because it is more difficult to bear by the class of people on whom you are putting it than any others.

I want to quote what the Wage Board said with regard to this very industry on the 1st April last year—

Six months afterwards the Minister of Mines and Industries emphasized that in a statement when he pointed to the magnificent progress made in this industry. But within a few months we have the board coming forward with this proposal. There has been no change at all in the conditions.

You find this claim for higher duties on ready-made clothing originated in Johannesburg, and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) was perfectly right when he said it is largely due to the Mozambique agreement. The first thing these gentlemen said was that the trade in Cape Town employed coloured people, and there was no fair competition between Cape Town and Johannesburg. That was the first claim they made. I maintain that if the Government is going to put on an extra duty every time pressure is brought to bear upon them, they are going to upset the country. The request was afterwards made to increase the duty on second-hand clothing, in order to make the natives use ready-made clothing. That argument did not carry weight, and I am very much surprised that the Minister has now agreed to put on the duty he has proposed to-day. Ready-made clothing is extensively used, and the use of second-hand clothing is going down. About 95 per cent, of the people in this country have to wear ready-made clothing, and if we cannot sell our mealies and our wool at decent prices, I am inclined to think that we shall soon get about 100 per cent, wearing ready-made clothing. If we are going to put on higher taxes continually, who will eventually benefit? The whole of the people wearing ready-made clothing will be hit. I think it is a most unnecessary tax. It is hitting not only the coloured element, but everybody who cannot afford to pay. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) said that this industry is not only able to hold its own, but to compete against overseas people. I think this is a tax which is going to hit everybody in the country, and it is unnecessary. I do not think this particular section who make this ready-made clothing are deserving of protection at this stage.

Upon which the committee divided:

I move—

We have now reached one of the most controversial items and I suggest that the Government accept the motion to report progress.

Motion put and negatived.

I have a word to Say on this item. I notice in the Customs Trade report for the year 1926, the number of imported women’s shoes was 1,173,000. In 1929 it was 1,284,000, an increase over those four years of 110,000 pairs of shoes. During the same period from 1926 to 1928 there was a fall in the number of shoes imported from the United Kingdom of 152,000 pairs of women’s shoes. There was also a fall of 37,000 pairs from Switzerland. So that the net increase in shoes imported from Czecho-Slovakia has not been a great factor affecting the local industry. The net difference is 86,000 pairs of shoes. The increase from 1924-’25 to 1927-’28 of locally manufactured shoes was from 3,000,000 pairs of shoes to 3,766.000 pairs. The employment figures also show an increase during the last three years. Figures show that this industry which it is said is going to be ruined, has given a steadily progressive increase in employment. A case has not been made out for the extra duties proposed.

I hope the Minister will realise that he is not treating the House fairly in requiring us to discuss these important matters at this late hour. Apparently the Minister has been some weeks trying to make up his mind and less than a week ago he gave notice of the increased’ duties, so that the country has had the proposals before it for only three or four days. Yet we are asked to commence the discussion on this item at 11.20 p.m. I submit that the Minister is most unwise in pressing for this extra duty. Can he tell us if these particular fabric shoes are being made here in any large number? I have seen samples of the better class fabric shoe selling at £1 and upwards, but this cheaper class is not made here. The shoe people tried to convert me—a hopeless task— and I gathered that they are not making this particular line, but that if they can obtain this extra protection they hope to commence their manufacture. So they are asking for protection for what they hope to make. What guarantee has the Minister if this extra protection is granted that the price of locally made shoes will be reasonable and fair. I am told that these shoes used to he retailed at 12s. 6d. a pair, but are now sold at 10s. 6d. I do not believe that any South African manufacturer will be able to make them for less than 9s. or 10s., and the retail price would have to be 15s. The net effect is that the Minister is putting up the price of these shoes to the poorest class of our women and children. We have only just passed through Parliament a Bill to enfranchise women. I am sure that if this proposal were discussed five years hence, and you had women members, you would hear a debate different from the somewhat tepid one of to-night. It is unfair to the class of the community which is affected by this particular item.

