I move—

That Order of the Day No. IV, for Friday, the 27th instant—House to resume in Committee on South African Society of Accountants (Private) Bill—be discharged and set down for Friday, the 13th March.

seconded.

I move—

That the papers relating to church, school and trading sites, laid upon the Table on the 17th instant, be referred to the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

seconded.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

That the Actuary’s Report on the valuation, as at the 31st March, 1922, of

1. (a) Union Pension Fund, and
2. (b) Union Services Pension Fund, presented to this House during the last session of Parliament, be laid upon the Table.

seconded.

stated that the Report [Annexure No. 219—1924 (2nd Session)], was upon the Table.

I move—

That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

seconded.

Will the Minister of Finance state when he proposes to lay on the Table the general Estimates for 1925-’26?

I hope very shortly.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Hon. members will remember that during last session I informed the House that it was the intention of the Government during the recess to have a conference between the Government of the Union and the Governments of Southern and Northern Rhodesia to discuss the future relations in regard to Customs matters with those Governments and, primarily, with the object of discussing the question of adequate protection for our cattle farmers in regard to the importation of cattle from those territories. That conference was held in Pretoria in October last. The conference dealt with a very important subject and with the general question of the future relations between those Governments in regard to customs tariffs. The points that came up for discussion were in many instances very difficult ones, but I am glad to say that an earnest endeavour was made on both sides to arrive at a satisfactory agreement. During those negotiations the utmost good feeling prevailed, and in the end it was possible to arrive at an agreement which, I think, the country generally and the House will regard as satisfactory. This object of this Bill is to obtain Parliamentary ratification of the agreement arrived at that conference, the terms of which agreement hon. members will find now as a schedule to this Bill. It is sought to obtain ratification of this agreement as from January 1 of this year. The previous agreement was ratified merely by a resolution of the House, and the subsequent alterations which were made, —the protocols which were added from time to time—were also ratified merely by resolution of the House. In the present case, however, the agreement contains certain clauses which can be only made effective by legislation, viz.—those prohibiting certain classes of cattle and certain classes of tobacco. It is necessary that we should have formal legislation passed by this House to make those particular clauses of this agreement effective. The previous agreement was entered into in 1914 and was amended by various protocols which were added to the agreement. The object was to bring it into line with the changes in the Union’s excise legislation and also later changes were effected with the object of making provision for certain increased payments by the Union to Rhodesia in respect of our trade with those Governments, both Southern and Northern Rhodesia. These lump sum payments provided for under the protocols aidded to under the previous agreement were unsatisfactory mainly from this point of view, that they took no account of the fluctuations in trade between the Governments and also any diversion of trade from the Union to other ports. Under the first agreement of 1914 the first lump sum payment was made of £57,000 to Southern Rhodesia and £6,500 to Northern Rhodesia. These lump-sum payments were amended, so that under the agreement which was in force when this present agreement took place there were paid to the Government of Southern Rhodesia a sum of £125,000 per annum, and to the Government of Northern Rhodesia a sum of £12,500 per annum. These lump-sum payments were from time to time amended. When Rhodesia found that the trade with her from the Union was increasing, she more than once threatened that if we did not increase these payments she would be compelled to levy customs duties on certain articles entering from the Union. Hon. members will see that through the conclusion of this agreement we, broadly speaking, maintain the principle of a free interchange of products between the Governments. That is, in so far as it will in the future, as in the past, not be necessary to have a chain of customs’ houses on the borders of these territories. In another sense there has never been in actual practice free interchange of products between these territories because these lump-sum payments were fixed on the basis of the actual duties collected by the Union Government on goods imported into the Union and then re-exported to Rhodesia, plus five percent. on all manufactured products and all Union products exported from the Union to Rhodesia. Now, if hon. members will turn to the Bill they will find that a very important alteration has been made in the present agreement which we now seek to ratify. Hon. members will find that in future our payments to Rhodesia will be determined by the payment of twelve per cent. of the duties on articles exported to Rhodesia which were originally imported into the Union. An average has been struck of past importations, and on that average the duty was fixed at twelve per cent. on goods imported into the Union. To that was added a payment of five per cent. on all Union manufactures. In future we shall pay to Rhodesia six per cent on Union manufactures, and we shall not pay anything more in regard to Union products imported into Rhodesia with this proviso, that at present, and until the trade of Rhodesia justifies it, the minimum payments will be £125,000 to Southern Rhodesia and £12,500 to Northern Rhodesia. The Government agreed that it would be inequitable to ask Rhodesia to agree to an abatement of the amount which went to her under the previous agreement. Therefore the minimum amounts will remain as they are but in future they will automatically adjust themselves according to the increase in trade. It will be some time before the trade between the countries will justify an increase. That is to say, it will be some time before we shall be called upon to pay more than those amounts. Then advantage was taken to discuss during this conference the very important question of protection for our cattle-farmers and tobacco-growers. This was, of course, the most important and difficult matter with which the conference was faced, but I am glad to say, again, that in the end the Rhodesian Government admitted the reasonableness of the Union cattle-farmer’s claim for a certain measure of protection and agreed that the weights of cattle should be increased to 1,050 lbs. This is the weight at the station of despatch in Rhodesia. That is an increase in the weights of cattle of over thirty per cent. What it means to our farmers is revealed by the figures which I quoted in this House the other day in reply to a question by the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals). Generally speaking the cattle-farmers of the country were very well satisfied by the agreement which was arrived at. It was considered fair and adequate protection to the cattle industry of this country. Farming conditions in this country and Rhodesia differ to such an extent that it was agreed that it was not unreasonable of the Union cattle-farmers to ask for this measure of protection. Then provision is made for the exclusion from the Union of certain grades of tobacco, namely, dust, stems, and scrap tobacco. According to the customs figures this will mean that we shall be able to exclude about 750,0 lbs. of this tobacco from the Union. That also is a valuable measure of protection for our farmers. Coming to the Bill itself, hon. members will see that it provides for the promulgation by the Governor-General of regulations to prohibit the import and also to regulate the transit of these articles when they are legitimately imported for transit through the Union to overseas. Also the Bill provides for penalties and seizure of these articles prohibited to be imported if they are illegally imported. I am told that it is necessary for the Government to have this power of seizure. Then there is another clause on which I might say something. Article 13 defines what is meant under the term “Northern Rhodesia”: “Northern Rhodesia” excludes that part of Northern Rhodesia falling within the Congo Basin as defined in Article 1 of the General Act of Berlin of the 26th February, 1885, as revised by the Convention of St. Germain-on-Laye of September, 1919. That portion of the country has never been included in any previous agreement because no differentiation in the levying of duties can be made between countries signatory to that agreement. Union products going to that portion of the country have to pay the duties levied by that country. These are the principal clauses of the Bill. Hon. members will see that we have retained the Rhodes clause which was included in the previous agreement which prohibits Rhodesia from levying higher duties on articles entering Rhodesia from the Union. Then we have also retained the clause which was in the previous agreement with regard to the importation into Rhodesia of potable spirits. Under the previous agreement this provided that there will always be a difference in duty of 9s. a gallon as between Cape brandy and imported spirits. With these few words I now beg to move the second reading of this Bill.

I think I express the opinion of every member of this side of the House when I say that it is a matter of gratification that the hon. Minister has been able to bring about an agreement with Rhodesia, notwithstanding the fact that it has meant the throwing overboard of the policy which they themselves advocated a year ago. That has gone by the board, because the policy of the Nationalist party as I understood it, was that no cattle should come into the Union from Rhodesia. That was laid down in this House. The old policy has been changed. You have come now to adopt the policy of the late Government. It is very satisfactory to us from one point of view because we see that the new Government feel the responsibility of office, and that they have really adopted the policy of the South African party. I lay stress on the fact that this £125,000 which you are going to pay to the Rhodesian Government is a minimum amount. Under the old agreement and in every agreement from 1915 up to now it has been an amount—£125,000 less the duty accruing from goods sent from Rhodesia to the Union. Under this agreement this is not allowed to be deducted. If you look at clause 7 you will find it is the case—

and further it says here—

I have explained that.

Then I did not understand it. But that £125,000 must be paid in any case. However, we won’t quarrel about that. As I have said, we are extremely pleased that you have been able to maintain the Customs Union with Rhodesia. It is extremely satisfactory, because I agree entirely with the Minister that it would be an evil day for this country if there had to be a chain of customs houses along the border. The Minister is entitled to every credit for what has been accomplished though he has had to jettison the old policy of the Nationalist party.

The Government tries to give the impression that in effecting the agreement with Rhodesia in respect of the importation over the Transvaal border of cattle from Rhodesia they have done something for the farmers. I cannot see how that agreement which has now been entered into is going to have any effect as far as the stock farmer is concerned. The raising of the weight limit from 800 lbs. to 1,000 lbs. is not going to make any great difference. They produce in Rhodesia such a class of animal that a maximum weight of 1,000 lbs. is not going to make any noticeable difference. I can assure the Government that the Transvaal farmers are not satisfied with the agreement. Prohibit the importation of cattle altogether—that is what was Promised. That is what was promised before the elections. It was an election cry. To-day the cry has subsided. No, the Transvaal farmers are not satisfied with this. Let the Government carry out its policy. At the elections their principle had been an absolute embargo on cattle. But now I come to another point, namely, the question of tobacco. It has been said here that three-quarters of a million pounds of Rhodesian tobacco will be diverted from our markets owing to the new agreement. But what sort of tobacco is it? Rhodesia does not send the kind of tobacco that the Minister proposes to keep out from our market. What he keeps out is the ordinary quality, and this they do not send us. And again, what about the promises? Members on the other side of the House said that the importation of tobacco must be stopped. They did not say that the importation of tobacco dust must be stopped. That which under the new agreement cannot be imported is just sticks and dust, but the tobacco that destroys us may come in. The Government has not carried out its promises. I am certain that the tobacco farmer and the cattle farmer of the Transvaal are not satisfied. The position is worse than it was before.

The hon. member knows nothing about cattle.

I speak as a producer of tobacco and a cattle farmer, and I know I have expressed the opinion of the farmers of my district. They are not satisfied. The importation of dust is prevented but the tobacco that really damages our tobacco farmers may be imported.

