House of Assembly: Vol7 - WEDNESDAY 5 MAY 1926
as chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on the subject of the Patents, Designs, Trade Marks and Copyright Act, 1916, Amendment Bill.
Report and evidence to be printed; Bill to be read a second time on 13th May.
Leave was granted to the Minister of Labour to introduce Work Colonies Bill.
Bill brought up and read a first time ; second reading to-morrow.
Leave was granted to the Minister of Public Health to introduce the Public Health Act, 1919, Amendment Bill.
Bill brought up and read a first time ; second reading on 10th May.
First Order read: House to go into Committee on the Agricultural Credit Bill.
House in Committee :
On Clause 5,
I move—
The object of that is to leave it optional to the farmer, with the consent of the Land Bank Board, to decide through which channel his produce shall be sold. This clause refers to the loan companies, and to the advances to be made to individual farmers, not to members of cooperative societies, not necessarily to members of credit societies, but to individual farmers, and, as laid down by the Bill as it stands, those advances can be made—
What I seek by this amendment is to widen that so that produce need not necessarily be sold through a co-operative society provided the board of the Land Bank approves of the other channel that may be desired by the farmer. I move this for two reasons. One is because it is introducing into our legislature compulsory co-operation. We had in select committee the rather extraordinary position that the Minister of Finance put forward this Bill, and at the same time another Government department, the Department of Agriculture, is putting forward the strongest possible objection to introducing this compulsory co-operation, stating that in their opinion it is opposed to the true principles of co-operation and would be destructive of the co-operative principle. I cannot put it in better words than those in which it was put before us in committee by the Secretary for Agriculture. He wrote—
That is the opinion of the Department of Agriculture. I know the managing director of the Land Bank holds different views, which he put forward in the memorandum on the Bill. He holds that by forcing them to sell through a co-operative society they will gradually become weaned to the co-operative idea, but I submit it is not a sound tiling to force people to sell through co-operative societies. Why should they not be given the option? Also it is unfair to other trading, concerns. In fairness, if these co-operative companies are to be allowed to trade in the ordinary way beyond their members, then they should pay the same taxation as other joint stock companies pay. They are to have public money ; they are to have the benefit of registration under the Co-operative Societies Act, whereby they escape income tax and other forms of taxation, and yet other people trading in the same way have to pay this taxation. We may have in the future a man at the head of the Land Bank who holds different views, but if this is cast as it is now they will be compelled to order the sale only through co-operative societies, and therefore I want the door left open. I urge that it is only fair to the farmers themselves to give them the option, and only fair to the people who do business in the way of selling produce for farmers. I hope the Minister will see his way to accepting the amendment. The managing director does not claim there is any particular benefit to farmers in this except in the case of mealies, which I can see may be so. In the case of wool and mohair and so on, however, it cannot be sold collectively. Every clip has to be sold separately and valued separately. There is no benefit to be given to these people through forcing them to sell in this way.
I feel compelled to support the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh). I admit that I have entirely different reasons to the hon. mover of the amendment, but we feel that whatever the subsidiary objects of the Bill may be, the main objects are to assist the production of the country and to create more facilities to increase the output of the producer. It has been felt for years that it is no use only increasing the production. It is useless to only create facilities for the production of things. The producer only sees the advantage of more production if there are proper channels for disposal of the articles. To-day there is not so much need for co-operation with regard to production but more for the creation of channels to put the product of the producer into the hands of the consumer. As reasons for supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) I feel in the first place that there are to-day a large number of cooperative societies which do not as yet possess distribution channels. The co-operative societies exist, but they do not possess the goods channels to take the articles to the consumer, and now the bodies who do not have the channel, channels which it requires time and opportunity to create are advanced at the expense of distributors who have those channels. My second reason is my experience in the past that the distribution costs of co-operative societies are in many cases much higher than distribution costs of private channels. And I think it is unfair in existing circumstances to burden the producer with the extra cost because the distribution costs of the co-operative societies are higher than those of the private distributor. Therefore I think the private channels should not be hindered. Another factor of great importance I think is that the idea exists that many of those interested in co-operative societies have also interests outside co-operation, and I wish on the contrary that many of the distributors who remain outside the co-operative societies do and have done much for our country. They are sons and daughters of the soil, sons and daughters of the producers, and in many cases they have raised the capital with great trouble to assist the producers by taking delivery of the articles and distributing them, and I do not think we should prevent them from being useful in the service of our people.
I have another amendment which I should like to propose to Clause 5—
My reason for this amendment is that we have once and for all adopted the principle of supporting co-operative societies. This Bill will if it is passed as it now stands injure the great work of the co-operative societies among the farmers. If it is passed in this form people in the future who do not belong to co-operative societies will get all the benefit from the societies without sharing in the liabilities. If the same privileges are given to people who are not members of the societies that are given to members while the former are nevertheless relieved from any obligations then they will not become members of such societies. It will then be impossible to make a success of the co-operative movement. The farmers in general will be rendering a service if the co-operative societies are made a success, and my amendment will assist in that direction. The idea exists that the operation of my amendment that people will be compelled to become members of a co-operative society. That is not the case. But if anyone wants to enjoy the privileges of the Bill then he ought to belong to a co-operative society. My amendment obliges no one to join. Because if he thinks he can get more benefit from other trade associations then he need not make use of this Bill. Although no one is to be compelled, by my amendment, I nevertheless want no opposition to take place to the cooperative movement. If persons not belonging to the co-operative society are to get the same privileges as its members enjoy, then no one will wish to join it. What motive will there be for a person to join a co-operative society if he can be financed without being a member? Either my amendment must be passed or we must abandon the whole idea of a co-operative movement. If the Bill is passed as it reads then it will make co-operation in the country impossible, because people who are not members will be given all the privileges of the society. Why should they then become members and assume responsibility? They would rather stop outside and enjoy the privileges without bearing the responsibility. Therefore I feel very strongly that my amendment should be accepted, and that there will then in the future be greater success with the co-operative societies. In the past some societies failed where the management made too large advances on the produce of their members, but if the Bill is passed the management will not decide these things itself but the Land Bank will. Thus experts and financiers will decide what advances are to be made on produce, and that will contribute to the success of the movement in the future and remove the chances of failure. I readily accept the statement of the hon. member for Hope Town (Dr. Stals) that co-operative societies are often not the best means of distribution, but there is no reason why a co-operative society should not be able to use better means. That removes his objection altogether, and I hope all the farming members in the House will seriously consider my amendment and accept it, because I am convinced that if the Bill is passed as drawn then the co-operative movement will have a spoke put in its wheel and the establishment of societies will be made impossible.
I would like to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh). It seems to me that we are making a tremen does mistake in introducing any measure of compulsory co-operation into a Bill of this sort. You are only allowing a farmer to obtain an advance of £300 under these credit societies, and I think it is only right that he should be able both to buy and to sell in the open market. We have to be very careful in introducing a system of compulsory co-operation in this country. We did go a certain length last session when we laid down the law that if 75 per cent. of any article produced in any area was controlled by any co-operative society the remaining 25 per cent. must fall into line. That is a very difficult thing. A co-operative society may not be able to deal with the produce at the moment, and instead of actually helping that man you are going to handicap him, and I think we shall be very wise if we accept this amendment. By all means let the directors of the Land Bank retain a certain amount of control over the channel through which the produce is disposed of.
There is so much noise going on that we cannot hear what the hon. member is saying.
Another point is that we do not want spoon-feeding and under the Co-operative Societies Act members have considerable advantages. There is nothing in this clause to make it compulsory for a man who sells to join a society, but he is to receive all the benefits of a co-operative society and I think an injustice is done to the man who is in the ordinary line of business. Whether you look at the matter from the point of view" of the interests of the farmer, or of the producer, or from the clear point of justice towards the merchant community, who are forbidden to deal with a man who, although not a member of the co-operative society, retains all the rights of a co-operative society, this amendment is essentially fair.
I can quite understand why the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) moves the amendment, but not why representatives of farmers support him in it. We all know that in recent years the traders had a great deal of competition from the co-operative societies and therefore I can understand the amendment, but I say that it is for us here to decide whether co-operation is a good thing or not. And if it is a good thing we must help it on, otherwise we cannot be in favour of the Land Bank either. The policy of the previous Government, as well as this Government, is that there is only one way of assisting the farmers and that is by co-operation. We here all admit, and I think hon. members opposite also, that we must support the co-operative movement, and therefore I cannot understand the support the farmers’ representatives are giving the amendment. I protest and appeal to the Minister not to accept it. Our farmers’ associations are so well organized today that we can sell our produce on at least just as favourable terms as any business man in the country, and why then should we organize our farmers if the non-organized are to enjoy the same privileges that the former possess. I am thinking in this connection especially of a great farmers’ organization in the country, the wool farmers’ organization. It is my experience that compulsion to co-operate has made that organization what it is to-day and that millions of pounds have been saved to the farmers in that way. With reference to the motion of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) I must say that in my experience the farmers if we want them to join the co-operative societies must not be compelled.
I am not compelling the farmers. They have only to become members if they want to make use of the benefits of this Bill to obtain loans.
I am afraid that we shall frighten our farmers. I believe the best way is—and I have practical experience—to lead the farmers gradually. There are hundreds of farmers to-day belonging to co-operative societies who would never join before, just because the organizations also sold their produce and not only that of the members, and then when they saw that it was in their interests they joined up. That is the way to go to work.
I understand from the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) that he wants to use the Bill to advance the co-operative movement. From his speech I gather that is his object. It is, however, not the object of the Bill, because the object is to help on farmers who are weak. If we are going to use the Bill to push the co-operative movement then we shall make it more difficult for the Bill to attain its object. Therefore I hope that the hon. member will not press his amendment. That does not mean that those who support the Bill as it stands are opposed to co-operative societies. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) said he did not understand how any farmers' representative could support the amendment so he will perhaps be surprised that a farmer representative in the House is supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh). I can well understand why he does not do so, but if I gave the reason I should be guilty of personalities and that I do not wish to do. I can as a farmers’ representative, support the amendment. I supported it in the select committee and I still think it is the right thing. I entirely agree that there should be a restriction on the sale of the produce by requiring the approval of the Land Bank. The Land Bank must also have knowledge of the sale, because it has to recover its money from the borrower. If the man is a rogue then he will, unless that approval is required, sell his goods by means which will make it impossible for the Land Bank to get its money back. In the Bill it is clear that the approval of the Land Bank is necessary. There are sometimes channels through which the farmers can sell their produce more favourably, and why should the Land Bank be compelled by legislation to refuse its approval in such cases. Take, e.g., the case of someone, wanting to sell wool, whose nearest harbour is Cape Town. I understand there is no co-operative society for the sale of wool in Cape Town. Therefore such a person will not be able to sell his wool at the Cape, and will have to send it to Port Elizabeth at double the freight to Cape Town so that he can comply with the requirements of the Bill. The amendment does not prohibit the farmer from selling his produce through the co-operative society, but he is given the option if he has a more favourable channel to use it provided the Land Bank approves. If the amendment is accepted the Land Bank can give such permission. The Land Bank will not give the approval if it is dangerous and injurious to it and to the farmer. I therefore hope that the House will accent the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South).