Of course the hon. member will realize that the reason we are putting this on is that they are not getting their share of the market, but they are making a very good fabric shoe; if they get protection they will be able to compete in this line, and the shoes will be made in very much larger numbers. The hon. member tells us, and that shows the loose statements that are made, that with this protection She people will make a shoe which will sell for 15s. The Czechoslovakian shoe still comes in at 12s. 6d., and if the other people are so unreasonable as to charge 15s., they will still under-sell. Such a convinced free trader as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McIlwraith) admits that as far as these fabric shoes are concerned a very good case has been made out. These people telegraphed this morning to myself, and, I suppose, to other hon. members, to say that this duty will not assist them. I telegraphed that if that is true, I shall be prepared to drop it.

Call their bluff.

I have done so. It rest with hon. members.

Report progress, and ask leave to sit again, and let us see.

Will the Minister now move to report progress and ask leave to sit again?

That cannot be done now.

The Czecho-Slovakian shoe will be landed at 9s. 3d. under the Minister’s new arrangement, local people will not produce a shoe of the same quality at that price. The Minister can easily get the extra duty on if he wants to, but I quite agree with the people in Port Elizabeth that the 3s. 6d. now proposed will not help them to get the business.

These people who have been around to the Minister’s door asking for increased protection tell him quite plainly that what he is prepared to give them is not going to help them a bit. On the other hand, it is going to put the prices up against the consumer. Therefore, it seems to me that logically what he should do is to drop this particular item. This particular proposal does not seem to have a single friend in this House. I would ask him to give the matter further consideration. He says that, taking my figure at 10s. 6d.—which is a cut price—and putting another 1s. 9d. duty on it, he knows that 1s. 9d. does not represent the increase in the price. It represents from 2s. 6d. to 3s. on the retail price. This is the shoe worn by the poorer classes of the community.

No, your wife and my wife buy them.

Even if the Minister’s wife and my wife buy these shoes, because they are cheap they must be universally sold, and the poorer women, teachers and typistes and shop girls are surely the type that have made this shoe popular. They are shoes that have to be bought frequently, and every time a pair of shoes is bought, the Minister is going to take a few extra shillings from the pockets of these unfortunate women, He is getting no thanks from the industry at Port Elizabeth, and he will certainly get the merited reproaches of the feminine portion of the population. Is not the Minister getting tired of the repeated demands for protection from this industry? If he gives them this extra duty, they will be buzzing around his office in a few months’ time, and telling him that they must have a bit more. They asked the Board of Trade to give them 4s., and the Board of Trade has recommended 3s. 6d. on all classes of shoes. Now they telegraph the Minister to say that it will have no real stimulating effect. The only effect it is going to have is an irritating effect on the public.

As representing Port Elizabeth (North)—the home of the boot industry—I feel I must say something about it. It is true the manufacturers say that the present duty is not much good to them, and that sooner or later they will have to close down. They are manufacturing these fabric shoes, and as the Minister says, the fabric shoe is bought by people not of the poorer classes, so I feel he has met them half way. What the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said might be misunderstood. In view of the fact that the Minister has stated that leather boots will not be included, half a loaf in this ease is better than no bread. They are to-day working four days instead of six a week, and this is said to be due to reduced orders. In these circumstances I am going to support the measure.