I do not really desire to criticize the Government. I want to congratulate it on having arrived at an agreement. But as the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) has already said, they have not carried out their election promises of imposing a total prohibition on importation. Still I am pleased with the agreement. I represent many consumers of beef, and I think that the Government in entering into the agreement must also take into account their comrades who sit with them on the benches and who represent the Johannesburg Labour party. I do not want to blame the Government so much about it. I am pleased that they have achieved the views to which they have come. We must not burden our neighbours so much. We must remain good friends with them and sacrifice a little of our personal interests. We have in Rhodesia a great trade connection. I congratulate the Government on not having carried out their election promises, but for having taken into account those who are obliged to buy meat. I congratulate the Government if they are going further in the same direction; then they will be following in the footsteps of the previous Government and they will not go wrong. I have already noticed a number of instances in respect of their election promises where there is first a little deviation and then the way of the previous Government is followed. But I will just point out to the Government that there are people who are looking to see if the election promises are carried out. These people will ultimately not be satisfied with everything. I have always felt that we must be careful concerning the rights of entry of our neighbours’ goods. The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels) has again quoted the old story that the previous Government manufactured poor whites through the tobacco tax. When is that old story going to stop?

Never.

No, never. Hon. members on the other side will find one of these days that the people say they too manufactured poor whites. No, the Government will for a long while have trouble with the poor white question, and they must not say that the tobacco tax created our poor whites. This is not true. We shall see when the tobacco tax is taken off what happens in this connection. They have not carried out their election promises, but I shall be glad if by the repeal of the tobacco tax the poor white question can be solved.

I rise to express surprise at the speech of the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) who breaks out regarding the protection of the cattle and tobacco farmer—he who shouted two years ago, on the political platform: “Tax the tobacco farmer and teach him to produce better tobacco”—he now chides the Government because they want to exclude only bad tobacco and not the other classes of tobacco. One is surprised that he has the temerity to criticize the Government, he having for years supported a Government which manufactured poor whites by means of a disastrous tobacco tax. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has criticized, but partly welcomed, the agreement, and has supported the Government because, as he says, it has taken over the policy of the former Government and has abandoned the total embargo. He doubts whether the farmers will be satisfied. The country is satisfied with the measure, and if the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) comes to my constituency he will find that the farmers appreciate the improvement in the market. He will then realize that he has been talking nonsense. He will see how satisfied the farmers are with the agreement and that the case is in no wise as he put it. I am also surprised at the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) saving that the Government have ploughed with the young oxen of the former Government. If the former Government had possessed such good oxen, why had they not been able to inspan them? The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) could not do it, and hon. members of his party come here to-day and create a fuss because the Government has gone so far as to take measures for the protection of the cattle farmers.

I have listened to the arguments of hon. members on the other side, and it appears that they are disappointed that the Government has accomplished something. The hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. d. Pretorius) says that the new measure will be of no use. He is wrong. He ought not to be disappointed, as the former Minister stipulated that cattle weighing less than 800 lbs. will not be admitted, but he never put it into practice, while the present agreement does make provision that the cattle shall be weighed. We are already obtaining better prices, and this indicates that the agreement has so far worked well. We were never in favour of the total prohibition of importation. We only said that the cattle farmer must be protected.

Now listen to that!

Let us refer to the Hansard report, and we shall see that we said that the farmer must be protected and that a total prohibition of importation may possibly be necessary. I do not talk only as a consumer of meat, but also as a cattle farmer, and I can repeat that we have already obtained better prices for our cattle. All the same, I want to say that 1,000 lbs. is not a very heavy weight. Rhodesian cattle easily weigh it. I read recently in the “Cape Times” of two slaughter oxen that were imported from Rhodesia and which weighed 1,700 and 1,760 lbs. respectively. Seeing they have produced two such oxen 1,000 is not too high. Year after year I have directed the attention of the House to the condition of the Protectorate border. Cattle are produced very cheaply in the Protectorate, with the consequence that we are not able to compete against them. The farmers there obtain their ground for practically nothing, and working expenses are very low. The position is thus that the importation of cattle from Rhodesia is restricted and that from the Protectorate is not restricted. The export from Rhodesia to the Protectorate is also open, and though the measure now affords temporary alleviation we shall find later on that this is no longer the case. The border of the Protectorate is the dry Malopo River, over which, cattle are easily driven. If we do not limit or prohibit the importation from the Protectorate the agreement in the long run will prove useless.

I only want to say a few words on this question and first to congratulate the Minister on having converted his supporters to the view that the embargo was useless and unwise. In reference to this new Bill it is practically an amendment of the agreement that was drawn up between the previous Government and Rhodesia.

And a good amendment.

I am glad to hear that because I think it is a bad amendment, for a very serious omission has been made. In the previous agreement the last Government drew up that agreement very carefully, taking into consideration the position of the farmers, which was very serious at that time and is still serious, but they did not forget the consumer, and it seems to me that under this new Bill the Labour Government—because, after all, we are dealing with the Labour Government—have forgotten the poor consumer, and not taken into consideration what he wants. This Bill omits entirely clause D that occurred in that agreement with Rhodesia under the previous Government, clause D which limited the weight of oxen to 800 lb. minimum, but to protect the consumer they insisted upon the quality and that animal had to kill 50 per cent. at least, so that they were able to protect the consumer and the quality of beef had to be there. It was not a case of merely selling old bones, but the consumer would get good quality in beef, with very little bones in the carcase. This Bill omits that particular clause entirely. We have the prospect before us under the new Bill emanating from the present Government which will allow Rhodesia to send their gaunt old trek oxen which will fail to kill 50 per cent., and the consumers of this country will be supplied with a very good quality of bones. I do hope the Government will take this matter into consideration to see that consumers in this country are protected to some degree in regard to quality. When we refer to quality I can assure you that Rhodesia is going to show us the way to grow good beef.

I had not intended to take part in this debate, but I happened to be in Rhodesia at the time when the delegates were in Pretoria negotiating matters with the Government. I spent several weeks there and had the opportunity of knowing what was taking place and I must say that, as against what some think, the general view was that the Union Government had driven a very hard bargain with Rhodesia, and I would like to point out to my hon. friend who referred to there being no difference between the embargo of 800 lb. and 1,000 lb.—I think it was the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) —that 200 lb. makes all the difference in the world. I have got correspondence and articles in the papers showing that practically nothing but the very best stock bred by the ranches will be able to come into the Union. The small farmer in Rhodesia is practically cut out of the Union cattle trade by this particular agreement. With regard to what the hon. member (Mr. Moffat) said about bones, from what I heard up there—I do not know, I am not able to speak with any personal knowledge of this matter—when you send an ox that weighs 1,000 lb. it does not seem to me that it could be a mass of bones. Some farmers in the Union suggested that the embargo should go up to 1,200 lb. As far as the small Rhodesian farmers are concerned, their outlook in the cattle trade is very bad. Of course there are those who said that the Union, in effect, will do one good thing for Rhodesians, and that is it will compel them to scrap their scrub cattle. They will have to go in for high-class cattle there, but I want the House to remember that in this connection that the Rhodesians have not only got the Union to deal with, but they have got the export monopoly in their own territory. Because the whole of the export trade has now been handed over to a company under an agreement with the Rhodesian Government, under which they have got a monopoly. So the poor Rhodesian farmer will not have an export market for his cattle. I would urge the cattle farmer of this country not to look at this entirely from a selfish point of view but spare a thought also for those farmers engaged in the same class of work in Rhodesia. They are encountering great difficulties and this embargo, coupled with the monopoly that has been given for the whole of the export trade in Rhodesia, makes the position of the man who has scrub cattle absolutely hopeless. I would like to see a better feeling cultivated between the Union and Rhodesia. I met there travellers representing various Union firms; they had done a great deal of business with Rhodesia in the past, but when this agreement became public property the orders went down very badly. There was undoubtedly a feeling of resentment that the Union was driving a very hard bargain with them. I would urge the Government to use the powers they have got under this Bill sparingly. By all means let us improve the conditions of our cattle farmers here, but the Minister must recognize that there is a large body of men in this country whose interests are not the same as the interests of the farmers, namely, the consumers of this country. They are an important factor; they have been overlooked. The late Government also overlooked them when they laid an embargo of 800 lb. That embargo of 800 lb. helped to raise the price of meat in the Union and kept out a large number of cattle in that way. Of course 1,000 lb. would be much worse. They said that they wanted to assist the cattle farmer and they put on this embargo of 800 lb. It is true that the embargo under the present Bill is very much heavier and that it would hit the consumers very much more. The consumer was neglected in this respect both by the late Government and the present Government. He has not been taken account of at all, and I say that he must be considered in this matter and the great powers given to the Governor-General under this Bill must be utilized in such a way that, if there is a tendency to place this trade in the hands of a monopoly or ring or anything of that kind and force up the price of meat, the consumer will be thought of and the Minister must fight any tendency to raise prices unduly. The consumers must be treated fairly, and if this power is going to be used to create a monopoly—and monopolies of this kind are arising all over the Union and Rhodesia—then the whole matter will have to be seriously reconsidered. There is one thing I was glad to see in this Bill, and that is the question of prohibition. It seems to me that if you prohibit live cattle you will have to prohibit dead meat. It had been said that, while live cattle were going to be excluded, there was nothing to prevent dead meat being sent in, but I see that is provided for in the Bill so far as beef is concerned. The Minister might consider this; he will have to safeguard the position in that respect. I think that hon. members can rest satisfied that as far as the Government is concerned they have certainly driven a very good bargain for the Union, but in future I would suggest that when we are considering matters of this kind we should not only consider driving the hardest bargain we can, but should look upon Rhodesia as a friendly neighbour who takes an enormous amount of our products and manufactures. If you go to Rhodesia any day of the week you will find throughout the country men from the Union taking orders. You must give and take in this matter, and I hope hon. members will bear this in mind and will not seek to drive the hardest bargain they can with their neighbours, but adopt such a basis that the greatest possible development and exchange of products will take place between the two countries, and that the friendliest relations will exist.

It is said that we on this side of the House have been in favour of total prohibition of importation of cattle from Rhodesia. I on my part will at once admit that I have been in favour of such prohibition. Yes, we asked for it. That side of the House then said it was impossible, that it was impossible to do anything to prevent the importation of cattle from Rhodesia.

No.