I want to appeal to the House not to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn. If that is accepted it means that only a small group of farmers who belong to the co-operative societies will be assisted. What will the position of the stock farmers be? They also require credits, especially in time of drought. The grain farmers also require credit to buy fertilizers, etc., but we must not exclude people who do not belong to co-operative societies from the privileges of this Bill. That would be unfair.
The object of the Bill seems to me to be to assist the farmers, but I cannot agree with Clause 5, because farmers can be compelled by it to belong to co-operative societies. We were always afraid of the unsound system of compulsory co-operation, and it seems to me the Minister’s object is to make the matter compulsory. The Minister lives in a part where there are many farmers and he must surely know that just as soon as we begin to compel the farmers it will be a failure. This clause says emphatically that the Land Bank must approve of the loans and that loans can be made to persons not members of the co-operative societies only if their produce is sold through the society. I cannot agree with that. The hon. member for Oudtshorn (Mr. le Roux) advocated co-operation in the past for the ostrich feather industry, tobacco, and other things, but he must not forget that there is still a great stretch of country where grain is grown, and that not a quarter of the people there belong to the co-operative societies. Compulsory co-operation is socialistic. I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh).
In my opinion this clause is a little vague. Advances can be made to people who can produce an elevator or warehouse receipt. Can anyone be given advances who possesses grain or wants to sell stock? What is the object of a warehouse receipt? It is vague. In the English text the word is “warehouse.” My friend here behind me says that it is the warehouse of the co-operative societies.
You will find the description on page 31.
Oh, yes, then it is clearer. The warehouse receipt must be approved by the central board of the Land Bank, thus it is one or other kind of warehouse of the co-operative society. It cannot be otherwise. The Land Bank only makes advances to the co-operative societies and if that is the case then the amendment of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn is unnecessary. Let us take the case of elevators. There the amendment is unnecessary because if one is a member of a co-operative society he does not get an elevator receipt. In that case the receipt of the elevator is sent to the co-operative society and entered up by the society which in turn is responsible to the producer. I think, therefore, that the hon. member for Oudtshoorn will get no further with this amendment. With reference to the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) I want to say that there is a general feeling that we should more and more compel people who are unwilling to co-operate to join the society. We cannot argue away that the co-operative societies have done something in the past for the farmer. Take the grain farmers’ societies. They had heavy expenditure in the past and got advances from the Land Bank. Now their buildings are standing empty and the railway department is erecting elevators to directly compete with them. I therefore think that the co-operative societies can fairly expect to be protected and that people who do not belong to them should not be benefited. I think it is fair that elevator receipts should only be issued where the grain is sold through the co-operative societies. Undoubtedly the co-operative societies are the best organization in the country. In Johannesburg there is the central agency to which all the societies belong and no one can say that they do not do proper business. I think it is best to pass the clauses as they stand. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn goes a little too far I think.
I have carefully considered the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) and, of course, it raises a very important question. Even the hon. member realizes and admits that there is a great deal to be said for certain measures of control in regard to the disposal of the products of the farmer by the Central Board of the Land Bank, but now, instead of following the course proposed in this Bill, and making it obligatory, he wants to make it permissive. I think if the hon. member will consider the matter he will see that if the course he advocates is adopted we shall be casting an unreasonable onus and burden upon the general manager of the Land Bank, and the result will be that people will be out continually to get the exemption which is given under this amendment. That control will become, I am afraid, nil. Let me point out, in the first place, that nobody is forced through this clause to join a co-operative society. All we say is that if a farmer, who is not a member of a co-operative society, wants to be assisted under this clause, when he has his produce in a warehouse he can be assisted provided he agrees to the disposal of his produce in a certain way. This clause is intended to assist the farmer who is not able too look after himself and who often has to dispose of his produce through the local storekeeper. If the Land Bank is able to exercise control over this man’s produce it achieves this object, that for the first time it enables the man to sell his produce independently and not in competition with his co-farmers, through the channel of a recognized co-operative society. We must now come to a conclusion as to whether we want by every legitimate means to encourage co-operation amongst your farmers or not. If you want to do that, this is one of the ways. Although it is not in actual force, it does to a certain extent go in the direction of pressure upon the man to avail himself, though he is not forced to join a cooperative society, of the best channel of distribution of his products. Under the circum-stances, although I have given very careful consideration to what the hon. member (Sir William Macintosh) has urged, I do not think the House would be acting in the best interests of the farmers if we do not follow the advice which the general manager of the Land Bank, who has given a good deal of his time and energy and ability to the cause of co-operation, tendered to the Committee upstairs.
My hon. friend the Minister leaves out one important point, and that is that the channel of distribution is in any case going to be under the control of the Land Bank. Even suppose farmers make use of other channels outside the society, those channels have to be approved by the managing director of the Land Bank. Furthermore, there can be no question to my mind that by allowing the farmer to go to other people as well as to the society, he gets the benefit of a wider market. If a man chooses, why should he not be able to sell to any reputable merchant, subject to the approval of the manager of the Land Bank? I think the Minister exaggerates the difficulty. Take the case of Cape Town. We have no such society in Capetown as the Saamwerk, Port Elizabeth.
A society will soon be established if the necessity arises.
There is no society yet, whereas there are reputable merchants in this city who will do their best for any of their clients. I do not consider this is a legitimate means to force farmers into co-operation. There are farmers in this House who very much object to compulsion. I agree that by this means you are not going to do co-operation any good, if you compel men against their will and against their judgment to come under this clause as it stands. As regards produce going to the local storekeeper, to my mind he is not going to be used, because it is not likely that the manager of the Land Bank is going to approve of the local storekeeper as a channel. So long as the farmer has the right to send down to some first-class firm at one of these big coast places, that should be perfectly in order, subject, as my hon. friend’s amendment provides, to the approval of the Land Bank.
I am sorry I forgot to deal with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux). I really think that he is going too far. Take the point which was made just now by the hon. member for Capetown (Central) (Mr. Jagger) in regard to the right which you are going to give to the Land Bank to approve of the channels. The hon. member says that the Land Bank need not, of course, approve of the local storekeeper; let them approve of the merchant princes in one of our coast towns. What will the local storekeepers say? I know what they will do in my town, if the Land Bank should dare to refuse permission for produce to be sold through them and should put the thing into the hands of a man in Capetown. They will say—
We should either have control or we should not. Don’t place the responsibility for selecting these channels on the manager of the Land Bank.
I should like to point out to the Minister that I think we shall render the whole object of the Bill nugatory if the Minister intends to strengthen the cooperative movement through the Bill. Its intention is to assist the poor man. If a man goes to a co-operative society to sell his produce he has to wait some time before he knows what price he is going to receive. Often he would rather go to a shopkeeper at once because then he can dispose of his produce easily. I should like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh). I have before me an extract from the Agricultural Journal. It is a departmental report, and one considers that the department exists to look after the interests of the farmers. The extract deals with the visit of Sir Horace Plunkett who recently visited South Africa in connection with the co-operative movement. It says of Sir Horace Plunkett—
I say it is best to leave it free to a man to decide by what means he wishes to sell his produce. The co-operative societies are doing excellent work and if the people find that they can get the best prices through the societies they will sell through the societies, but if that is not so why should they be compelled to sell through the societies? As has already been said there are many places where there is no co-operative society. That is the case, e.g., at Potgietersrust. A farmer can send his mealies to the grain elevator, but where must he go to sell his mealies? If a farmer can get a better price for his produce if he does not sell through the co-operative society, then the Land Bank should approve of the produce being sold through a shopkeeper before a loan is granted in respect of it.
I hope that the Minister of Agriculture is not indisposed, because, otherwise, I can hardly understand on an important discussion of this sort the Minister of Agriculture not being here to give us the benefit of his own experience and that of his department, for it was no doubt under his instructions that the department sent a communication to the select committee that was diametrically opposed to the clause of the Bill as it now stands. It is rather unfair to the Committee, if the Minister is not indisposed, that he is not here to take part in an important discussion of this character. I think the Committee will realize that I am extremely in favour of the co-operative principle, but I am also very much alarmed about introducing what is entirely opposed to the principle of cooperation, that is compulsion in the establishment of co-operative societies. True, the House did accept, in connection with tobacco and ostrich feathers, the co-operative principle, and in accepting that we knew certainly eighty or ninety per cent. of the persons who were interested in those particular industries had voluntarily entered into co-operative societies. When these measures were under discussion, it was pointed out that one of the greatest possible authorities on co-operation in the interests of co-operation, Sir Horace Plunkett, impressed upon me and others how intensely opposed he was in the interests of co-operation to introducing anything in the nature of compulsion. I think the amendment of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) is utterly impossible for the committee to accept, and I will tell him why. Unfortunately we have had experience of co-operative organizations in this country that were very quickly established, were very badly managed and did a great deal of damage to the cause of co-operation within the Union. In connection with the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh), I can share the fears of the general manager of the Land Bank that while desirous of lending money on the security of produce, he wants to have some guarantee as to through what channel the sale of that produce will pass. I do not think it will be a case of selling that produce to up-country storekeepers, because if the money is advanced by the loan company against produce, surely it will be the intention of everybody that that produce shall be sold in the best possible market, and that will not be to sell to some small storekeeper up-country. I think my hon. friend, without any fear, and without placing an undue burden on the Land Bank, could accept the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South). There have not been established in other parts of the Union co-operative organizations based upon a sound basis. I will give a concrete case. Take, for instance, a small farmer of the Western Province who has got a small flock of sheep, and he, having delivered his wool, desires an advance upon it. There is no co-operative organization in Capetown that is competent to deal with that produce. He will have to send it to Port Elizabeth or East London. But as to the Western Province Co-operative Association—which I would like to see greatly strengthened—I do not think with all due respect to them, that they are in a position to deal with a product of this character. Surely in these circumstances it might be fairly placed in the hands of the manager of the Land Bank, whom I also want to protect in every way against his advances, because I believe it is only by facilities for advances of this sort that you are going to assist agricultural production in this country. I do think there is no danger in the committee’s accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) while I think there would be a great danger in accepting that of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn. The Minister of Finance would be well advised in accepting the first amendment.