I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) on his gradual conversion. This afternoon he said shoes were going to cost 4s. or 5s. more, but he now says 3s. or 4s. more. I differ from him, and am inclined to agree with the Minister of Finance that various classes of people buy fabric shoes, and use them for evening and day wear. I know the industry is not quite satisfied with what the Minister proposes to do, and I am disappointed that he has not seen fit to adopt the whole of the recommendations of the Board of Trade. I am of opinion that this industry will not be sufficiently protected by putting this duty on fabric shoes only. It is only natural when the industry had hoped the Minister would accept the Board of Trade’s recommendation that they should express their disappointment. Stress has been laid on the fact that when a 30 per cent duty was imposed the industry admitted that was sufficient. I believe at that time the average price of shoes coming into the country was 13s. a pair. The duty then imposed was 3s. 10d. a pair, and on shoes at 5s. 5d. they have a duty of 1s. 7d. per pair. When the duty was put on, wages were 33½ per cent, lower than they are to-day. That, in itself, is a very large factor in compelling them to ask for the protection which they have now been seeking. Unfortunately, perhaps, at the outset of their negotiations, the question of fabric shoes was unduly stressed. I am still of the opinion that cheap leather shoes are coming in from Czecho slovakia and the indications are that these importations will be considerably increased. In 1928, the increase of importations from that country was 178 per cent, above the previous year. For nine months of 1929 the increase was 40 per cent, above 1928. I have been told that, according to the orders already placed, the increase in this year will be somewhere about 400,000 pairs. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) has stressed the fact that there has been a decline in shoes imported from Great Britain. He also pointed out the increase in employment. The position to-day is, that the hands in the factories are only working four days per week. That is not due to any desire on the part of the manufacturers to make the position appear worse than it really is. Will it be suggested by any hon. member that they should reduce wages? I do not think anybody will be prepared to admit that skilled operators whose maximum earnings are £6 per week are earning too much. One has to remember that, in this industry, they are doing what I think is the desire of every hon. member in this House, that is to employ as much European labour as possible. The position to-day is that the industry in Port Elizabeth is employing 86 per cent. Europeans. In one case I know that the percentage is practically almost 100 per cent. The whole of the apprentices at present employed are Europeans. The result would be as the others drop out that practically 100 per cent. Europeans will be employed in the boot industry of that centre. I should like also to say this that while this duty will undoubtedly benefit to a small extent some manufacturers, more particularly in Port Elizabeth, there are other manufacturers in other centres such as George, Kingwilliamstown, and I think in Durban, Pietermaritzburg and Cape Town, who probably are not making fabric shoes at all and who will, in no way be benefited by this. Whatever the industry may have said it is only done with the object of protecting those who receive no protection. A good deal has been said about the conditions which obtain in Czecho-Slovakia. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) chose to quote a statement which gave a side which was particularly favourable to the proprietor of the factories.

I quoted from an industrial paper.

Yes, he quoted from an industrial paper, but at the same time, he did not quote the heading of that particular article which gave the other side of the picture. The article demonstrated that by a special method only possible when producing for the world’s market could that result be obtained. The article is the outcome of an investigation conducted by the International Labour Office and people have seen in this system a remedy for all the ills of the day. [Time limit.]

We are quite willing to go home, but hon. members opposite object to it. Now they object to being kept up. We have duties ranging from 75 per cent, to 250 per cent. Therefore, we have no standard to work by. No one knows anything about the conditions of the boot industry on the other side, and I do not think the Minister has any first-hand information on the subject. I do not want to see the United Kingdom penalized. Has the High Commissioner reported on the alleged sweating conditions in the east end of London? I move as an amendment—

We do not wish to penalize anything coming from Great Britain, because she is our best customer, and, for that reason, we should have an interchange of products. She has to pay for the goods she takes from us by sending out a certain amount of manufactured articles. There is nothing in the Board of Trade report alleging unfair conditions in Great Britain.

Amendment put and negatived.

While I am anxious to assist the British manufacturer, the South African comes first with me. This competiton has created conditions in Great Britain which we would not particularly care to have in South Africa. The boot industry, as is well known, employs a large number of our own people, and the youth of the country are being trained there. If a position is created that some will have to go out of the business it means a considerable amount of unemployment. I am of opinion, even with this proposed duty, it will mean very little, if any, increase in the price of shoes, and I feel sure, if the manufacturers are able to secure a larger amount of our own trade, it will ultimately lead to a reduction of prices, because the history of the industry proves that, when the first protection was given them, only one line practically is being manufactured, and it was sold at 3s. 6d., less three-fives; very soon after that, due to competition, the price was reduced to 2s. 6½d They secured an increased output and that with competition which resulted in reduced prices. One manufacturer has told me, relerring to these fabric shoes, that in course of time he will bring his price down to compete with the Bata shoes.