Oh yes, the former Minister of Agriculture said it: He said, you ask for a total prohibition of the importation of cattle—you cannot even obtain an agreement. We pressed for total prohibition, and what did we get? The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) wakes up. In place of an embargo on cattle of 800 lbs. or less, our Government has as a consequence of our agitation fixed a limit of 1,000 lbs. in the agreement. Thus the standpoint we took up is entirely justified. Our agitation has effected an embargo on cattle of less than 1,000 lbs. in weight. The hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) said you have always asked for total prohibition and you have only obtained a prohibition on cattle of less than 1,0 lbs. weight. But we have obtained much more than hon. members on the other side ever believed we should obtain. The hon. member said further that the agreement has not made the least impression on the importations into the Union. But we must admit that since the agreement was entered into our cattle market in the Union has improved. I think I can say it has improved 50 per cent. and I hope it will continue to do so. Under the old agreement entered into by the former Government, provision was made that no animal should be imported unless its weight after slaughter was at least 50 per cent. of the live weight. But we no longer require this provision, as in the case of animals of 1,000 lbs. weight this will always be the case. I will, however, just say this concerning the supply of cattle to the Johannesburg market, that the farmers who agitated for an embargo are only the farmers who keep fat stock and not the farmers who keep inferior sort. They will then have to compete with the cattle sent to our markets from Rhodesia. Fortunately the position of the cattle market in the Union has very much improved. How long this will continue no one knows. I listened with interest to what the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) said about his experience in Rhodesia. We can very well understand the feeling prevailing in Rhodesia, and I was glad to hear what has been brought forward concerning our trade with Rhodesia. Perhaps in four or five years we shall again be faced with the same trouble and have to raise the standard for the embargo; and to escape the danger of then having again to raise the weight plans must even now be made for the obtaining of a better export market for meat from our country. The Government has always been very slow in providing more cold storage. Farmers feel that they are dominated by a ring which not only in the Union but also in Rhodesia and South West Africa controls the meat trade. The Government must take steps to tackle the matter thoroughly in order to find a better channel for the exportation of cattle from the Union. Otherwise we shall later on be compelled to raise the standard of the embargo from 1,000 to 1,200 lbs. Such a position is unsound. I am therefore glad that the Government already intends to nominate a commission for the purpose of going into the matter thoroughly. I hope the right people will be appointed and that they will be able to bring a complete plan before the House regarding what can be done to place the exportation of cattle from South Africa on a sound footing.

The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. N. Brand Wessels) has stated that miracles never cease. I agree that he is right, when we observe what the attitude of the Nationalist party is to-day. Formerly we heard a lot regarding total prohibition of the import of cattle from Rhodesia. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) has endeavoured to give an explanation of the term “total prohibition,” but his explanation does not go down. The cry was for total prohibition, not alone on cattle from Rhodesia, but of all cattle coming into the Union from the border districts. Then it was often said that this could not be done: for example not in respect of South-West Africa and British Bechuanaland. But all the same the cry is still raised in the country districts. To-day the same hon. members are satisfied with what the Government has done: and what has the Government done? There is no total prohibition, and it is a moot point whether the agreement is going to be an advantage to those who require help. It has always been said, and the S.A.P. Government has been blamed for it, that they worked in the interests of the great companies. And what is going to happen under this measure? The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) was at the time in Rhodesia and he has told us what will happen. Hon. members of the Opposition will now say: deliver us from our friend. He said that the small man or the ordinary farmer is not going to be benefited, but the result will be in favour of the big companies. The former Government realized that and guarded against it. The former Government realized that through such an agreement we could in two ways, or rather three ways, cause mischief. They said that it would not be enough to fix weights, but that it must also be stipulated that the cattle admitted must be of good quality. They could perhaps get an old trek ox weighing 1,000 lbs., but which is just bones. Under the former agreement such animals could be shut out; but under the new this cannot be done, and the lighter class of animal which is fat and altogether suitable is excluded. It is a question whether we shall be any better off. I am indeed of opinion that we shall find the position worse. It is asked, then, why has the market risen? There has been drought and the parts of the country which supply the market with fat animals in the winter were so dry that no fat animals were obtainable. The hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer) has told us about two heavy trek oxen referred to in the “Cape Times.” Why did he not read the whole article? This case was an exception. Those two oxen had been specially fattened and could not pass through the dip. This is not the class of animal which is usually found in Rhodesia, and I am myself of opinion that the two animals were from the Transvaal. I want to know something else from the Minister. He said that the embargo is applicable to animals imported into the Union for consumption. What is the position regarding animals intended for export? May they send as many animals as they want to, and say that they are for export?

assented.

The Minister says yes. What measures has he taken then to prevent the importation of great herds supposed to be for export, which then go to the cold storage, and from there are passed off on to us for local consumption. We allow them passage through our country for export and the danger remains that such animals intended for export will not in fact be exported. I agree with the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels) in being surprised that the party opposite is satisfied with the measure.

We do not need to disguise the fact that there is a certain measure of disappointment seeing that total prohibition of importation has not been effected, but I am surprised to see that hon. members on the other side of the House criticize this. They now say that the 1,000 lbs. limit will be of no advantage to the Union, while at that time they tried to make us believe that an 800 lbs. limit would result in the disposal of our whole surplus; but the 800 lbs. limit has been of no advantage to the cattle farmer. They knew it, and although it was regrettable that we have not obtained total prohibition, our Government has none the less succeeded in increasing the weight limit by 200 lbs., which is of great importance. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) says that the old agreement contained a condition that the cattle permitted to be imported must on being slaughtered weigh at least 50 per cent. of the live weight. But animals of such a standard as to weigh 1,000 lbs. will almost scale more than 50 per cent. when slaughtered. In either case with the new provision we shall obtain a greater weight for animals admitted than was formerly the case. But what is also of great importance is the question, what are we going to do with the surplus stock that we have in the Union? Our farmers are encouraged to produce a better class of stock, and just those farmers who produce animals of more than 1,000 lbs. weight will have to compete against Rhodesia. At the same time that we are encouraging the farmer to improve his class of animal we must see that he is protected; and I want to see what the Government is going to do to encourage the breeding of a better animal. The same farmers who are spurred on to do this are being thrown into difficulties by the agreement. If we want to do away with our inferior class of cattle, we must use better bulls, and do away altogether with poor bulls. Legislation to this end is necessary. I want also to say something concerning the weight of animals which may be imported. In Clause 10 of the Bill we find the provision concerning the weight. Under the former agreement animals of any weight could be imported for use in our factories, such as for example in the factory to be built at Messina to receive them. I want to know whether there is any limitation of weight in respect of such factories, and hope this is not the case. The former Government granted concessions to the Imperial Cold Storage and they had specially gone out of their way to prevent the provision for the limitation of weight being applicable in the case of such factories. I hope the Union farmers are going to be protected, because it is just this inferior sort of animal that is dealt with in the factories, and with which our market is glutted. Then I have something to say regarding railway rates. In Clause 11 of the agreement mention is merely made of cheaper traffic for goods from Rhodesia for export. But what about goods that we send to Rhodesia? Is Rhodesia going to reciprocate in this concession? Why are only tariffs for goods to be imported into the Union mentioned? I hope this point will have the serious consideration of the Government, so that we also obtain the lowest tariff. I also want to ask something in connection with East Coast fever. I have received a letter from someone in Rhodesia and he writes that cattle sent from Rhodesia to the Union are not subject to the same strict regulations and supervision as is the case with animals sent from the Union to Rhodesia. Again, we have just recently had a case of East Coast fever at Zoutpansberg. The people there get it regularly, and no one could understand where the East Coast fever had come from. I desire that the Government will take the strictest measures and investigate most closely the position in connection with East Coast fever. The hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer) has already raised a point of great importance. If the importation of a certain class of animal from Rhodesia is prohibited and no prohibition is made in respect of other bordering territories, then we shall not obtain our aim. The South African party Government made the former agreement applicable to all bordering territories, and I hope this Government will do the same. If it is not done then the importation of animals of less than 1,050 lbs. will be prohibited in respect of one territory, while from another all animals weighing over 800 lbs. will be admitted. Why the difference? This is important.

I have always been in favour of the embargo, and although the embargo in its fullest sense has not been imposed, I think that the agreement that the Government has concluded will be of great assistance to the cattle farmer. I further think that the strong agitation made by the supporters of an embargo has assisted the Government in its negotiations. When our delegates discussed this matter with the Rhodesian delegates they were in a position to point to the tremendous pressure that was being put on them by the farmers of the Union and the Rhodesian Government, possibly to evade a total embargo, conceded the raising of the minimum weight at which cattle may enter the Union from 800 lbs. to 1,050 lbs. I think that this extra 250 lbs. will be of the greatest assistance to the cattle farmer. We have in the Union far too many “scrub” cattle, cattle which are of no use for export and the consumers in this country do not want. Fortunately, we have a very useful market for this class of “compound” meat on the mines, sugar estates and other works where large numbers of natives are employed, and I do believe that this extra 250 lbs. on the minimum weight will secure to the Union farmer this outlet for his scrub stock and prevent this market from being flooded by poor-class stock from Rhodesia. Meanwhile the cattle farmer is doing his best to bring up the cattle he is breeding to an export quality. The point has been raised that this agreement will raise the price of meat to the consumer, but I do not think that this need be feared. Last season thousands of carcases were exported, principally to Italy, at a price of 25s. per 100 lbs. dead weight, that meant 3d. per lb. to the breeder including hide and offal; from my district alone some 2,000 head were sent. This season arrangements are already being made for export on a large scale at about the same price. The consumer need be in no fear of a shortage of meat or that the price will be raised. There is a great surplus of cattle in this Union and our concern is to protect and increase our home market where we can. I would give one word of advice to the consumer in this connection. Co-operation is the order of the day, in fact the “levy” Bill which is on the Order Paper is practically compulsory co-operation; there is a world of difference between the price of 3d. per lb. at which meat is being exported and the price the consumer is paying to the retail butcher. Let the consumers also give a little thought to co-operation on their side. If they will do that and the producer and the consumer can be brought closer and the enormous tax that the middleman is imposing be in part removed, the consumer would have no complaint at the price of his meat. I think that a very reasonable and satisfactory agreement has been arrived at with Rhodesia.

Like the last speaker, I want to congratulate the Government on the agreement arrived at with Rhodesia in the interest of the cattle farmer. As a representative of the cattle farmers, I want to give the Government the assurance that there is general satisfaction with it amongst the farmers. If we compare the speeches of the two former speakers (Messrs. Moffat and G. H. Louw) with the speech of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) we note the difference. The hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw) said that we are worse off. I cannot understand this. I do not know what he wants. The position is much better. Hon. members on the other side insist that we wanted total prohibition of importation. I recollect that the present Minister of Lands, at that time member for Rustenberg, rose in the House in 1923, addressed the then Minister of Agriculture (Sir Thomas Smartt) and said: “I shall be satisfied if you raise the weight of animals which may be admitted to 1,000 lbs.” and the Minister answered: “I cannot do it.” He cannot deny this. What we really have pressed for was that something be done in the interests of the cattle farmers. The former Government would not do anything, but now that something is being done, we find that there are those, such as the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat), who rejoice that the example of the former Government is being followed and who finds fault with the farmers because, as he says, they send sacks of bones to market. Is not the hon. member a cattle farmer? Does he not know that the cattle farmer sends his best animals to market? I want to say once more that I am thankful for what the Government has done and that it is taking steps to help the cattle and tobacco farmers. The criticism from the other side of the House—and allow me to say that we welcome criticism when it is honest as in the case of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson)—is without a basis, and I am of opinion that the two hon. members mentioned have spoken against their better knowledge.