It is difficult to follow the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and to know whether he is really serious or not when he makes these statements to the House. The right hon. member was the very member who introduced the element of compulsion in a measure which he brought forward in this House. I wish to point out to him that what is aimed at here by the loan company contains no element of compulsion. He is mixing up what the loan company is trying to do. When this matter came before the select committee the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) moved—
We went into it very thoroughly. There were three farmers put on the committee specially to assist us. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was one of those who voted for the “noes,” and now he is supporting the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South). I do not know why he has changed his opinion since then. The whole question turns upon the business of a loan company. It is not the business of a co-operative society. I do not think this committee is in favour of issuing certificates to farmers for dealing with grain and the responsibility to rest on the Land Bank indiscriminately. Surely it is necessary that there must be some security as far as the Land Bank is concerned, and I submit it would be a very unhealthy practice if we extended this to mean—what is being argued—that anybody should get credit whenever they like. The whole object of the cooperative movement is to control the product, and I think the manager of the Land Bank put it clearly that it would be in the interests of the co-operative movement itself if a large amount of the products could be controlled in this way through the loan company. So the loan companies are helping the co-operative movement, not working in conflict with it. I hope the Committee will not accept the amendment, but will accept the committee’s report as put forward.
I would just like to correct my hon. friend. My hon. friend said I voted against this. I was not present at the meeting on that occasion. The voting was :—for: Sir William Macintosh and Mr. Stuttaford; against: the Chairman, Dr. de Jager, Mr. Roux, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Munnik, and Mr. Hay.
Withdraw!
I am very anxious to see this Bill passed, but I am extremely sorry to see the Minister of Finance so obdurate. I think we should not be so keen to forcibly compel people to join the co-operative societies. And the very reason why I am afraid of the Bill as it now stands is "because I think that people are being forced into these societies. It surprises me that there are so many of the loving kind of people to-day who are only anxious to assist the farmers. Must we then take everything out of the hands of the progressive man who has for years conducted his own business. It is nothing else than Socialism, and the time has come to stop it a little. I am not anxious to oppose cooperative societies, but on the other hand people who belong to co-operative societies ought not to be the only ones to be assisted. If we want to compel people to co-operate then we are working in the wrong direction. We must bring the people to that voluntarily, and first induce them to have confidence in the societies. In the Transvaal farmers have lost a great deal through co-operative societies and we can understand their hesitation about joining. Why should a man, who by his own common sense can carry on his business, be prevented from doing so and permit all his business to be put into other hands. I am not in favour of promoting compulsory co-operation. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) is always busy compelling people to co-operate. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) has to-day lectured the farmers to vote for it. There are, however, still farmers in South Africa who want to build up their own business and not leave everything to an agent. I shall vote most willingly for the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South). The cooperative societies are naturally better security for the Land Bank, and I do not blame that bank in insisting upon it, but on the other hand the people should surely not all be prevented from doing their own business. The intimidation of the hon. member for Albert has no effect on me.
You do not represent the farmers.
I represent just as many farmers as the hon. member, and am myself a farmer.
The Minister said he was not compelling anybody to join a co-operative society, but only forcing them to sell through a co-operative society. That is the difference between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. I speak as a farmer who has had much to do with cooperation—as much as most men—and if you are to achieve anything at all by co-operation you are not going to do it by compulsion. We have had disastrous examples in the past, and what we want to do is to lead farmers gradually into co-operation, and not to force them. Another thing I do not like is that in matters of this sort we are getting too much of what I call grandmotherly legislation ; you seem to think the farmer has no common sense and you cannot trust a man to manage his own business, but you treat him as an absolute child. We are just as capable, of managing our own business as merchants, lawyers or any other business men are. While I quite agree with control when necessary, surely we can get control by other methods than compulsory cooperation.
Where is compulsory co-operation? We do not force it unless he makes use of the facilities of the bank.
Quite; but the object of the bank should be to give the poor man facilities without this compulsion.
If the bank lends money it should protect itself.
You can get protection without a co-operative society. We have had two or three very bad examples of losses—we have had the F.C.M.I. and others. Do not drive us all in one direction. Farmers are not fools. The Government should give us certain facilities and the rest we will do ourselves. I ask any farmer—have you attained your position by cooperation? There is no doubt it is by our own individual efforts, and while applauding the action of the Government in bringing in a Bill of this sort, you should leave us to do our best. Give us a free hand, and let us go on in the future as we have gone on in the past.
; You have pleaded for the merchants.
Has the farmer not enough common sense to sell his own produce?
My experience is it is better to sell through a co-operative society.
I do think we are not acting in the best interests of the country in adopting the clause as it stands. I hope the Minister will leave it to the free vote of the House, and not make it a party question ; and if he does, every farmer will say that co-operation is one of the finest things we have in this country, but it has to be voluntary.
The hon. member who has just spoken has told us that co-operation is a grand thing, but made a speech that will serve co-operation worse than anything I know. I am a director of a co-operative society, and I can assure him it is not for any pecuniary interest I personally get out of it. The organization of co-operation is thankless work, but everyone who works in the cause of co-operation is doing his best to try to lift the wheel of agriculture out of the depression into which it has sunk.
The only thing that will do it.
The whole trend of our legislation is to introduce a slight element of compulsion into co-operation. My hon. friend has told us that farmers are not fools. The truth is they are fools when they come into contact with men of such astute brains as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), and others. I say that for this reason —that the hon. member who has just spoken asks whether farmers are such fools. Well, they are fools in the selling of their produce. Naturally, trading is not in their line of business, their business is to produce the products of the soil, and it is their business to pay for the best business-like brains to sell their products in the best market in the interests of the farmers and not in the interest of a combination of merchants. We have an example in the United States of America in the last agricultural year book of the growth of co-operation. The Secretary of Agriculture reports there—
There are 12,000 co-operative societies in the U.S.A., and I believe there is a certain amount of compulsion ; they have 1,500,000 members, and the volume of their business is 2,000 million dollars, so it is in a pretty big way. I put it to hon. members that we have the Economic Commission reporting that the amount farmers are making is so small that they are living on a standard below that of the working man, and the reason is plain. There is no combination in the selling of their products, they are all selling through an army of middlemen. You cannot get the same price as when you are selling through a big organization. One would think the whole principle of organization is at stake in this discussion, but it is a tuppenny-hapenny thing that is a stake—that the Land Bank shall have the right to take a receipt from a grain elevator and dictate through what channel it shall be sold, with a maximum of £300.
You are quite wrong—there is no limit.
At any rate, what is it that is being sold? Obviously something already in the custody of some organization or some persons—a product which has left the farm, and is ready for immediate sale. It refers particularly to grain. If there is one article in this country sold in bulk and by cooperative societies, it is grain.
And wool.
And wool also. I believe it is possible to get a scheme for the farmer to sell his wool better by co-operation than through the merchants. I personally am going to support this particular clause without amendment, and I hope the Minister will stand to it. There is no possible chance of lifting agriculture out of the depression unless the farmer sells his products through a co-operative society.
I think it is well to read to the House the report from Dr. Geldenhuys, who is designated as the chief of the division of economics, markets and co-operation—
I think Dr. Geldenhuys in making that comment is perfectly right. He continues—
We ought to pay considerable regard to these remarks by the chief of the division of economics, markets and co-operation, who has been appointed to study co-operation and organize our markets. I cannot see what objection there can be to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh), because it provides that the Central Board shall approve of any channel other than a co-operative company, and that such channel is sound financially. I cannot understand why certain members are taking up the attitude that they are. The co-operative movement has made tremendous strides, and if it is allowed gradually to grow, it will in time become one of the most important features of our farming life—but you cannot force it.
I am very sorry that the Minister cannot accept my amendment. I am in any case not satisfied with his reply. When I asked him he gave me to understand that he thought we should do nothing in the House in opposition to the co-operative movement. Now I cannot understand why we should pass legislation which will hurt the co-operative movement. According to the quotation read by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel), Dr. Geldenhuys also thinks that if a person who is not a member of a co-operative society can get all the facilities of advances under the provisions of this Bill, it goes without saying that such a person will not join up a co-operative society. If we pass legislation which will influence persons not to become members then I think we are making co-operation impossible. Therefore I think it is wrong of the Minister not to accept my amendment. We must simply understand in the country that if we want to assist the farming community we must teach it to stand together. As for the marketing of their produce they must not act individually but jointly. It is only when they try to act jointly that they will have a chance to get a foreign market and a good price for their produce. The time for individual action in social life has gone by. The man who wants to act individually has no future, and therefore I am strongly in favour of the farming community advancing its interests by co-operation. The other part of society, viz., the professional men through their professional or business associations, and the workmen by their trade unions, act jointly, but the farming community acts individually, and that is why the farmers today are in a parlous plight. I maintain that if my amendment is not adopted the co-operative movement in the country will be injured. This Bill is in that respect a negation of the Acts in connection with co-operation which have already been passed. I most strongly regret it, and I reckon that this Bill will not help the farmers much unless my amendment is passed. I therefore make a last appeal to the Minister to accept it. If he does not do so I want to say that the Bill will not be the success I hoped. At the second reading I had a fundamental objection to the credit system as mentioned in the Bill, because no distinction was made between credit for long or short periods. Notwithstanding the objection I had, I was willing to pass the Bill, but if we are going to accept the principle of working against the co-operative movement and to make it impossible in future, then I am decidedly opposed to it.
I am going to support the clause as it stands. Co-operation has failed in the past because the farmers were disloyal to their organizations. They became the victims of middlemen. During the last twenty years farmers have not sold their produce to the best advantage. Co-operation is useless without compulsion. The 1922 Act provides that once a farmer belongs to a co-operative society he is bound to sell his produce through that society, under a penalty. There is the benefit: you create one central channel for the produce; eliminate the middleman and stabilize prices. That has been proved all over. As a concrete example I would say that the wattle bark farmers have formed themselves into a co-operative society. Before that there were dozens of middlemen who never grew a ton of bark and who were making contracts forward in Europe. They put their heads together and were able to purchase the bark at a lower price than the co-operative society to-day is getting. Since the co-operative society has been formed, they are getting £6 10s. and £6 12s. 6d. per ton, whereas before co-operation they were getting £5.
The market has gone up.
No, the market has not gone up. The speculator, who was living on the life-blood of the farmer, has been eliminated.