The Board of Trade in their report state that the reason for putting the duty on was because there was dumping. I wish to tell the Minister that there was no dumping on doors and windows. In one year there has been a falling off of £3,000 on the importation of doors and windows, and the total importation is only £48,000 in 12 months. This duty will fall entirely on the very small man. A duty of 3s. 6d. is nothing on a decent door, but on a door for a poor man’s house it is an item. I appeal to the Minister to get this referred back to the Board of Trade, to see whether the statements I have made are correct. We in my own factory have manuafctured thousands of doors and windows. We have not been importing for years. Even if this duty were put on it would not provide work for 50 mechanics for the whole country.

I am quite sure that a very good case is made out. For a long time we have received very urgent representations from workmen. They say that this is work which is taken from them.

I have been in this business, and I know what I am talking about. I am quite certain that the Minister will find that what I have stated is absolutely correct. There is no dumping. The doors and windows are ordered for delivery, and we have to wait a long time before we get them.

Item, as printed, put and agreed to.

Items 272 and 319 put and agreed to.

I have been reading through this report once more. It seems the extra duty they recommend—and that the Minister has agreed to—is hopelessly illogical. They begin by pointing out that the freight on 40 cubic feet has fallen from 60s. to 20s., and that there are no cases of freight dumping. Then they discuss the question of dumping by Soviet Russia and they say that although dumping has probably been done they cannot prove it. They recommend, therefore, an all-round increase in the duty on matches. But Russia is not the only country from which we import matches. The imports of Russian matches amounted in October and November to 2,450 gross. Russia sends large quantities of matches but not under conditions which you can prove to be dumping. Germany and Sweden also send us matches. I admit the pill is sugared because there is an underaking by the Lion Match Factory that they will not increase the price to the consumer. But the consumer does not get the benefit of foreign competition and can never expect the price to be brought down by competition from overseas so that, if we do not pay more for our matches we shall never pay any less.

It is all very well to pick out a special article but those are not the lines on which you are proceeding. If we want to retain our match industry here I would like the hon. member to tell us what is the alternative. He says that dumping from Soviet Russia cannot be proved, for the simple reason that manufacturing is carried on under State control, and there is no domestic price there. The cost of manufacture is about 1s. 9d. per gross, and matches have been shipped at even 1s. a gross. Now what are you going to do to meet conditions like this. These goods are sold for practically the cost of the raw materials; they sell at any price to obtain entry into foreign markets.

Why is dumping from one country used as an excuse to impose a permanent protective duty against the whole world? That seems to me to be very unsound and illogical. Surely if the Minister’s legislation in regard to dumping is so defective at the moment that he and, apparently, the commissioner of customs think, and he cannot take action, let him amend that legislation. Nobody outside of the House, whatever his views on fiscal questions, is in sympathty with dumping, and everybody in this House will help the Minister to stop dumping. But it is unsound, to pick upon a particular thing in order to say—" Soviet Russia is dumping matches— ergo, do not impose dumping duties, but clap an all-round increase on matches ns a whole.” In other words, because one particular country is dumping, build up your tariff wall, and shut out all forms of foreign competition, and leave the consumer at the tender mercy of the local industry. That is an unsound way of doing things. If the Minister cannot deal with the present situation, let him alter it. In this case they make out an almost complete case of dumping, but they say that because of the wording of a particular section of the Customs Act, the Commissioner cannot legally take action. Then amend the Act, but do not put on an extra duty against the whole world.

I should like the hon. member to apply his great legal ability to drafting such a thing. It cannot be done. We have attempted it before. You cannot draft dumping legislation for dealing with these cases. We have had many instances of it in our legislation. We only had it to-day in connection with sugar. By your dumping legislation, you cannot meet all the circumstances. I do not know how the hon. member would frame general legislation to deal with this.

Item put and agreed to.

Motion, as printed, put and agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN stated that the committee had agreed to certain resolutions on customs, income tax and super tax and that he would bring up a report at the next sitting.