I would be inclined to take the views of the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. M. L. Malan) on educational questions, but I doubt whether he knows very much about the cattle industry in this country. I understand he is a good authority on education, but his want of knowledge of the cattle industry in this country has been exhibited, this afternoon, in a manner that I should not have thought possible by a little boy in short frocks and trousers. The hon. member for Queenstown is one of the biggest private breeders of cattle in this country, and is one of the most noted Shornhorn breeders as well. It is only a year or two ago that I saw at a show in Johannesburg at least 25 or 30 bulls which were bred by the hon. member for Queenstown. I doubt whether the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) possesses 30 head of cattle all told. I welcome this agreement. I know perfectly well that the Government shows a certain amount of courage when they entered into this agreement. The Government knew full well that their action would be open to a certain amount of criticism, but the Government thought they might as well face criticism now as at a later time because all their actions will be open to criticism. In the past they never looked to the interests of the country but to the interests of the party, and now that they are in office they find themselves compelled to give the interests of the State some consideration. I sincerely congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance in having the courage to bring in this agreement. It would have been a deplorable thing if we had allowed party feeling to interfere with our entering into this customs agreement with our friends in the North. I am sorry the hon. the Prime Minister is not in his place. It is not long ago since the Prime Minister as Leader of the Opposition moved “That this House is of opinion that the Government should immediately take the necessary steps to protect the farmer against the importation of slaughter stock from outside the Union.” It was not so long ago that the hon. Prime Minister moved that, when Leader of the Opposition. It was in February, 1923. And then, where is my hon. friend the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who was so much in sympathy with the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander)? The Minister also runs away from his opinions, because we have heard nothing to the effect that he intends to move an amendment of this character. From the Votes and Proceedings, I see that Mr. Boydell, on the Order for the House to go into Committee on the Export Bounties Bill, moved that the committee consider the desirability of the Governor-General having power to fix the wholesale and retail prices of meat to the customer in South Africa ….

Where is he now?

He has run away: he has now knuckled down to the Pact resolution, but fortunately for the House and fortunately for the Prime Minister, and for the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, Mr. Speaker ruled that it was impossible to introduce this as a side-issue in a measure which was already before the House. But during the discussion on that Bill the majority of the hon. members opposite thought that nothing would save them except an absolute embargo on the introduction of Rhodesian cattle. I am glad that they have now learned sense.

What about the Minister of Lands?

No, the Minister of Lands was also strongly in favour of an embargo, but he is like many other Ministers at the present time, they do not yet know what they are really in favour of, but he was strongly in favour of an embargo. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) is perfectly correct, we were determined to do what we could, legitimately without flooding the country with inferior cattle, and we further said that as a beginning we should get the Rhodesian Government to agree that there should be 50 per cent. of marketable meat in good condition. I am prepared to take the view of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) on many things, but not upon the cattle question. I can assure the House that the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) is correct on this matter. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has been some time in Rhodesia: does he know there are a large number of transport oxen in Rhodesia, weighing over 1,000 lb. which will not slaughter at 400 lb. deadweight? When they are slaughtered their meat will be hardly payable: it certainly will not be an economical proposition. I maintain that an 800 lb. ox in first-class condition having to slaughter at more than 50 per cent. of his live weight, protects this country as much or even more than allowing ordinary cattle to come into the country. What is more, and what I think hon. members opposite, perhaps through want of knowledge, do not thoroughly understand, even if it was 1,0 lb. whom would it help? What would happen? Well-bred cattle of 2½ years to 3 years of age, coming into the country to supply a first-class market would be kept an extra six months, and there would be any number of them over 1,000 lb. in weight coming on to the market. I know the character of the cattle the Rhodesian farmers are breeding, and I say unhesitatingly that the thousand pounds is not going to interfere very much with their market. I do not want to interfere with their market. I want to see as much friendly feeling, intercommunication, and trade between the people of Rhodesia and the Union as possible, because the day cannot be far distant when the Union and Rhodesia must inevitably come into one combination, that is only a matter of common sense. In these circumstances, all thinking people in this country are anxious that we should enter into amicable relations. It is on that that I desire again to tender the sincerest congratulations to the hon. Minister of Finance and his colleague. I thought it was the hon. Minister of Justice who was at his right hand, but now I understand that is not so. Well then, I can only give greater credit still to the hon. Minister of Finance in view of his being without assistance. I would like sincerely to congratulate him and the Government, and indeed every member on that side of the House. It would have been a serious thing to have protection in a customs convention by insisting upon an embargo which the action of the Government has shown was only a political cry and never a genuine cry whatever.

There is a good deal in what the hon. member (Sir Thomas Smartt) who has just sat down has said. I have always felt that it is rather ineffective to fix your embargo round the weight basis. The hon. member has found himself in exactly the same difficulty as I have. How are you going to decide? You cannot take the thickness of the gristle of an ox, for example. I certainly think that where possible you ought to have a scale of quality, but it appears to me you have varying qualities and varying sizes. The only rough-and-ready rule-of-thumb method which can be adopted without having all the inspectors and examiners and experts is to do precisely what the Minister has done, and that is to fix a standard of weight. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thos. Smartt), from my long experience of him, has set up a case to knock it down again. We know how expert the hon. member is in doing that. I was very much amused to hear him quote the motion of the Prime Minister when leader of the Opposition, but to tell the truth I could not tell what the hon. member was driving at, nor could I tell what he was driving at when he quoted the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in the matter.

He was protecting the consumer.

It has never been our experience in this House that that party of which the hon. member is a shining light have defended the interests of the consumer. It is very interesting indeed to see that the hon. member is at last realizing the necessity of looking after the consumer. But what did he read into these quotations? I saw nothing at all. Then he went on to say that they had run away from their position, but as a matter of fact they have carried out almost precisely what they urged on that occasion; they desired to prevent the importation into this country of this cattle. They looked upon it that it would prevent unfair competition by the importation of cattle from outside the Union, notably from Rhodesia, and, in the circumstances it was a very laudable object indeed. There is this to be said for it, in the pregnant words of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, the Government is doing what the late Government never did, that is “trying to deliver the goods.” Of course, the Government has to see to it that the consumer does not suffer owing to any artificial restriction. We must confess that this is an artificial restriction. It is well to have a free interchange of products. However, the schedule secures that. It is only in certain directions, and it is because of the extraordinary circumstances in which we find ourselves, that the Government finds it necessary to draw some arbitrary line. But I do want to suggest to the hon. Minister and the Government in general that the time has arrived for them to view this question from an entirely different angle. We must not allow ourselves to drift, and, because we find a set of circumstances have arisen owing to an artificial condition of things, to drift into the direction of tackling it just as we find it; hitting the head that first thrusts itself in our reach, and paying no attention whatever to root causes. It is time the Government took seriously into consideration why it is that there is an over plus of meat in this country. It is freely argued that there is a surplus of meat, but as a fact there is nothing of the sort. It is true we find there is an overplus of meat, but that is because the purchasing power of the people of South Africa is not sufficiently high to absorb the meat. It only means that the wages of the community in South Africa are not sufficiently high. As I said just now, the Government must turn its attention to the question of whether or not they are tackling this matter from the right end of the stick, and whether they should not now consider whether the people who go to make up the community of South Africa should not have their standard of living considerably raised in order that they might be in a position to purchase meat. The reason why there is a surplus of meat in this country to-day is not because we are producing too much, but because the community of South Africa cannot buy sufficient meat for their own requirements. The purchasing power of the people is too low; we are not paying our people sufficient, and as a result they cannot buy sufficient meat. I would ask the farmers to give their attention to this side of the question. They must not run away with the idea that the only way they can deal with this question is by preventing somebody else from competing in the markets of the Union. That is a method which will answer only for a time, and the only definite solution of the difficulty is by making it possible for the people to have a higher purchasing power. I would like to draw attention to the case of a man—this is not an isolated case, except in detail—the case of a man with nine children, here in Cape Town, having to live on £8 per month. Well, there are thousands of men in South Africa who have to keep a family on a wage which is entirely insufficient for them to be able to buy meat. The direction I have outlined is the one in which we must look in order to solve this question. I would ask the farmers to think about it.

There are no farmers here.

Oh, yes; there are, finance farmers; cheque-book farmers. I still think there are some members on the Government side who know something about farming. It seems to me that the attention of the people has hitherto been drawn in the wrong direction. It is a very great mistake indeed to think that by reducing wages you are going to increase the prosperity of the country. The prosperity of the country depends upon the spending power of the community and the whole of the community rests upon the wage-earner. Is it not a logical consequence that if you depress the wage-earning powers of the community you lower your spending power and ultimately you lower the earning power of the primary producer, in this case the cattle farmer? I agree with the Minister in introducing this Bill under the circumstances. But it is only a palliative. You are only preventing for a short time the intrusion of other people’s cattle and the competition, therefore, by those people against ourselves, but the real solution of the whole difficulty is to uplift the whole community so that the whole community can purchase meat and reach out for better classes of meat. I would ask the Minister to give his attention to that very interesting document that was framed and dragooned through this House by the present Opposition when it was in power—I mean that arrangement which gave to the Imperial Cold Storage a complete monopoly for fifteen years of the export of meat from that country. Particularly would I remind the Minister of this fact that it is even more than an actual monopoly of export for overseas; it gives them more power than that. Licences are issued for the purposes of export and if any man in Rhodesia conceives the idea of exporting meat and he has all the necessary facilities and requirements for that export, he has first of all to apply for his licence. The Government, under the terms of the agreement passed by the late Government, has to come to the Imperial Cold Storage and give them a fortnight’s pre-emptive right to claim the licence for which this man has been appealing. That is very dangerous in this country. In addition to the importation of meat into this country, there is the danger of those people controlling it. What is troubling the farmers to-day is that the Imperial Cold Storage, on the one hand, tells the farmer what price he should receive for his product, and on the other hand, says to the consumer what he shall pay for that product.