I think the clause as it stands is fair, but there is not the least doubt that in the past the co-operative societies have been the salvation of the farmers, and will also be so in the future. The amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) makes me think of what happened at the coast six or seven years ago when there was very great plundering of the farmers with reference to the sale of their produce. It was not at all extraordinary if two farmers living next to each other and supplying the same quality of wool received different prices, varying from 3d. to 6d. per lb. That can only be stopped if the farmers stand together by cooperation. The amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) is of course moved in the interests of the Port Elizabeth brokers. Co-operation in every branch of the farming industry is necessary, and in this spirit I entirely sympathize with the amendment of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn but possibly the time is not yet ripe for that. I know that people in the Transvaal are frightened of co-operation because it was a failure there in the past, but that does not detract from the fact that on the whole co-operation has been and will always be a success in future. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) takes up a strange attitude. We surely find compulsory co-operation in section 51 of the Act of 1922, which he introduced. That even gives the directors of the co-operative societies the power to impose a fine on people who do not sell their produce through their own societies. My experience, and that of the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler), is that we were compelled to apply the sections providing for compulsory co-operation to get the farmers together. It is the most difficult thing in the world to organize farmers and only compulsion achieves it. As the hon. member for Oudtshoorn said, the plundering can only be prevented if the farmers steadfastly stand together, and if the Minister may possibly not accept the amendment to-day, the time will come when he will be obliged to introduce an amendment of this kind. I, therefore, urge that the section should be passed as it stands.
I must say that the hon. member for Hope Town (Dr. Stals) and other members have adduced fairly strong arguments in favour of the amendment to Clause 3 (2) but I should like to point out to those hon. members something which probably will remove all their difficulties, viz., section 15 (3), where I read—
I must admit that there will be a difficulty, especially in the beginning to get people, particularly in the Transvaal, where they have suffered severely through the co-operative societies, to go in for it, and if the amendment of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) is passed, then I fear the Minister will have no success. I must admit that there is much in what the hon. member for Oudtshoorn says, that in the long run we must all come to co-operation. But in consequence of Clause 15 (3), my objection to the clause has been removed, and I can vote freely for the clause as it stands.
I take it from the Minister that he has given very careful consideration to this amendment, but the reasons he gave for not accepting it showed that he had not sufficient time to get proper advice from his advisers. The Minister gave two particular reasons. One was that it was a matter that concerns only the small farmer— only the small man in the hands of the shopkeepers—but the Minister is wrong there. He has fallen into the same error as the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls)—
No, the other man need not avail himself of these facilities. It is only the small man who would want credit facilities. The other man could go to his bankers.
The intention of the Land Bank is very different. Let me refer the Minister to the memorandum published and circulated by his department with reference to this Bill, where the intention is that through these loan companies the whole of the advances that are made to co-operative societies, against maize for instance, will be made through these loan companies. On page 6, it states that in the course of time it is expected that the co-operative societies will cease making advances to members. It goes on to say that the large amounts at present borrowed by the co-operative societies deter a number of farmers from becoming members. The contention is that farmers who will not make themselves responsible for the big amounts will obtain advances individually, while the small man will secure support from the credit societies. The amount advanced in the course of a season may very well run into £1,000,000. The size of these advances will unfairly affect other concerns which lay themselves out for this sort of business. I have not a word to say against co-operation when it is carried on on a fair basis. The Minister says that the amendment means that the dealers would be constantly pestering the board of the Land Bank, but they would not have the opportunity as the matter would be entirely in the hands of the owner of the produce.
I did not mean to convey that the well-to-do farmer should not be assisted, but that he would not suffer a hardship if he were not helped through the machinery provided. If he had very strong objections he need not avail himself of these facilities, for no one is forced to go to the Land Bank.
I should like to know clearly from the Minister whether farmers can get advances a few months before they are ready to take their produce to the market. There are, e.g., small sheep farmers who possibly have 200 or 300 sheep and they require money just before shearing time, two months before they can dispose of the clip. Can the man get an advance before he sends his produce to the market? The time before he gets on the market is just the time he needs money.
Yes, the farmer can get the advance at any time if he is a member of the co-operative society, but individuals can only get advances when their produce is inside the warehouses. If they do not become members of a credit association then they cannot get an advance on anything which is not actually good security. As I said when I introduced the Bill, we must see that the necessary security is provided for the advances made. There are two kinds of security, viz.: the actual security of the produce in the warehouse or elevator, or otherwise the joint and several security of farmers who are mutual members.
I do not know whether I am quite right, but hon. members apparently want to suggest that we are compelling the people to go in for co-operation. I understand that the Bill is really a cooperative one and we are forming small societies which are the same as the co-operative societies, and the societies borrow the money. The money is obtained from the Land Bank and then a member of the society can get it. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) fears that big farmers will make much use of the Bill. I do not agree with him. The well-to-do farmers will not belong to the small credit associations. These will only avail the poor farmers who do not suffer damage if the co-operative society fails. We shall not force the wealthy man into these co-operative societies. I support the clause.
The position to-day is that six, eight or more of the small wine farmers join together to establish a society. Then they require the assistance of a strong farmer to be able to make a success of the society. As far as I can see the rich man who has already succeeded should give financial support as much as he can and his experience should be useful to the society, and he should be an example to the other farmer who established the society. Now the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) says that if the rich man is to be compelled to sell his goods through a certain channel, he will not want to join the society. The Minister says he can do what he likes in connection with the sale of his produce.
If he becomes a member of the co-operative society, then he must do so and to that the hon. member has no objection.
The co-operative societies require the support of the rich farmer and if he wants to sell his goods then he must not be compelled to do so through the society.
I was not anxious to speak because I should have preferred to vote and pass the article. What is, however, the position? This society can lend money to individuals whether they are rich or poor. When will the people ask for assistance? Will they do so when the market is good or when it is bad? Hon. members know that they will do so when the market is bad because in the opposite case they will easily be able to dispose of their produce. When the market is bad they will, however, call in the aid of the society because if they cannot get their price they will ask the society to assist them. If the man is given Government money and he gets an advance to do his business, what danger is there then if he allows his produce to be sold through the co-operative society? The society is there to protect the market and it is only under that condition that the man will get assistance. If the market is bad and all the produce is thrown on it will become still worse. If the society looks after the marketing it will sell when the market rises. A man is not compelled to belong to a society, but if this system works well, it will have the result of making him join subsequently. I therefore think that we cannot do better than pass the clause.
I do not know whether the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) was under a misapprehension when he voted in the select committee, but he was right then. I hope he still holds the same view. The person whom he mentioned, viz.: the rich farmer has full liberty to sell through whom he pleases, only he has to get the approval of the Land Bank. The hon. member for Paarl was quite right in his vote in select committee. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) could see by whom he was applauded. It is precisely the same people who voted for the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh). I should like to ask the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) when he found out that it was such a socialistic principle?
Long ago.
That is remarkable, because he voted for it. It was the late Minister of Agriculture who for the first time proposed compulsory co-operation. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) supported it heartily, and also the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler). The hon. member forgets how he pleaded for a compulsory meat exchange that the farmers should be compelled to join. That was always my grievance against the former Minister of Agriculture. In 1920 the tobacco farmers were compelled to join.
Not according to the Act of 1920.
Which one then? The year is possibly wrong, but the principle is there, and the principle was advocated by the former Minister of Agriculture. Now the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) calls it a socialistic principle, which is something abhorrent to him.
You are very fond of the socialists.
Then I have cut the hon. member out.
Read the Minutes.
I am one of the few that opposes this. The former Minister of Agriculture introduced the Bill on wine farmers’ co-operation. Now hon. members opposite are very much concerned, however, because the farmers ought not to be compelled to go in for compulsory co-operation. Where hon. members opposite wrong them, or is that the case now? Perhaps there is something to say in this event, because it was two years ago that they took up the other attitude. The hon. member for Paarl has now altered the attitude which he took up last week in the select committee. It will now be said on the countryside that this is a socialistic principle, and that it is a proof of the influence of the Labour party on the Nationalist party. Take the case of the pig farmers. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) now knows nothing about it, nor does the hon. member for Griqualand. But he pointed out the danger to the farmers who had good pigs and made good ham, because there were people outside the co-operative society who would spoil the name of South African ham. To-day they know nothing about it, and now they consider it the greatest sin to compel the farmers to join the co-operative societies. It would be interesting to know when they changed their view. I heartily favour a man taking upon himself the responsibility which the other members of the co-operative societies bear if he wants to have the benefits and facilities, such as lower interest. My attitude is that if a man wants to enjoy these facilities, he should be a member.
That is the aim of my amendment.
If the amendment of the hon. member is as he says, then I will heartily support it. In any case, that is my attitude, and I stand by it. If the farmers’ representatives opposite who have spoken would notice whose support they are enjoying, they would change their attitude.
The hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels) is not as well informed as he usually is, and I would advise him during the suspension of business between 6 and 8 o’clock to read the Co-operative Act of 1922, to which he has referred. He will find that there is no compulsory principle in that Act whatever.
What about Clause 59?
That is not a compulsory clause. What the hon. member has got in his mind is the clause of the Co-operative Act which says that when a man voluntarily joins a co-operative association and voluntarily signs the articles of association, which provide that he shall sell his produce through that association (that association having probably entered into a contract), he shall not be allowed to defeat the object of co-operation by selling his produce outside.
I was not referring to that.
If the hon. member would do as I suggested, he would find that in that Act nobody is compelled to become a member of a co-operative association, but, once having become a member of such an association, he must abide by the regulations of the association which he has voluntarily signed. We found before that Bill was introduced that large numbers of people in the Free State and elsewhere, members of co-operative dairy associations, when most probably their organization had entered into contracts for the supply of dairy produce, instead of disposing of their produce through the co-operative organization, many of them sold it privately at a time when, owing to drought or anything of that sort, dairy produce had become very dear. Now take the amendment of my hon. friend (Sir William Macintosh.) These advances will be made largely against maize that goes into elevators, or largely against produce that goes into a warehouse. The managing director of the Land Bank, with his knowledge and his desire to look after the interests of the farming population of this country, will naturally say that this maize which is in an elevator will have to be sold through the Central Maize Growers’ Association, because they are a body that enter into contracts in this country, and also export. If you take the sale out of their hands, you are going to act against the farmer getting the very best price for his produce. The producer, when he has got to sell individually, is not at all in the same position as when he has got to sell collectively. It is when he sells collectively that he is able to get the best world market price for his produce. But there may be cases such as my hon. friend’s amendment makes provision for, in which the manager of the Land Bank would think that it would be in the interests of the producer to sell through another organization besides that of a cooperative society. I think that is all my hon. friend asks for. Strongly as I am in favour of co-operation, I think there is no danger of any sort whatever in agreeing to a proposal of that character. My view is this, that until you have gradually educated the farmers of this country to realize that it is in their interests to co-operate in every possible direction in connection with the produce which they raise, to refuse to give an advance for maize or produce in a warehouse, though it might have a tendency to encourage a large number of people to go in more quickly for co-operation, would indirectly be a considerable disadvantage to the producers. I think really that here my hon. friend is a bit obstinate in not being prepared to accept the amendment, because as a farmer, and one deeply interested in cooperation, I do not think it is going to interfere with the co-operative spirit at all.