I represent a cattle farming district, a district which we expect will one day be one of the chief for cattle farming in the Union. We, also, would rather have seen a total embargo on cattle from Rhodesia, but agree that “half a loaf is better than no bread.” 200 lbs. in the weight limit makes a tremendous difference, as anyone who knows about the matter will admit. Animals weighing 1,000 lbs. cannot be poor animals. There are very few poor animals of 1,000 lbs. weight which will reach the market, and they must be very large. I feel I ought to congratulate the Government and when the day comes when it is necessary to raise the minimum weight again then we will indicate as the hon. Minister of Finance has already said, our difficulties in a friendly manner and endeavour to come to an agreement with Rhodesia by which the minimum weight shall be somewhat raised. But I hope the hon. Minister has considered the desirability of also bringing the British Protectorate under the restriction, otherwise the agreement with Rhodesia will not avail much. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has said regarding the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) that he sometimes assumes the attitude of schoolmaster, and then again that of farmer. What does a medical practitioner know about cattle farming? The hon. member for Fort Beaufort also made remarks concerning the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), and asked to what party he really belongs. The hon. member has himself, on three occasions, changed his colours. He was first Bondsman, then Progressive Unionist, and finally Unionist. We would rather have had total prohibition, but we are not the less thankful for what the Minister has done, and hope he will still further forward the interests of our farmers.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) cited what the hon. Prime Minister, at that time Leader of the Opposition, had proposed. I do not know what was his object in doing so, because he only made his own case worse. The Prime Minister had at that time asked that protection be given to the cattle farmer, and at the elections we promised the country that proper measures would be taken. As to my own position I have always adopted the attitude that the importation of cattle from Rhodesia must be prohibited, but the Prime Minister did not say this. As far as his own promises went he has carried them out by raising the weight limit of animals which may be admitted from 800 lbs. to 1,000 lbs.

He has allowed for a pair of horns.

Fortunately I also am not one of the class stigmatized as little ex-school masters. I am a farmer, and make my living cut of cattle farming, and I am able to say that the price for cattle has much improved. The farmers attribute this to the agreement with Rhodesia. I will not say that there are not other contributory causes. There has been a drought, but the fact remains that the action of the Government has in great measure contributed to the improvement of prices. On the other hand I want, as a farmer, to admit—we must be honest in the matter—that we are not altogether satisfied. The improvement that has occurred was the result of agitation on the farmers’ part, and if I say that the cattle farmer is totally satisfied, then I do not correctly interpret his feelings. The weight limit must be raised still higher, and I think we are entitled to total prohibition of importation. The Minister concludes that we are justified in fixing limits to importations from Rhodesia because conditions there are altogether different than they are with us. If this is so, I consider that our Government will have the right in a year’s time to go again to Rhodesia and say: “We are obliged to take further measures for the protection of our cattle farmers.” I trust the Government will do that. We must remember that there are already a hundred million pounds invested in cattle, and I consider it is the duty of the Nationalist party Government—or the “Pact”—to protect the farmers from unreasonable competition. On the other hand it is also true that it is the duty of the Government to hold in view general interests, and in this connection I want to direct the attention of the Minister to the need for investigation as to the price obtained by the farmer for his cattle and the price at which the butcher sells meat, and if it is ascertained that a certain monopoly draws a greater part of the profit, then it is the duty of the Government to bring in legislation to protect the land from that danger. I congratulate the Government on the agreement and express the hope that if conditions do not improve the Government will again take action.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) said that the difference in this agreement was that the late Government failed to deliver the goods and this Government had delivered the goods. I maintain that under this Bill nothing has been achieved. First of all, the consumer is entirely ignored. This weak qualification is nothing. It should have been a sine qua non in making this agreement that the consumer should be considered. This question of 1,000 lbs. weight, as the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) has said, is nothing, because any old trek-ox, a bag of bones, will weigh 1,000 lbs. live weight. The Government should have stressed this point. What are the left wing of the Government party doing or saying in regard to this? They are entirely ignoring it. What have the Government done in regard to the position of the Transvaal farmers? They have achieved nothing. Have they stopped the sale of Rhodesian cattle? Not one whit. So I say that under this agreement they have achieved nothing. Hon. members have congratulated the Government upon having made this agreement. Of course to have made the embargo would have been bad statesmanship. But what amuses me is that during the late election on the hustings hon. members opposite, from the head of the Government to its humblest member, stressed embargo upon the Rhodesian cattle. They would have nothing else. It was through this firm attitude and promise that the embargo, entire and complete, would be placed upon the Rhodesian cattle, that they gained the strength that they have to-day. In the Transvaal and the Free State hon. members now supporting the Government were returned upon this main point and to-day they are basking in smiles and wearing the mantle of the late Government. I may say that those clothes are a misfit, and when the hon. members for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) and Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) speak as they did on this question, I would remind them that a certain class of people rush in where angels fear to tread.

From the beginning we felt that the negotiations with Rhodesia had to be carried on with a certain amount of delicacy, and I feel obliged to congratulate the Government, and especially the hon. Minister charged with the same, in having exhibited so much diplomacy, with the result that we to-day stand on the same footing of friendship with our neighbours as formerly. During the last debate of the previous sitting it was alleged that if the Government took steps to protect the interests of the cattle farmers of the Union the existence of the Empire would be imperilled. Well, it has been done and the Empire still exists. We felt that it was a question requiring delicate handling because we realize that we ought to live in peace and friendship with our neighbours, and we must not forget that trade relations with our neighbours must be promoted. I consider that the Government has succeeded admirably, good-will has been promoted, peace and friendship preserved, and the object attained, as the Prime Minister in the last sitting so pithily expressed it, so that the taxpayer of the Union must be protected. It is interesting to go over the statistics of the development of cattle farming during the past 20 years. It appears from them that not only the taxpayer in general, but also the stock farmer in particular, requires protection. I have here the statistics for the years 1904 to 1923. In 1904 there were about 3,500,000 head of cattle in the Union; in 1911 about 5.800,000; in 1918 almost 7,000,000, and in 1922 over 9,000,000. It has certainly become more and more necessary to protect our stock farming. The Minister in his introductory speech rightly pointed out that production costs in Rhodesia are lower than in our land, and that circumstances in the development of cattle farming are more favourable in Rhodesia. I know this to be so from my own experience. The agreement means that cattle farming is done a good turn to and that at the same time the taxpayer is protected. This also appears clearly from the answers that the hon. Minister gave to two questions which I asked him. In January, 1924, 2,641 head of cattle were imported into the Union from Rhodesia, and in January of this year only 247 head. This shows clearly that the agreement has already had favourable results. I have spoken to prominent people in my constituency and they appear to be satisfied with the agreement. In answer to a further question the hon. Minister has said that in 1924 the value of the imported cattle was £217,000 and for the first month of 1925 £2,470. At the end of the year we shall certainly be in a better position to review the results of the altered circumstances. What is of great importance is that precisely as through protection the manufacturers of our land are able to produce a better article, the protection of cattle farming will also lead to the raising of a better class of stock. Improvement is necessary in that class. Some people maintain that competition will bring about an improvement. I do not believe it. The producer has to pay his taxes, his debts, and interest, and without protection he will not be able to keep his head above water unless he produces a better article. For this reason we are grateful to the Government for the change brought about by the agreement with Rhodesia. It has been said to-day that there are no provisions in the Bill for the protection of the consumer. But this is a matter not within the scope of this Bill, but one which must be dealt with in another Bill. The Government is engaged in investigating this important question, and there is in existence also the Chamber of Commerce and Industry which must investigate such matters. We recognize the importance of the protection of the consumer, but we cannot expect that provision therefor be embodied in the Rhodesian agreement. I consider that there are other and sufficient means and opportunities for the protection of the interests of the consumer. So far as concerns myself and my constituency, we feel that we have profited by the agreement. During election time they did not instruct me to press for a total embargo. I also declared openly that what we needed was protection of the producer—the cattle farmer. I believe the majority of my constituents are satisfied with the agreement. They will all submit to the logical and obvious attitude of the Government. I am also convinced that if it is necessary later on for the protection of the Union taxpayer that a total embargo be enforced, they will bring the matter again under consideration, but to-day I feel satisfied with what has been done, and without doubt the great majority of the House are with me.

I am surprised that the hon. members on the other side now attack the Government. For years we have pleaded for protection for the cattle farmer while their Government was in office, but they were deaf. I laid the facts clearly before the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), then Minister of Agriculture, and asked him to fix the minimum weight for cattle at 800 lb., but he turned a deaf ear to me. I represent a district where there are many cattle, and there is great satisfaction amongst the people about the agreement because they feel that they are protected and that they get better prices for their oxen. The increase of 200 lb. in the weight limit as laid down by this Government is a great protection to the farmers all the more so that cattle from Rhodesia have to travel so far when sent to Cape Town or Kimberley. They can thus not compete with our stock. There is also a reduction in the railway charge, and this will help considerably. It has been said that we asked for an absolute embargo. I never said so, I said we should work for a heavier weight limit. The old Government had it so arranged that not every animal was weighed. The animals were weighed in troops, and as a consequence many animals below weight came in.

How do you know that?

I have investigated the matter and we know it. It is the case. The Government are now going to weigh every animal in Johannesburg, and from my experience I am able to say that animals of 1,000 lb. live weight will weigh about 600 lbs. when slaughtered, it depends on the condition of the animal. Well, that is good protection. I am therefore unable to understand why hon. members attack the Government, seeing that the Government has worked to protect the stock farmer. Members on the other side now plead unreasonably for an absolute embargo, though when they were in office they would do nothing in the matter. Now they experience the results. They thought they had the sole right of government, but find now that the new Government has reduced the tobacco tax and also that the cattle farmers are being protected. They see things going well, and they are dissatisfied.

What about the Empire?

Yes, you talk about the Empire, but the sort of Afrikander who will sell his land for a dish of porridge is of no significance. I want to congratulate the Government heartily on having succeeded in bringing about such a measure of protection for the farmer and on having brought such a Bill before the House.

I am rather at a disadvantage at not having a knowledge of Afrikaans and consequently have not been able to follow hon. members who have been speaking Afrikaans. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) are very much exercised about the monopoly. The natural outcome of the embargo was to throw Rhodesia into the hands of the monopoly, if there is a monopoly, but South Africa has a good deal to thank that so-called monopoly for, because, last year of 20,000 head of cattle only from 2,000 to 2,500 came from this Union. This year, arrangements have been made for the export of about 60,000. The first ship is taking a full cargo on the 20th April. We are up against two handicaps against export: we have the handicap of indifferent quality and the handicap of irregularity of supply, this means that we must accept a lower price than people who are prepared to supply all the year round. Last year 25/3 was the average price paid at Durban for 100 pounds, that is about 3s. better than the average price paid on the Johannesburg market for the same quality. If the farmer wishes to participate in this trade he will have to alter his methods entirely. The curious thing is that this trying for an embargo came from the western portion of the Union, which, I take it, is not a country that can be compared with the eastern part of the Union, where they have a summer rainfall, and where there are three times the number of cattle that there are in the western portion of the Union. There was no general demand for any embargo from the eastern part of the Union. I am not afraid of Rhodesian cattle. I can breed cattle equal or better than Rhodesian and sell them at a better price. No one has yet been able to say what the transport ox cost this country in the good old days, and no one has been able to estimate the losses sustained in this country by the employment of trek oxen in the plough. So long as you have trek oxen in the plough, so long will you have an inferior class of beast. There has been some talk about protecting the consumer. Well, the consumer has himself a good deal to blame. The working man’s wife has unfortunately no conception of buying meat except perhaps a shillings worth of beef or a pound of chops. One of the finest joints in a well bred beast is the brisket which you can buy at 4d. per lb. in the shops. There is a lack of discrimination and a lack of knowledge both in the buying and in the cooking, and until you get that you will not get any improvement. Unfortunately you have such a large native population here who are willing to buy anything, that is why a packing industry or a meat extract company in this country has such a big handicap, because the farmer has been getting a good price for rubbish. Until that is altered there is not much hope for the cattle farmer in making the progress he ought to make in this country.

I am unable to understand the members of the Opposition. Hon. members allege that the policy of the former Government has been followed, and at the same time they oppose us. This I cannot follow. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) says that our Government carried out the policy of the former Government. The hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) says again that we do not carry out the policy of the former Government. The hon. members of the Opposition contradict each other. They should first agree. They stipulated that cattle under 800 lbs. must not be imported. This they had then approved. Now that we make it 1,000 lbs. they talk a lot and oppose it. I am unable to conceive why they do not agree with us. The Minister could not have brought forward a better case and I fail to understand what all the talk is about. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) tells us of poor whites driven to the towns as a result of the tobacco tax. That has nothing to do with the question—it is an unnecessary interruption. We ought not merely to talk, but to carry out a constructive policy.

The hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Gen. Muller) said that from this side of the House they were advocating an embargo. Nothing of the kind. What we feel is, that we are glad to be able to congratulate the Government on having seen its wrong ways, and in having left its policy of the past and followed on the lines laid down by the South African party. This policy was broached from time to time We want an embargo put as at the head of affairs this was the election cry of the Nat. party. That was described as the only thing that was going to save the cattle industry in this country. I do feel that the point raised by the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) is one worthy of the consideration of the Government, because no doubt at present they can bring in any sort of old thing. The position is this that we are told by certain members on the opposite side that since the Government has decided on this increase to 1,000 lbs. the price of cattle has gone up. Surely it has not. I am convinced that the price of ordinary scrub cattle has not gone up. It is the scrub cattle which is still flooding the market, and for which we cannot get prices. It is the good class of animal that is over 1,000 lbs. that has gone up in price, and it is only by breeding the better class of cattle that the solution of the problem will be found. In listening to the argument of members on the Government side this afternoon one cannot help coming to the conclusion that they are endeavouring to defend their Government for not delivering the goods. We have heard so much about delivering the goods that people are looking to this embargo on cattle from Rhodesia, and I feel that I cannot help but congratulate the Government on having followed in the footsteps of the last Government.

I wish to make a few remarks in reply to some hon. members of the Opposition. In the first place I want to congratulate them that they have a member who has sympathy for the needs of the cattle farmer. I mean the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). I listened to him attentively. He feels for the cattle farmer. In connection with the import restrictions, I am of opinion that the Government by means of the agreement with Rhodesia, has effected something which is exactly what the cattle farmer asked for. I remember that at a congress of cattle farmers of the four provinces held in Johannesburg in 1922, the matter was thoroughly discussed, and a deputation appointed to meet the Government for the obtaining of an embargo of the importation of cattle from Rhodesia. The deputation received further instructions to the effect that if the embargo was unobtainable then the weight limit must be increased to 1,000 lbs. I am glad the former Prime Minister and the former Minister of Agriculture are present. The deputation was received by the then Government and the matter was thoroughly discussed. All the desires of the cattle farmers were brought to the notice of the Government. It was made plain to the deputation that the embargo could not be carried out, as it was contrary to the convention with Rhodesia. The promise was then made to the deputation that the weight limit should if possible be increased to 1,000 lbs. This however, was not done. The promise was not kept and therefore the people have again made an appeal to the new Government. During the elections I laid the matter before the public and ascertained that the desires of the cattle farmers were that if importation cannot be prohibited then the weight limit must be increased to 1,000 lbs. The Government now complies with this, and the wishes of the people are being carried out. I am fairly well acquainted with the Johannesburg market. I can give the assurance that as a result of the increase in the weight limit prices have improved 50 per cent. compared with last year. The farmers are well satisfied with the agreement and I regret that hon. members of the Opposition say that the Government has not carried out its promises to the cattle farmer. The promises have been fulfilled, and I congratulate the Government on the agreement.

I am surprised that the hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. de Wet) says that he and the cattle farmers are satisfied with the agreement. He is unacquainted with the position in the country, with the attitude of the farmers; and perhaps may be talking only of the farmers of Heidelberg.

But he reads the newspapers?

Probably he only reads “Ons Vaderland.” If he read the “Volkstem” he would know more of what was going on.

Bethel is satisfied with 800 lbs.

Give me a bit of a chance. I want to talk earnestly on this matter. It is a matter affecting the existence of the cattle farmer, and we must discuss it seriously and not as the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels) did when he handled the matter so frivolously. When he is in the Free State he sings the “Volkslied,” but amongst the English he sings with them. When the agreement was made by the previous Government it was done in conjunction with the conference of cattle farmers in Pretoria, who said that they were satisfied with the weight limit of 800 lbs. If the weight limit is going to be higher, I shall be satisfied, but if the cattle farmers themselves, who are acquainted with the conditions up north, were satisfied, I want to know why a new agreement was gone on with.

They are dissatisfied with 800 lbs., and why are you now dissatisfied with 1,000 lbs.

I will say at once. Hon. members on the other side have raised a cry about an absolute embargo. With the exception of the Minister of Finance, there is here no member who was not present at Bethel. Bethel was their rendezvous. Neither was the Minister of Defence there, but he sent one of his lesser lights, and the Ministers said: “You will get everything.” They had talked of the patent medicine tax and said it would be repealed.

It has been.

We had already repealed it. In the second place they promised to repeal the tobacco tax. Have they done it? No, you cannot do it. Then the embargo was promised. And did you do it?

The hon. member must address the Chair.

I ask pardon. I am aware of it, Mr. Speaker, and I will do so. In place of the embargo they allowed for a pair of horns extra, but notwithstanding this it was announced in my presence at Bethel that we were going to get an absolute embargo, and it is for this reason that there is such disappointment. My friends there on the other side are dissatisfied but as it is their Government that did it they keep still and submit. The interests of party must again come before those of the land. But I want to know what has been done for the farmer. It is true the Minister of Agriculture did not promise a total embargo—he was too careful. He said all the same that the Nationalist party would give more than the former Government; and what has it done?

Given a pair of horns.

It obtained £1,000 out of the pockets of the farmers with its simultaneous dipping and it occasioned further loss to the country by the discharge of officials. I know him, and here he must be honest. I do not say anything on a platform without being in a position to repeat it anywhere else, also here in the House. But the Government has said things which they have not carried out. Even if we had been in favour of an absolute embargo we could not have declared it because we had not the power. We did not want it, and why do hon. members now say that we want it? I shall say something in reply to all the other things which the Minister of Agriculture promised. I will not now talk about that because we are now concerned with agricultural matters, and do not want to drag political matters in. I will talk of them later when the Estimates are discussed. When we on this side of the House talk a little we hear from the other side that we are unreasonable. I do not want to call the Government the “Pact” Government.

You call it the “Nat-Bol-Vatmekaar.”

Or the “Nat-Lappers.”

I will just call it the Nationalist-Labour Government because I do not know what they are. But the Government should know this—that the people are disappointed—not only the S.A.P. men but all of them. It is not only the farmers, but everyone, who feels that affairs are not going as they should. What is happening now about the price of wool? Wool was dear, but how is it now?

It has fallen.

Is this also the fault of the South African party? The time has come when promises must be carried out. I shall oppose the “Pact” Government as long as I live, for they have not carried out their promises. They must not try to mislead the country.

During the election the clarion cry of Pact Government was “Total Embargo.” They came along to my constituency, riding on white horses, and what did they tell the constituency? “Put us in and we will immediately have an embargo.” One of the greatest difficulties which I had to contend against during the elections was this question of the embargo, and I ascertain that many people who would have voted for me did not do so on account of my attitude with regard to this question of the total embargo. I made the point, and I make it again to-day, that the people who came along riding these white horses knew very well they could not have a total embargo. They threw dust in the eyes of the electors. They led the electors to believe that immediately they got into power they would have a total embargo. But what have they done? They have put on our old clothes, and they look splendid in those clothes. We lost some of our seats on this very question of embargo. We had a statement made here by the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. Vermooten) last Session that Mr. Venter lost his seat because he was opposed to the embargo. These were his words: “Mr. Venter was defeated mainly because he was against the embargo.” And what did the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. Vermooten) go on to say? He says that “we have been warned against protection, but our own interests come first. When we negotiate with Rhodesia the country will see that we keep our promise.” But have they kept it? The promise was total embargo. Then what did the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. A. I. E. de Villiers) tell us last Session? He told us the farmers ought to be protected. He told us that if the importation of cattle was allowed the cattle farmers of the Uinon would be ruined. To-day he has a totally different cry. Why? Because he has realized that the policy which we have carried out, and have always been ready to carry out was a good policy. This is not the only question on which the country is going to have election promises unfulfilled. There are going to be a good many more. We are going to see the Pact Government wearing a good many of our old clothes on questions of policy. The same question was raised in regard to tobacco. One of the main arguments raised at the time of the election was that as soon as they got into power they would do away with the tobacco tax. Have any steps been taken to do away with it? I can assure you that the day will come when “the chickens will come home to roost,” when the people will realize that at the last election we had dust thrown in our eyes—tobacco dust, and other dust as well. The Minister of Agriculture stumped the country at election time telling the people that immediately they got into power there would be a total embargo. What is his attitude to-day? Not a word have we heard, not a funeral note, but the funeral will come later.