I have listened attentively and with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). From what I know of his doings in this House in the past, he has always pleaded for co-operation, and so again to-day, but what astonished me in his argument was that he is going to support the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh). The amendment opens a back-door, and as the clause amounts to this, that a man has to sell his produce through the co-operative society, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) wishes that if he sells through other organizations, the privileges shall also be granted. That is the little door. We all know the farmers, I am one myself. If you want to succeed in your dealings with farmers, you must drive them into a corner. If there is any opening the farmer gets out. We all admit the value of co-operation to the farmer, but let me just tell the committee what happened recently in connection with co-operation. We know that certain portions of the Free State always hesitated to go in for co-operation, and it was the same in my district. Through pressure of the times, when we had a large mealie harvest last year the farmers found that they had to get a starting point for finding a market for their produce. The hon. Minister of Agriculture sent one of his departmental officers through the country to speak to and enlighten farmers upon co-operation, and it had the effect, among us, that a large portion of the Free State farmers immediately joined the co-operative societies. But a considerable number still remained outside. After they joined there was a drop in the local mealie market. The local mealie traders reduced the price from 11s. 6d. to 8s. per hag. The co-operative society was, however, as a result of the existing legislation, able to make an advance of 8s. per bag, and this had the good effect in my neighbourhood that, with one or two exceptions, everybody joined the co-operative society to get the benefit of the advance of 8s. per bag. Co-operation is the salvation of the farmer, but hitherto the attitude of many farmers was: Let someone else jump into the water first. If they sink, then the remark is “What a pity,” and if they succeed, they are praised. That reminds me of the story of a man at a lonely spot on the backyeld to which a wolf came one day. He entered the kitchen because there was a hole in the loft. The husband fled to the loft, but the wife took the irons and tackled the wolf, and while she was fighting it he shouted from above, “Hit it, hit it,” and when the wolf was quite dead he came down, patted his wife on the shoulder, and said, “We polished him off nicely.”
Amendment proposed by Mr. le Roux put and negatived.
Amendment proposed by Sir William Macintosh put, and the mover called for a division
Upon which the committee divided:
Ayes—36.
Ballantine. R.
Bates. F. T.
Brown. D. M.
Buirski. E.
Byron, J. J.
Close, R. W.
Duncan. P.
Geldenhuys. L.
Gilson. L. D.
Giovanetti. C. W.
Jagger. T. W.
Krige, C. J.
Lennox. F. J.
Louw, G. A.
Macintosh, W.
Miller. A. M.
Moffat. L.
Nathan, E.
Naudé, J. F. Tom
Nel, O. R.
Nienwenhnize. T.
O’Brien, W. J.
Papenfus, H. B.
Reitz, D.
Rider, W. W.
Rockey, W.
Sephton, G. A. A.
Smartt, T. W.
Struben, R. H.
Stuttaford, R.
Van der Merwe, N. J.
Van Heerden, G. C.
Van Zyl, G. B.
Watt, T.
Tellers: Marwick, J. S. ; Pretorius, N. J.
Noes—63.
Allen, J.
Anderson, H. E. K.
Barlow, A. G.
Basson, P. N.
Bergh, P. A.
Boshoff, L. J.
Brink, G. F.
Brits, G. P.
Brown, G.
Cilliers, A. A.
Conradie, J. H.
Conroy, E. A.
Creswell, F. H. P.
Deane. W. A.
De Villiers, A. I. E.
De Villiers, W. B.
De Wet, S. D.
Du Toit, F. J.
Fick, M. L.
Fordham. A. C.
Grobler, P. G. W.
Hattingh, B. R.
Havenga, N. C.
Hay, G. A.
Heatlie, C. B.
Hertzog, J. B. M.
Hugo, D.
Kemp, J. C. G.
Kentridge, M.
Keyter, J. G.
Le Roux, S. P.
Louw, J P.
Malan, C. W.
Malan, M. L.
McMenamin. J. J.
Moll, H. H.
Mostert, J. P.
Mullineux, J.
Munnik, J. H.
Nicholls, G. H.
Oost, H.
Payn, A. O. B.
Pearce, C.
Pienaar, J. J.
Pretorius, J. S. F.
Raubenheimer, I. van W.
Rood, W. H.
Roux, J. W. J. W.
Steyn, C. F.
Steytler, L. J.
Strachan, T. G.
Swart, C. R.
Te Water. C. T.
Van Broekhuizen, H. D.
Van Heerden, I. P.
Van Hees, A. S.
Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.
Van Zyl, J. J. M.
Visser, T. C.
Vosloo, L. J.
Wessels, J. B.
Tellers: Sampson, H. W. ; Vermooten, O. S.
Amendment accordingly negatived.
Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.
On Clause 6,
I move—
The amendment will have the effect that only 30 days after the preparation of the contribution account will it be possible to attach the movable assets of a person, and not after fourteen days when he has not yet paid. The time before the attachment of either movable or immovable property is, therefore, made the same.
I fear the hon. member is now too late. An amendment has already been adopted which was subsequent to that of the hon. member, and we cannot go back.
The clause has, however, not yet been put.
If the committee has no objection, the hon. member may move his amendment.
Amendment put and negatived.
Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.
On Clause 11,
I move—
I wish to point out that the number is limited to fifteen on the recommendation of the select committee. I was strongly in favour of it, but I learned later that there might be, say, twenty farmers in a neighbourhood who want to join such a co-operative society, but according to the clause as it now reads the number is limited to fifteen, and it is not then possible for all of them to join a society.
I am sorry that I cannot support the amendment We want to keep the number of members as low as possible. This Bill has been prepared to assist the man who cannot get assistance elsewhere. Suppose now that among the members there are six non-land owners and one land owner. The former may be the bywoners of the latter, and he wants to assist them because he knows that they are people of good character. As long as they live with him he will be ready to be surety for them, but if the number could be increased and the members do not know who may join up then he will not be prepared to bear the joint responsibility.
They must give their consent.
I understand the hon. member proposes that the Central Board must give the consent. I want no one to be allowed to join unless he is approved by the members already belonging to the society.
May I point out that it already is as the hon. member wishes? This clause only provides for the establishment of the society. If the hon. member will look at the following clause, he will see that the number of members cannot be increased unless all the members, who already belong to it, consent. The next clause provides for the case where members join later. This clause has merely to do with the establishment of the society and, according to it, only fifteen can join at the beginning, although there are possibly twenty who would like to do so, Although they are all ready to join, only fifteen can do so under the clause. My amendment will give the right when more than fifteen persons wish it, and the Land Bank will permit it, for the number of members to be increased when it is established.
I think that the committee should understand the reasons of the select committee for putting in this limit. There is a liability on each member of £200 multiplied by the number of members in the credit society—a joint and several liability. With a maximum of 15, the maximum liability could not be more than £3,000. If we accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Naudé), we practically allow unlimited liability on any individual joining a credit society. Personally, I feel that the provision put in by the select committee is the soundest one, and I would urge the hon. member to withdraw his amendment. If it is necessary to have more than 15 members, it is a simple operation to form two credit societies. Suppose 20 men require this kind of aid; instead of one society, they can form two of ten members each. The total liability is then £2,000 whereas, if the 20 members joined in one credit society, the individual liability of each would be £4,000. That is really the intention of the select committee in putting in this maximum, and I think it should be maintained.
Amendment put and the committee divided:
Ayes—61.
Badenhorst, A. L.
Basson, P. N.
Bergh, P. A.
Boshoff, L. J.
Brink, G. F.
Brits, G. P.
Brown, G.
Cilliers, A. A.
Conradie, J. H.
Conroy, E. A.
Creswell, F. H. P.
De Villiers, A. I. E.
De Villiers, W. B.
De Wet, S. D.
Du Toit, F. J.
Fick, M. L.
Fordham, A. C.
Grobler, P. G. W.
Hattingh, B. R.
Havenga, N. C.
Hay, G. A.
Hertzog, J. B. M.
Hugo, D.
Jagger, J. W.
Kemp, J. C. G.
Keyter, J. G.
Le Roux, S. P.
Louw, G. A.
Madeley. W B.
Malan, C. W.
Malan, M. L.
Moll, H. H.
Mostert, J. P.
Mullineux, J.
Munnik, J. H.
Naudé, A. S.
Naudé, J. F. (Tom).
Nicholls, G. H.
Oost, H.
Pearce. C.
Pienaar, J. J.
Raubenheimer, I. van W.
Reyburn, G.
Rood, W. H.
Stals, A. J.
Steyn, O. F.
Steytler, L. J.
Strachan, T. G.
Swart, C. R.
Te Water, C. T.
Van Broekhuizen, H. D.
Van der Merwe, N. J Van Hees, A. S.
Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.
Van Rensburg, J. J.
Van Zyl, J. J. M.
Visser, T. C.
Vosloo, L. J.
Wessels, J. B.
Tellers: Vermooten, O. S. ; Sampson, H. W.
Noes—30.
Anderson, H. E. K.
Bailan tine, R.
Brown, D. M.
Buirski, E.
Byron, J. J.
Close, R. W.
Deane, W. A.
Geldenhuys, L.
Gilson, L. D.
Giovanetti, C. W.
Krige, C. J.
Lennox, F. J.
Macintosh, W.
Marwick. J. S.
Miller, A. M.
Moffat, L.
Nel. O. R. Nieuwenhuize, J.
O’Brien, W. J.
Papenfus, H. B.
Pretorius, N. J.
Reitz, D.
Rider, W. W.
Rockey, W.
Smartt, T. W.
Struben, R. H.
Stuttaford, R.
Van Heerden, G. C.
Tellers: Heatlie, C. B. ; Nathan, Emile.
Amendment accordingly agreed to.
Amendment proposed by select committee in sub-section (11), put and negatived.
I move—
I regret I cannot accept that amendment, as another one lower in the clause has already been disposed of. I allowed the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé), with leave of the committee, to put his, because, in his case, there had been a misunderstanding. The hon. member for Pietersburg had given notice of his amendment.
I was waiting for the amendment to be put.
The amendment moved by the Minister to sub-section (11) was carried. The hon. member will have to move his amendment at the report stage after giving notice.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 13,
On amendment proposed by select committee in sub-section (2).