The funeral is over.

We were also told by the hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. de Wet) that the farmers of the Union passed a resolution in-favour of the weight of cattle being fixed at 1,000 lbs. That statement is not correct. The farmers’ conference of 1923 laid down 800 lbs. and the Government carried out the request of the farmers at that time. They always had in mind that if that weight did not have the desired effect it would be increased and the Government of to-day have simply carried out the policy we had in mind all along, that if the 800 lbs. was not effective, the weight would be increased to 1,000 lbs. We all realize that the price of cattle has improved, but is that owing to the weight being increased to 1,000 lbs.? No I will tell you why it has improved. It is due to the fact that during the last season we had a drought all over the country, and splendid prices were obtained by farmers who had fat cattle to put on the market. But the price of cattle is going to fall. This year we are going to have a surplus of fat cattle in the market, and as sure as anything the present improved price is going to fall. What is the solution? The solution is not in putting a total or partial embargo on Rhodesian cattle, but in the Government finding some means of increasing the present export. You are not going to have a solution by restricting the importation of cattle into South Africa. The solution lies in the export of cattle from this country, and finding markets in other parts of the world, and I think the country can be grateful to the late Government for encouraging by every reasonable means the export of cattle from this country.

I had no intention of taking part in the debate, but the speeches of the hon. member for Bethel (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) and the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) oblige me to say something. The hon. member for Bethel said his people were satisfied with the weight limit of 800 lbs. If this is so why then is he so dissatisfied with 1,000 lbs.? Since 1920 our cattle farmers have agitated with the South African party Government for help and concessions. Then the Government was told that we would be content with the raising of the weight limit to 1,000 lbs. I asked the Minister of Agriculture to raise the weight, and what was his answer? He said it was altogether impossible, and that he could do nothing on account of the agreement with Rhodesia. He said this. But how do we stand to-day? I am satisfied with the protection that the Government gives the cattle farmers, and they too are satisfied. We have got protection. What was done by the former Minister of Agriculture? Did he take care that the cattle imported from Rhodesia were not below the fixed weight? No, no care was taken about it. What has now been done? Scales have been fixed up and all cattle are weighed, and no animal under the fixed weight will be admitted. The Johannesburg prices are now much better. Farmers are aware that since the increase of the weight limit to 1,000 lbs. prices have much improved. It is thrown in our teeth that we have not obtained an absolute embargo. I have always said that if it should be impracticable to prohibit importation altogether then the weight limit must be raised to 1,000 lbs. We must get rid of the surplus cattle, and I trust that the Government is going to help us do it.

I really do not know whether to congratulate the Minister in connection with this Bill. In the national interest I think he is sincerely to be congratulated, but in the Nationalists’ interests I think he is rather in a cleft stick. There must be a good deal of gnashing of teeth on the other side over the failure of the Minister to deliver the goods, and if the Government continues in this fashion people will begin to believe that it is the mildest mannered crew that ever tried to cut a painter. Personally, I think that all this cry of embargo and so forth that we have listened to during the last few years has been so much political eyewash. Every farmer in this country must know that the way to solve our cattle difficulties is not by creating embargoes with neighbouring States, but by creating an oversea market. The difficulty we have always been faced with in this country is the difficulty of the Opposition stirring up prejudice against any act of the Government. Certain of these measures in order to be effective need a certain amount of coercion and Governments do not care to do unpopular things. It is a very happy thing throughout the countryside to be able to declaim against meat trusts and other people who have done a great deal to further the export of meat in this country, but it does not help the cattle farmer. There is one thing in this Bill which reads very ill and that is the prohibition against the importation of certain tobacco—scrap tobacco, dust tobacco, and tobacco stems. The Minister told us that this would amount to about 750,000 lbs. of tobacco. What he failed to tell us was that the total value of that was about £1,120—not a very big thing in the interests of the industry. I am informed that it is worth about ½d. per lb.—a mere bagatelle. I do put it to the Government that to deal effectively with the cattle industry they will have to take more heroic measures than they are taking in this Bill.

Before the Minister replies I would like to seek for some enlightenment on certain points from him. The Bill before us deals with the Rhodesian agreement, but, as the House is aware, we have had as much trouble with importation of cattle from the other Protectorates as from Rhodesia. The Minister said nothing about importations from the territories and I would like him to enlighten the House. What is the position in regard to importations of cattle from British Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland, and also from South-West Africa? Those are the countries from which we have in the immediate past had the largest importations. Although the debate in recent years has concentrated on the importations from Rhodesia, the bulk importations were really from the other countries. The largest importations we had were from the British Bechuanaland Protectorate and from South-West Africa. I would also like to have a statement from the Minister as to what steps the Government took, before they fixed this limit of 1,000 lbs., to inform themselves as to the views of the agricultural community. The late Government when they put on a certain limitation did not do so on their own motion. When we put on the 800 lbs. limit we did not do so on our own motion. That recommendation was made to us by the agricultural community, by the pastoral community of South Africa. A special cattle congress representing all the cattle interests over the whole Union was called and this cattle congress constituted a committee which was authorized to keep in touch with the Government and keep the Government advised. It was this committee which made to the Government the recommendation to settle the limit of 800 lbs. live weight, on condition that every slaughtered animal reached at least half that weight. The advice which was given to the Government by the industry itself, by the people who were interested in it, was considered advice and opinion, and we acted upon it. I would like to know from the Minister whether in the change which they have made, they have also taken the advice of the Agricultural Union or any other authorized body that speaks for the cattle farmers of this country. For I am seriously perturbed. We have heard the opinion of my hon. friend the member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) who is one of the most progressive cattle farmers in this country and who speaks with great authority. He and the hon. member for Natal (Coast) (Brig.-Gen. Arnott) speak probably with far greater authority on the cattle question than any other members in this House. When these two members are perturbed over the alteration which has been made, then I am myself rather in a difficulty. The catch of the whole thing is in the dead weight limitation. That has been dropped in the new agreement. We have simply this limit of 1,000 lbs. live weight. I am told that a very serious mistake has been made by the Government in simply limiting this to live weight and not hedging it around properly, and that 1,000 lbs. live weight is not a better standard than the old one. Hon. members have been arguing largely on a fallacy on this point. They say: Look at the result. They say we see a great improvement in the cattle market and prices have gone up. But these two things have nothing to do with each other. Prices went up long before this agreement came into force. The rise in price was due not to this agreement, but to the fact that we have had copious rains in this country through last year. During the last few years up to January the cattle of this country were as a rule skin and bone and after January there was not sufficient time for them to catch up and improve up to the market standard. Every farmer in this House knows that this is so. This year it has been quite different. We had our rainy season commencing from August with the result that by December, before this agreement came into force at all, the market prices for cattle had improved very consider ably. I think it is a great mistake to connect the improvement in the cattle market with this agreement.

What about the smaller numbers that came in in January?

The answer to that is simple. It is a difference between 2,000 and 200. It is a difference of 1,800. My hon. friend knows that 1,800 cattle in a month is an absolute trifle in the huge cattle market of South Africa. Let me say a few words about the question of policy which has been very much discussed. One does not want to flog a dead horse, but a word must be said on that. There is no doubt that the cry of embargo was, if possible, the biggest cry which the Opposition rallied at the last general election. The whole country rang with it. There is no doubt we lost many seats in South Africa because of this cry. Wherever you had cattle farming highly developed as it is all over the interior, hundreds and thousands of voters were induced by this great cry to vote for the present Government. Our position on the contrary was just as clearly defined. The position we took up was this that we had fixed the limit of 800 lb. with Rhodesia on the advice of the agricultural industry itself. We made it clear that we were not pledged to any particular limit, but if it proved that that limit was not a solution of the difficulty, then we were quite prepared to discuss the matter once more with Rhodesia. We actually gave notice of the customs agreement with a view to this further discussion. The conference that the Government have been holding with Rhodesia with regard to this and other matters is actually a conference which arose from action taken by the late Government. We were determined in the friendliest spirit to give every consideration to every method of solution which might seem satisfactory to this country and Rhodesia.

Except an embargo.

Only one point we insisted upon very strongly, I myself in this House and our party as a whole. That was this: We were not prepared merely in the interests of the cattle industry of South Africa to get rid of the customs union and to hit all the other industries in the Union that were finding a profitable market in Rhodesia. Both for the sake of the industries of the Union and for that larger view of a prosperous and contented South Africa we were not prepared to jeopardize these material and ideal interests. We were always prepared to probe more deeply into the matter, but we had this ideal before us and we did not want any breach of the customs union. We were met with the parrot cry of an embargo, and it proved a very effective cry indeed at election time. I congratulate the Government on their change of attitude. I do not know that I can congratulate them on this agreement, but I do on their change of attitude. Accession to office has had a sobering effect on them. Instead of the wild cries we heard, we now find they have calmed down and after all they have adopted in general outline the policy on which we were working, namely that of not sacrificing these large interests simply to a cry from one section of the population. They have grown wiser with responsibility and power, and I congratulate them on that. It was not only a case of an embargo on cattle; it was an embargo on tobacco, too, I believe. Now that has whittled itself down to stems and dust and rubbish which we need not consider. I am somewhat perturbed, and I am sure the hon. Minister of Finance must be perturbed too, at certain indications of opinion from the Government benches. It seems that we have not heard the last of the embargo even yet. A number of members even to-day have threatened the Government that if the 1,000 lb. does not prove effective there will be the embargo. The people of this country who will look upon themselves as having been spoofed in regard to this embargo may take up the old cry again and the Government may find that they are in a trap, a trap of their own making. I hope the Government will be wise and always keep the larger view before them and not be misled by their former mistakes into jeopardizing the good relations existing between us and our neighbours. I was very much struck by that first paragraph in the Governor-General’s speech in which we assumed our independent status and referred to our good relations with neighbouring States. I do hope that that paragraph will be remembered by the hon. Prime Minister and that we shall hear more of those good relations and less of the embargo in future.

It was necessary after your charge of racialism.