I move, as an amendment to this amendment—
This merely provides that, not only the central board will decide about the removal of members, but also the rest of the members. The rest of the members must also have a say whether the retiring members shall have their obligations cancelled. Accordingly, members will only be allowed to retire with the permission of the central board and the other members.
The amendment is perfectly correct, but the mover ought to put in “with the written consent.” I move—
It is easy to prove a thing when it is in writing.
I must point out to the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) is an amendment to the amendment of the select committee. I cannot take an amendment to the last amendment. That would form too far a stage. Possibly the hon. member for Pietersburg may incorporate in his amendment what the hon. member for Von Brandis suggests.
altered his amendment—
Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 14,
I move In line 22, to omit “two” and to substitute “five.”
I think the period here is quite too short. The Bill is intended to assist the farmers, but I am afraid that if it remains as it is it will not assist the farmers very much. It will assist a certain class, such as farmers who have had a good harvest or a good clip, and who then apply for a loan, but there is a class of farmer who wants to use the money to buy stock or machinery. If, however, he is required to repay the money within two years, he will be obliged to sell his assets to be able to repay the money. That class of man also should be assisted. It will be much easier for him if he can repay the amount after five years, or in instalments spread over five years. Then he will know how much he has to pay every time and every year the amount gets less. Moreover, the security remains the same, and the Land Bank need not be nervous about taking a greater risk. I hope the Minister will accept my amendment because it will be a great help to that class of farmer.
I cannot accept the amendment The whole object of the Bill is to give short currency loans, and it will be impossible to lend a man money for five years. In this case the loans are granted for a long enough time to enable the borrower to sell his produce.
Amendment put and negatived.
Clause, as amended by select committee, put and agreed to.
On Clause 16,
On amendment proposed by select committee in sub-section (3).
I move, as an amendment to this amendment—
I want to point out that the usual agreement between the bywoner and the owner of a farm is, in 90 per cent, of cases, not in writing, and because this clause will not be applicable if the agreement is not in writing, I propose to delete that word.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 18,
I move—
My reason for moving the deletion of these words is that we are here dealing with loans to individual farmers, which means that they will be loans which will be made in any ordinary business way, that is, 60 per cent. of the market value of the produce. The money of the State is not being put to any special risk in any way whatsoever. It is really an ordinary commercial transaction. Under those circumstances I cannot see why the Land Bank should require or should be given, by this House, these very special facilities that do not appertain to anyone else making similar loans. The Land Bank is to be given a privilege that no commercial bank and no ordinary person making advances would have, and I do not see why this special privilege should be given to the Land Bank in conducting what is an ordinary commercial transaction at ordinary commercial rates.
As I pointed out when the Bill was introduced, we are introducing here a new principle, viz., the security against warehouse receipts. This is frankly an experiment. We propose to limit it to those companies to be established under this Bill, because they are going to perform functions under this Bill which your ordinary commercial banks do not perform. Sooner or later we shall probably find it necessary to introduce a Warehouse Act of general application. I think it will be found necessary to give that power to the ordinary commercial banks when such an Act is ultimately introduced. In the meantime we do not propose to extend it so far, because these rights are merely to be given to your loan companies. We think they should have these powers, which would have to be given if a general warehouse act were introduced later on. In these circumstances I regret I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member. These powers will be absolutely necessary in the case of loan companies granting loans on security of this nature.
Amendment put and negatived.
Clause, as amended by select committee, put and agreed to.
On Clause 19,
I move—
Agreed to.
Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
On Clause 24,
I move—
This means that a majority will have to be found in favour of the liquidation. As it stands, a minority of members might decide on the liquidation.
Amendment put and agreed to.
; Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
Remaining clauses, schedules and title put and agreed to.
House Resumed :
Bill reported with amendments ; to be considered on 7th May.
Second Order read: House to go into Committee of Ways and Means on proposed Customs Duties and Income Tax.
House in Committee :
I move—
Tariff Item. |
Article |
Present Duty. |
Proposed Duty. |
Increase. |
||
Min. |
Max. |
Min. |
Max. |
|||
2 (b) |
Yeast ad val. |
20% |
20% |
2d per lb. |
2d per lb. |
The difference between 20% ad val. and 3d. per lb |
15 (a) |
Wheat— |
|||||
(i) in the grain per 100 lbs. |
1s. 0d |
ls.2d |
ls.5d |
ls.7d |
5d |
|
(ii) ground, or otherwise prepared per 100 lbs. |
2s.11d |
3s.3d |
3s.4d |
3s.8d |
5d |
|
15(b) |
Barley, buckwheat, kaffir corn, millet, oats and rye— |
|||||
(ii) malted per 100 lbs. |
2s.9d |
3s.0d |
3s.0d |
4s.0d |
3d.min., ls, max. |
|
29 |
Macaroni, spaghetti and vermicelli ad val. |
20% |
20% |
20% |
30% |
10% in the max. rate. |
43 |
Sugar |
|||||
(a)Candy, loaf, castor, icing and cube sugar per 100 lbs. |
6s. 0d. |
6s. 0d. |
6s. 0d. |
6s. 0d. plus suspended duty of 3s.6d. | Suspended duty of 3s.6d. |
|
(b)Other kinds of sugar, including golden and maple syrup, molasses, saccharum, glucose and treacle per 100 lbs. |
3s. 6d. |
4s. 6d. |
4s. 6d. |
4s. 6d. plus suspended duty of 3s.6d. | ls. min., and Suspended duty od 3s.6d. |
|
50(a) |
Perfumed spirits per imp.gal |
39s.0d(and in addition, 25% ad val.) |
39s.0d |
50s.0d(and in addition, 25% ad val.) |
50s.0d |
11s.0d |
50(c) |
Potable spirits exceeding 3% of proof spirit (other than liqueurs, cordials and mixed spirits) per imp. proof gal. (No allowance will be made for underproof in excess of 15%.) |
37s.6d. |
37s.6d. |
45s.0d. |
45s.0d. |
7s.6d |
50(A) |
Toilet preparation(liquid)containing over 3% of proof spirit per imp.gal |
38s.6d. (or 25% ad val.., which ever duty shall be the greater). |
38s.6d. |
8s.6d. (or 40% ad val.., which ever duty shall be the greater). |
38s.6d. |
15% where duty is levied on an ad val. basis |
65(b) |
Clothing, ready-made: New coats, vests and trousers for men and boys (not including infants and not including oilskin) ad val. |
15% plus a suspended duty of 10% |
15% |
20% |
20% |
5% |
69 |
Hats, ladies', trimmed (linings, bands and borders shall not constitute trimming) ad val. |
15% |
20% |
30% |
30% |
15% min., 10% max. |
76 |
Cotton piece goods, the f.o.b. price of which exceeds 1s. 3d. per yard ad val. |
12% |
12% |
12½ |
12½ |
1% |
89 |
Buckets, skips, trucks, and tubs, wheeled or otherwise, for haulage or propulsion (except by locomotives) on rails or wires; and metal shaft sets ad val. |
Free |
5% |
Free plus suspended duty of 15% |
5% |
suspended duty of 15% |
96 |
Chimneys: metal (smoke stacks) ad val. |
Free |
3% |
20% |
20% |
17% max. 20% min |
102 |
Enamelled lamp-shades and reflectors ad val. |
Free |
5% |
Free plus suspended duty of 20% |
5% |
suspended duty of 20% |
Enamelware, n.e.e. ad val. |
15% |
20% |
15% suspended duty of 10% |
20 |
suspended duty of 10% |
|
103 |
Spare parts of engines and motors for fishing and whaling boats and mercantile marine purpose, and of trawl and whaling winches ad val. |
Free |
Free |
20% |
20% |
20% |
108(e) |
Barrels for miniature rifles, and for single-barrelled shot guns of a calibre not exceeding.420 ad val. |
20 |
20 |
15s.0d each. |
15s.0d each. |
The difference between 20% ad val. and 15s. each |
116 |
Miners' hand and bucket lamps, acetylene ad val. |
20% |
20% |
ls. 6d. each of 25% which ever duty shall be the greater. |
ls. 6d. each of 25% |
5% or the difference between ls.6d.each and 20% ad val. |
Lamp shaders and reflectors electric (not enamelled) ad val..) |
Free |
Free |
5% |
20% |
20% |
20% min. 15% max. |
118 |
Structural steelwork for the staging and platforms of industrial machinery ad val. |
Free |
3% |
20% |
20% |
20% min. 17% max. |
Rock drill spares, and metal liners for tube mills ad val. |
Free |
3% |
17% |
20% |
17% |
|
Plates and frames for sugar filter presses ad val |
Free |
3% |
17% |
20% |
17% |
|
119(a) |
Machinery for the conversion and transformation of electric power ad val. |
Free |
3% |
Free |
5% |
2% |
(b) |
Batteries, electrical, wet or dry, primary or secondary, including accumulators: (for wireless) ad val. |
Free |
3% |
10% plus a suspended duty of 15% |
15% |
12% for wireless: 10% for other purpose 10% for other purpose, except for motor vehicles, and the suspended duty of 15% ad val. |
120 |
Precious metals (other than bullion): in rods, bars, blocks, ingots and pigs and scrap. |
Free |
Free |
20% |
20% |
20% |
127 |
Metal sheets, metal badges, metal name or number plates, and similar articles: enamelled ad val |
20% |
20% |
30% |
30% |
10% |
129 |
Motor-car chassis (not including rubber tyres and tubes) imported for bodies to be constructed in the union from panels, stampings and structural parts, of metal, shaped but otherwise in the rough, from metal fitting, and from other materials not fashioned or cut to shape ad val. |
10% |
10% |
15% |
15% |
Chassis for bodies to be built in the union were dutiables at 10% ad val., but for bodies, to be assembled in the Union were rated at 20% |
130 |
Steam wagons Steam wagon chassis, for bodies to be built in the Union ad val. |
Free |
Free |
10% |
10% |
10% |
134(a) |
Wrought iron or steel pipes and tubes, rivetted per 100 lbs. |
Free |
1s. ad val. |
15% |
20% |
Difference between ad val.. and rates duties. |
138 |
Railway construction and equipment requisites: |
Free |
3% |
17% |
20% |
17% |
148 |
Railway construction and equipment requisites: |
Free |
3% |
17% |
20% |
17% |
167 |
Earthenware and stoneware n.e.e. ad val. |
20% |
20% |
20% plus duty 10% |
20% suspended ad val. 10% |
Suspended duty of 10%. |
172 |
Glassware, chinaware and porcelainware, n.e.e. ad val. |
20% |
20% |
20% plus duty 10% |
20% suspended ad val. 10% |
Suspended duty of 10%. |
181 |
Pipes, piping and tubes of earthenware, for drainage, irrigation, sewerage, water supply or water pumping, ad val. |
5% |
5% |
25% |
25% |
20% |
186 |
Tiles, n.e.e.ad val. |
20% |
20% |
25% |
25% |
5% |
214 |
Aluminna-ferrie and aluminium sulphate in bulk ad val. |
Free |
Free |
20% |
20% |
20% |
235 |
Pastes and powders containing not less than 30 per cent, of water-soluble phosphoric oxide, in the dry substance, for use in clarifying sugar juice, in bulk ad val. |
Free |
3% |
20% |
20% |
20% min. |
244(a) |
Sodium carbonate, including soda crystals (washing sods) per 100 lbs. |
1s.6d. |
2s.0d. |
2s.0d |
3s.6d |
6d. min. |
249 |
Tooth powders, tooth pastes and tooth washes containing not more than 3 per cent. of proof spirit ad val. |
20% |
25% |
20% plus a suspended duty of 15% |
25% |
suspended duty of 15% |
264 |
Brushes and brooms and wooden handle therefor: Brushes (other than carpet brushes, paint brushes, and brushware for toilet use n.e.e.) ad val. |
15% plus a suspended duty of 10% |
15% |
|||
282 |
Bags, paper, not printed per lb. |
1¼d. |
1¼d. |
1½d. |
1½d. |
¼d. |
296 |
Pocket books ad val. |
25% |
25% |
30% |
40% |
15%, or difference between 25% ad val. and rated duty. |
(h) |
(i)All advertising samples (not being spirits or tobacco in any from) issued gratis or intended for distribution gratis as advertising matter |
Admitted free as of no mercial value, or as the rated duty applicable to the particular article. |
30% or per lb. 0 0 4 whichever duty shall be the greater. ad val |
40% or per lb. 0 0 6 |
The rated duty of 6d. per lb., or its excess over the present duties |
|
(ii)Catalogues and price lists of firms or persons having no established place of business in the Union and no permanent agent holding stocks in South Africa, except if posted to merchants, manufactures or public libraries and similar institutions |
Free |
Free |
30% or per lb. 4d. whichever duty shall be the greater. |
40% |
40% or 6d. per lb. |
|
318 |
Felt, rubberoid and similar substances for building purposes, not in rolls ad val. |
Free. |
Free. |
20% |
20% |
20% |
I suggest to my hon. friend that he should take these items seriatim. You would get through them more quickly.
All right.
I move—
Agreed to.
Item 2 (b), put and agreed to.
On item 15 (a),
When I spoke on this matter during the budget debate I made it clear that the Minister had definitely said in his budget speech that he was taking off the dumping duty on imported Australian flour. He added that the dumping duty works out at 7d. per 100 lbs. and that was the protection which the farmers had had. Instead of the dumping duty the Minister said he was now going to place a tax of 5d. per 100 lbs. on imported flour and another 5d. on wheat. I then naturally took up the standpoint that apparently it would be a reduction in the protection to the farmers and the Minister admitted that. The chief competition South African farmers have to meet is imported flour, and the price of flour often influences the price that the buyer has to pay for wheat in South Africa. The Minister then intervened and said that he did not wish to have any misunderstanding, but that the dumping duty would remain and an appropriate provision would be included in the Bill. The Minister did not treat me fairly and asked me why I had not looked at the report which had been laid on the Table, the report of the Board of Trade and Industries in which this was suggested. I accept that the Minister did not know it, but at that time the report was not yet on the Table. I do not know whether it is there now.
I just want to tell the hon. member that it was not I but the Minister of Railways and Harbours who made that remark to the hon. member.
I was under the impression that it was the Minister of Finance. I wish to tell the Minister that the wheat farmers and dealers of South Africa do not look at reports laid on the Table, but that they want clarity in the speech of the Minister when he introduces his budget. Undoubtedly the feeling of the country was that the farmer would get less protection, unless the dumping duty were to be continued. On this point the Minister was also clear because he said that the cost of living would not be raised, nor the cost of flour. The Minister then said that he intended introducing a Bill which would deal with a special dumping tax. He said that when we went into committee. I should like to know from the Minister what he means by a special dumping duty. I think that there is only one kind of dumping duty and I should therefore like to know what protection the grain farmers will actually get, because if they do not get the dumping duty but only 5d. extra protection instead of the dumping duty, then the protection is less than before, when according to the Minister himself the dumping duty meant a protection of 7d. Before I vote on this matter I should like to know precisely what the position is and what sort of dumping duty he is going to put on under the Bill which he proposes introducing. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) attacked me in my absence for speaking on behalf of the wheat farmers, but I say that I have the right to do so although the hon. member disputes it. I did not come here to silently adopt every proposal made by the Government, but to look after the interests of the wheat farmers, and where in my opinion there is a doubt about the protection they are getting, it is my painful duty to do something on their behalf. The hon. member for Piquetberg took it amiss of me, and he is concerned about my position in my constituency. He warns me that if I do not vote for his proposal I shall not come back to Parliament again. I just want to say that the hon. member need not concern himself about the position at Caledon. The Caledon division has always been able, and so have the wheat farmers there, to look after their own interests, but I want to tell the hon. member that he must stop sleeping under one blanket with a Labour member, a thing quite inconsistent with his position and the interests of the wheat farmers. He should only consider his own position in the future. It seems to me the political position in Caledon is getting stronger every year, but in Piquetberg that does not appear to be the case, if we look at the result of the last election. Be this as it may, I will just say that I should like to have a clear statement by the Minister as to what kind of dumping duty he is going to impose instead of that which is being abolished. I shall be quite satisfied with the proposal of the Minister with a proper dumping duty added to the tax he proposes. I hope the Minister will tell us the nature of the proposed dumping.
I am glad to have heard from the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) that he will be satisfied if we give more protection and support to the wheat farmer. Apparently he is the only member in the House that does not know whether there is going to be any protection. It seems as if he is still in the dark about the proposal. The hon. member talks about the dumping duty on flour, but he did not say a word about the increased duty on wheat. The import duty on flour is raised by 5d. per 100 lbs. and although last year a little dumping took place, that is not occurring at the moment. The import duty on wheat has also been raised by 5d. per 100 lbs.
It is the import duty on flour which affects the price in South Africa, and not that on wheat.
I differ from the hon. member if he says that the price of Australian wheat has no influence on the price of South African wheat. It is true that the price of wheat is influenced by that of flour, but the price of Australian wheat very materially influences the price of South African wheat. The position of the farmers is endlessly improved by the protection on wheat. As for flour, the hon. member says that I have not given all the particulars in my budget speech. Of course it is impossible to go into all the minute details in the budget speech. The hon. member knows that a Bill will be introduced which will contain the proposals. I indicated that immediately and I am sorry to see that the hon. member does not know whether it means better protection for the farmers or not. I will immediately explain the position. When the Bill is laid on the Table the position will be made public, but the hon. member wants to know it now. I said in my budget speech that an increase in the import duty on flour would be put in the place of the present dumping duty. I told the hon. member what the present dumping duty was. We added to the import duty on flour the average amount which is paid at present in dumping duty. Up to the present it has been 7d. per 100 lbs. on the imports from Australia, but these are only 80 per cent. of the total imports. To get, therefore, an average amount we had to put the increase of the import duty at 5d. That amount is not only calculated on the Australian imports, but on our total imports, including Canada. What we now propose is: So long as the dumping duty does not exceed the present tax the ad valorem duty will be imposed, but as soon as the tax is under 1s. 7d. per 100 lbs. then the amount of the dumping duty will be added to the ordinary import duty. I hope the hon. member follows. The Bill will make provision that as soon as the Board of Trade and Industries finds that there is dumping to a great extent than there is at present added to the ad valorem tax, then the dumping provisions of the Act will be applied.
The old dumping duty gave 7d. per 100 lbs. protection, and the protection is now 5d.
It is 5d. on the total imports. It was only 7d. on a portion of the imports. If we do not do this the farmers cannot get the other 5d. The hon. member will see why. We cannot say that we impose a certain duty on Australian flour and a certain duty on Canadian. The amount should be made the same for both. Thus the increase of tax is 5d. per 100 lbs. on the whole imports. There is a part on which no dumping duty is imposed for which provision is made in the Bill.
As a result of this increased protection to wheat in South Africa, the Australian Government have gone and put up the duty on our mealies.
No, they proposed it long before they knew of our proposals.
I have a telegram here from Sydney to a firm in Cape Town which says that the Government there intends abrogating the existing treaty and that after June 30th the tariff will be increased to 3s. 6d. per 100 lbs. That means that instead of 2s. a bag it will be 7s. a bag.
We were informed by the Government of Australia in regard to the abrogation of the treaty long before our proposals. It was not as a result of our proposals. They proposed that before the introduction of the budget.
What does he mean by “dumping ”? As a matter of fact nobody ever dumps flour or wheat. There is too great a demand for it. What may take place is that at the beginning of a season—the harvesting time—wheat may be lower than usual. Contracts are then placed by millers here, in Australia, for a supply of wheat to be, perhaps, shipped at various times later on. Perhaps at the time of shipping, wheat may have gone up, and wheat comes in below the current price of Australia, and that is called dumping. You do not allow the man to get the advantage of his ordinary business precautions. I do not believe that there is any such thing as dumping of wheat and flour. Who is going to give it away. No business man would entertain the idea of selling flour below the ordinary market price, or wheat either.
The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said, in a scoffing manner, that I am a bed-fellow of the Reds. Well, I would prefer to be a bed-fellow of the Reds to being a bed-fellow of the Pondos and other natives, the special proteges of the hon. member. I prefer also to be a bed-fellow of the Reds to being a bed-fellow of the hon. member’s friends behind him, the members who prefer to fight than to help the grain farmer. I prefer to be a bed-fellow of the Reds than of the hon. member when he quarrels with the Minister of Finance over the additional protection which the Minister wants to accord to grain farmers. The attitude of the Reds in this respect stands out in a favourable light as compared with his. In the speeches of the hon. members for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) and Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), the Labour party in this House openly acknowledge that the Government has accorded the grain farmer further protection, and they approve, whilst the hon. member asserts that protection has been reduced.
I must first see what the Bill provides.
The hon. member knows what the Bill provides, because the Minister made that clear.
Not in his budget speech.
Then at least in his reply on the debate.
After that I did not speak again.