I do not think much of the change from 800 pounds subject to various conditions and the unconditional 1,000 which the Minister has put into this agreement. I have very good reason for this. The other clauses are also important, and when I read them I begin to wonder whether we have held our own at the conference. What troubles me is the price we are paying for this so-called concession. Rhodesia has made a so-called concession, but we have paid a price for it, and when I look at the price I want some further information from the hon. Minister. Up to now we have paid Rhodesia £125,000. This sum now becomes the minimum. I do not know whether the hon. Minister has any idea of what the new arrangement he has made will lead us to and what we shall ultimately have to pay. What I should like enlightenment on is this. Rhodesia has a fixed tariff of 9 per cent. ad valorem with Great Britain. I see we pay Rhodesia here not 9 per cent. but 12 per cent. ad valorem. Prima facie it appears to me we are actually paying to Rhodesia a higher price than she could herself have charged if she were not in the customs union. I should like the hon. Minister to explain to us what this twelve per cent. is, because if Rhodesia were not in the Customs Union and could fix her own tariff, that 9 per cent. is her limit, and as all her stuff practically comes from Great Britain it seems as if we are to pay to Rhodesia three per cent. more than she would be entitled to charge by way of tariff if she were not in the Customs of the Union. Then I see the hon. Minister has also raised the charge in respect of many well-known manufactures exported to Rhodesia of from five to six per cent. I take it these are financial quid pro quos for this illusory concession of 1,000 lbs. I am afraid—and I want the House to watch this matter because we shall know in the following years whether we have not bought a pig-in-a-poke whether for this illusory agreement for cattle we have not made a financial sacrifice to Rhodesia which may be a bad bargain from the Union point of view. No doubt the hon. Minister has the matter at his finger ends and he can tell us. I am afraid the £125,000 which has now become the minimum, may mean a very much larger burden to the Union taxpayer than the arrangement has been in the past.

I will in passing just say that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has aroused my sympathy by declaring that the S. A. Party lost so many seats through the promise of the present Government to put a stop to the importation of cattle from Rhodesia. I take it that he will also give this explanation in respect of the Pretoria West seat. The people there kept so many cattle that the default of the Government there also has not failed in its results. On the other side of the House, a great deal is talked about the significance of the importation of cattle, but only a few members have drawn attention to the shutting out of tobacco from Rhodesia as a consequence of the new agreement. A person can understand this, as the sympathy shown by the S.A. party towards the tobacco farmers has not been particularly great. When I do the rounds of my constituency. I find in the enclosures for “unemployeds” tobacco farmers who have been altogether ruined as a consequence of the tax put on tobacco by the former Government. The former Government had no sympathy with the tobacco farmer whatsoever, but with the measures which are now proposed improvement will take place. By virtue of the agreement 1,000,000 lbs. of Rhodesian tobacco will be diverted. Just let us see what this signifies. According to the statistics, the tobacco production in 1921-’22 was a little more than 9,000,000 lbs.—thus below 10,000,000 lbs. As a consequence of the new measures our farmers can produce one-tenth more. One-tenth of the total production is worth considering, all the more seeing that the railway charge on Rhodesian tobacco is so favourable for the importer. The rate was no more than one-sixth of a penny per pound from Bulawayo to the Union. I have no doubt that the constituents of the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) will be very pleased with the new provision.

I am pleased with the general good reception which this Bill and the agreement entered into with Rhodesia has evoked from all sides of the House. The matter has been fairly well discussed and it must have struck everyone that the actual criticism has not been directed at the Bill or at the agreement. It is true that towards the end of the debate a few points have been brought forward by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) but, shrewd politician as he is, he was very cautious and did not do so in the form of an attack, but only made a few requests for information, thus not expressing criticism, and this showed prudence on his part as, had he been well informed it would have been plain to him that in what he said there was nothing in the way of criticism. Hon. members on the other side of the House have all given the impression that they have nothing to say concerning the agreement, but there shows in their speeches a tremendous disappointment-disappointment in the first place over the result of the elections and the influence that this important question had on the result of the elections. But a greater disappointment was the success of the Government in respect of this agreement. We know what was held before the people during the elections: should the present Government be returned to office—the frightful things that would happen and now the great disappointment is that of all these bogeys nothing has materialized. Even during the final sitting of the former Assembly we pressed for a greater measure of protection for a cattle farmer. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has this afternoon read us two motions brought in by the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), now our Prime Minister, for the obtaining of a greater degree of protection for our cattle farmers It is true that individual members of our party have perhaps had their own opinions, but the main point was that we pressed for more protection, and the former hon. Minister of Agriculture (Sir Thomas Smartt) had then said that those present at the conference saw no possibility of obtaining a greater measure of protection for our cattle farmers. Now there is disappointment because we have been able to obtain a greater degree of protection, and at the same time to protect the interests of the people of the Union. It is amusing to see how the Opposition is concerned about our election promises. It was just the people who valued our promises who voted for us, and it is, therefore, I consider, we who should be concerned about those promises. Whether this is really a more favourable agreement for the stock farmer than the former is a point which I am prepared to submit to the judgment of people who are immediately connected with it. We know what the opinion of the people of Rhodesia is. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has already indicated this, and I have the personal opinion of the representatives of Rhodesia. They said that we were exacting in our negotiations. They are of opinion that at least 60 per cent. of the animals which would otherwise be imported are now shut out from our markets. This is the answer to objectors. The question is being put as to what is the difference between the action of this Government and that of the former Government. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) represented the matter fairly correctly. The position is that the previous Government had no intention of imperiling relations with Rhodesia for the sake of the cattle farmer, and we said: You can protect the interests of the cattle farmer without necessarily prejudicing those of the other sections of the population. Why such disappointment? The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said that the action of the former Government was in agreement with the wishes and interests of the representatives of the farmers, and he cites the conference which was held in Pretoria between the cattle farmers and the Government. We do not need to follow again the history of that conference. We know how the farmers’ associations throughout the country protested against the resolutions of the so-called farmers’ conference and what line of action resulted there from. The hon. member for Standerton referred to the important role which the conference played. I want to inform the House for its information that a meeting of the Agricultural Union was held in Durban the same day and they informed me by telegram that they were in favour of a stricter embargo. It goes without saying that people who produce stock ask for as much protection as possible, and we must protect them as much as possible. But also we must always take into consideration the interest of the remaining section of the population, for this Government represents all. The agreement which we have obtained is of value to all of them. The hon. member declares that the improved prices have nothing to do with the agreement and that they are due to the good rains, but the fact is just the reverse. Farmers know that the market is always highest in times of drought, because as soon as the cattle become fat after the rains the market falls. The fact thus remains that in spite of the good rains which fell early this year the Johannesburg cattle market has not collapsed, while in other years, when early rain did not fall, this would long since have been the case. He tried further to score the point that there is no provision made in the agreement to enable the Government to stipulate that only animals of such a standard as to weigh when slaughtered, at least 50 per cent. of the live weight should be admitted. The farmers attach very little worth to that condition in the old agreement. Rhodesia will not send a trek-ox such as is implied by this condition. They will send only fat animals, so what the hon. member says is of no significance. Further, the hon. member said: What about the position of the other neighbouring territories such as Bechuanaland? I regret that with the introduction of the motion for the second reading of the Bill I did not make this plainer. We acknowledge readily that it will not help much if those territories are not brought under the restrictions. It surprises me that he also mentions South-West Africa. Right from the beginning we said that this has nothing whatever to do with the matter as we acknowledge the very close relations which exist between the Union and South-West, and it was never our intention to apply the limitation to importations from South-West. So far as Bechuanaland is concerned, I can say that the Government is engaged in negotiations. The existing convention does not expire until the 30th June, and three months’ notice requires to be given should we wish to effect any alteration. But in view of the negotiations which are in progress, the Government is in no way of opinion that it will be necessary to give such notice and to terminate the convention, but that it will be sufficient to ascertain if Bechuanaland will be satisfied with this agreement. The same applies to Swaziland. As far as Basutoland is concerned, it is of no consequence, as that territory is not concerned in this connection. Hon. members can, however, rest assured that so far as concerns Swaziland and Bechuanaland we are engaged in negotiations, and that we hope to arrive at a friendly solution. The position of the consumer have also been remembered. I want hon. members to consider that there is to-day an over-production of cattle. We have always admitted that the agreement will not be the solution of the cattle farmers problem. The Minister of Agriculture is engaged in considering the matter, but what we have said is, that we have here in the compounds a particularly good market for our inferior animals and that we will preserve this for our own people. As to good meat, the cattle may still come from Rhodesia. We have never said that we will keep out first-quality cattle. Further, I can say that the cattle farmer has never been unreasonable. He only wants a reasonable price, and if the price rises to an unheard-of figure the Government has always the right to repeal or to suspend the regulations. And when the Government, which in this case must further not only the interests of one class but of all classes of the land, acts in that way, I am convinced that the cattle farmers will be the first to agree. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) asked whether animals for use in our factories will still be admitted from Rhodesia. This can no longer be done as it is specially stipulated in the agreement that Rhodesia shall send no animals to the Union for the extract and other factories. Rhodesia can only send animals intended for export. He also mentioned the matter of railway rates between us and Rhodesia. He says that we allow more favourable rates to Rhodesian produce over our railways, and then asks why the Government did not see that more favourable rates for our products were given on the Rhodesian railways. We repeatedly referred to this at the conference, but the position is that the Rhodesian Government cannot give way. They have not the control over their own railways, which are in the hands of the Beira and Mashonaland Railways. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) doubts whether this is a good agreement owing to the large sum which has to be paid down, and the fact that we must now pay 6 per cent. on the export of Union goods to Rhodesia whilst formerly it was only 5 per cent. I have already at the commencement made it plain that the 6 per cent. is only paid on manufactures of the Union exported to Rhodesia, and that nothing is paid on the agricultural produce of the Union. Concerning the payment of 12 per cent. of the duty on goods imported into the Union in transit to Rhodesia, we had under the agreement paid the actual duty that the Union received on the goods and in some cases this was as much as 30 per cent. This Rhodesia obtained from us. For example, on shoes which are imported we put a duty of 27 or 20 per cent. Rhodesia received the amount that we had collected. We arrived at 12 per cent. as the average of what we received for duty. Now the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has stated that the amount of £125,000 which we in any case will pay Rhodesia is too great. It was difficult to get a lower amount accepted. The amount of £125,000 will not be increased until trade with Rhodesia justifies it. I think I have dealt with the main points. I am very glad that practically no criticism has been directed at the Bill. The speeches delivered by certain members from the other side of the House would not be bad at election time but they were altogether fruitless. The main point is not what this or another man or another person said. Let us regard the matter on its merits—by so doing we shall do something to further the welfare of the people.

The motion was put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on 25th February.

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged Mr. Barlow from service on the Joint Committee on Use of Afrikaans in Parliamentary Documents and appointed Dr. van der Merwe in his stead.