The hon. member did so to-day. And he interrupted the Minister during his reply. And then, too, he made it appear as if the proposals as to wheat and flour would not assist the farmer. Why does he try to throw dust in the people’s eyes? He talks to-day as if he does not know what the effect of the proposals is going to be. How, then, do the farmers themselves know? How do the merchants know? Immediately after the Minister’s announcement of these proposals, the price of wheat rose appreciably, not only in the districts of Piquetburg and Malmesbury, but also in Caledon. One need not be a prophet to declare what the effect will be. The effect is already obvious. You have the facts before you. Is Mr. Krige the only one living in the dark in regard to this matter? If so, is it due to ignorance? I think not. I fear it is merely dislike for the Nationalist party. Farmers’ interests count less with him than does his hatred for that party. If he wants to be just, he ought to praise the Minister for daring to do what the previous Government always avoided.
The previous Government raised the duty by 9d.
On flour, yes, but not on wheat. The increased import duty on wheat now proposed by the Minister represents an extra 30 per cent. Is not that something for which to be thankful? Unfortunately, the hon. member is so blind in his condemnation of the Nationalist party, that he will not thank them for anything. Yet he will not dare to vote against the Minister’s proposals, because the farmers know what those proposals mean to them, and, in that event, the hon. member would not smell Parliament again.
Business suspended at 6 p.m, and resumed at 8.5 p.m.
I just want to say a few words in reference to the duty on wheat and flour. I would like to ask the Minister what justification there is for putting on this duty. The price of wheat is considerably higher than it was a few years ago. It appears that the position is such that the Minister thinks the time has arrived to take off the dumping duty, and, therefore, he has taken off that dumping duty and made it appear as an act of grace, while at the same time he has put on a permanent duty. This is simply adding to the burdens of the people. Does the Minister know what this duty on breadstuffs costs the country? Let me tell him, as far as I can make out. According to a return that I have in my hand, the production of wheat in this country is at least 2,000,000 bags. The minimum duty on wheat has been 1s. per 100 lbs. I presume most of the imported wheat comes from Australia, which gets the lower duty. The amount of duty on this wheat was about £171,000, and on flour £124,000, taking in each case the minimum duty. The production in this country, as I said, is 2,000,000 bags. That production would be sold at the price that they could get plus the duty, so that the total extra cost through these duties to the people of this country on their breadstuffs has been £495,000. That is the burden put upon the people—£295,000 duty on imported wheat and flour, and £200,000 paid on the South African grown commodity, which never goes to the Treasury at all. That is on the basis of the lowest possible duties, 1s. and 2s. 11d. in each case. It is totally uncalled for, to my mind, with the cost of living going up, that we should have this increase. As was pointed out quite frankly by the Agricultural Department, the production of wheat in this country is not good. The production per acre is probably smaller than in Australia. Agriculture in that particular branch is not satisfactory. If those concerned would devote more attention to producing more per acre or per morgen, there would be a better return, but here we are simply encouraging them to carry on their slipshod methods of production by increasing the duty.
Why “slipshod methods”?
I call them slipshod because, according to the blue book I have in my hand—
It is not fair to the people of this country who have got to eat bread that the Government should come down and increase these duties before they have done their best to improve their methods of production.
And you don’t think they have done their best?
No, I don’t, not by a long way.
What do you know about it?
It is clear that you can increase your production. It is admitted that the production per morgen is not satisfactory, and can be improved. During the past three years, the price of wheat has gone up from 23s. to 26s. 6d., so that the farmers are getting a very good price to-day.
I shall be very brief, but I would only like to say that in connection with this matter, it would be preferable if the Minister saw his way to protect the wheat industry by bounty rather than by import duty. I feel very strongly that a bounty would be far more satisfactory for many reasons. I think it would help the farmer. We should do everything we possibly can to make this country independent of imported wheat, and if we have the bounty system, the farmer who gets the best results will receive the highest bounty. I believe that an import duty on the necessary food of the people is a thing which you should, as far as possible, avoid. I believe that a bounty would be preferable to the farmer, preferable to the people who consume wheat and flour, and I also think that it is preferable to have a bounty, because it would clearly show the indirect taxation which is being thrown on to the people by the taxation on wheat, I would suggest that the Minister should carefully consider whether it would not be preferable to put on a bounty. The country would know whether it is true that the burden thrown on the people of the country is just the amount collected in customs duties, or whether the customs duties have other effects.
The arguments used by hon. members opposite in connection with this duty are, to my mind, strange. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) says the people pay too heavy a duty. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) says the farmers do not get as much as they did when the dumping duty existed, and the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), the diamond king, talks of a bonus. Hon. members opposite do not know what they want. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) also said that the farmers got more because of the dumping duty. I can understand the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). Nothing other than that in which he has an interest should be taxed. That is understandable. Every merchant wants to import as cheaply as possible in order to make the greatest possible profit. I will give the committee a few figures to show the amazing tax which the consumer must pay. On a previous occasion I said that the annual consumption of wheat in this country is 3,600,000 bags, and the production about 2,400,000 bags, which means that the country imports 1,200,000 bags, upon which a duty of 10d. has to be paid. If we reckon that there are 2,000,000 consumers of wheat, it means that each person consumes 1¾ bags per year. This means that the additional tax payable by each person is about 1s. 6d. per year, or 1½d. per month. We continually hear about the protection of our industries. Only about £10,000,000 has been put into buildings connected with the wheat industry, not reckoning all the money invested in the farms of the producers. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) does not want this industry to be protected. Two years ago, phosphate factories were protected, but the present Government withdrew this protection and I congratulate the Government on this, because the factory which we have in this country is a bastard one with its foundation overseas. Not one hon. member spoke of that. I have not heard that they congratulated the Government, although it was a heavy tax on the people. Phosphates are absolutely essential in our country, and the factory of to-day is not in a position to provide for the whole people. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said that wheat was 26s. per bag, but that the producer did not get 26s. per bag this year— only 23s. I want to make if clear to him that now that all the wheat is in the hands of the non-producer, it is said that the price is 26s. per bag, but the farmer got only 23s. I also assure him that if he would look into the matter a little more closely, he would see that the producers in South Africa got 6d. and 1s. less than the market price of imported wheat.
What about the maize industry? It manages to carry on, and have a large market overseas.
I said on a previous occasion that the consumer pays about 7d. for a 2-lb. loaf and that, from one bag of wheat, 240 lbs. of flour are produced. Thus, while the consumer pays about 70s., the price to the miller is about 35s. If the committee will only go into the matter, they will come to the conclusion that assistance must be given to producer as well as to consumer.
What hon. members do not understand is that whether it is right or wrong, without a customs duty you will not grow any wheat in this country of any sort whatsoever. Anybody who knows the conditions of wheat-growing in Canada or Australia knows that they have a far better wheat-growing country than we have, and that without some protection it is utterly impossible to compete with those countries in the production of wheat. It is a matter for Parliament and for the country to decide whether they consider that the growing of as large a quantity of wheat as possible, as one of the most important foodstuffs, is essential or is not essential. I thought the war showed us that if there was one thing more necessary than another it was that every country should do its best legitimately to grow its own food supply to prevent it being cut off in a period of national calamity. The duty upon wheat at the present day is lower than it was five or six years ago, because what people have not taken into consideration is that for years and years the question of the preferential railway rate upon agricultural produce and grain was discussed, and it was always stated that it would be much better to take off the preferential railway rate and to avoid disturbing the existing protection on wheat by adding what would be the equivalent to the rate to the import duty upon wheat. The rate was taken off and now I think they all travel at the same rate. I was always opposed to that, because I think the great wheat growing area of the Union is the Western Province. The difficulty in dealing with the pre ferential railway rate is this, that while imported wheat, going to the Transvaal and stations east of Johannesburg has only to travel 100 miles, wheat grown in this province has to go over 1,000 miles before it can compete in the same market. Wheat growing in Australia and Canada is much more lucrative than it is here. I am not going into the question of whether that is due to the fact that they carry out their operations in a more scientific manner than we do, but we do require a great improvement in the manner in which we carry out our agricultural operations so far as the production of cereals is concerned. I have seen in some of the Australian farms that one man manipulates implements to which are attached 12 horses, while in this country you often see a two-furrow plough with two or three people in charge of it. There is no doubt a great improvement has taken place in the last few years. There is one thing in the report of the Board of Trade in connection with wheat culture which, I hope, the Minister will take into consideration, and that is the establishment of experimental stations in the Western Province where new and scientific methods can be adopted. If hon. members will realize the enormous development that has taken place in Australia in the last 15 or 20 years by scientific methods of fallowing and treating their ground, they will appreciate that they have increased their production by over 50 per cent. I believe that, by scientific methods in the Western Province, we can increase our production a great deal more also, but I believe we are advancing. I believe this country can support itself in growing wheat. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has gone into it or not. Whenever you increase the duty on an article like wheat, I hope the advisers of my hon. friend will go into the question and see that the duty will encourage the importation of the wheat berry and not the wheat flour, because if there is one thing more than another that leads to the dumping of flour, it is the fact that the Australian people have their wheat berry milled there. Wheat is to a certain extent, a controlled article. They have a wheat pool in Australia, and there is no doubt that the object of that pool is to keep the home price larger than the export price. One thing is certain, that you cannot grow wheat in this country if you have an open port. I do not believe any farmer will go in for the growing of wheat under those circumstances. As the burden is not so great, and as it is essential to do all you can to supply the food of your people, then I think my hon. friend has not made a great mistake in connection with the alteration of the duties on this article, because it does not really make up for the preferential rate which was a great incentive to wheat production in the past. There are different schemes of protection. I believe in legitimately protecting especially the primary industries of this country which, by that protection, you can build up and largely encourage.
I am sure the Minister and the members of the Pact will be gratified at the support from the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). It shows that, in these matters, party questions do not really affect the issue. I and those on these cross-benches have already stated that we are just as anxious to protect the farmer as any one in this House, but we desire to protect him in such a manner that whilst he should get the advantages of that protection the consumer should not be unnecessarily prejudiced. Under the present proposals, the farmer will not get the necessary protection, and the public is likely to be very considerably mulcted. I want to put this seriously to the Minister—and I hope the day will come when he will have an open mind on this question-that, in the interests of the farmer, it would be much better, instead of imposing these tariffs by means of either giving him a bounty in respect of the wheat he has grown, or alternatively, and much more effectively, by definitely guaranteeing him a price for the wheat he has grown in the country. Under the tariff proposals, as they stand to-day, I submit he will be entirely at the mercy of the flour milling companies of South Africa. The South African farmer cannot export, and is dependent on the flour mills of this country for his market. It depends entirely on the price the millers are prepared to pay, whether the farmers benefit under this tariff or not. If the farmer produces more he has no guarantee that he will benefit. Ex-Governor Frank O. Lawden, of the United States, recently stated that the farmer is not nearly so likely to suffer from a short crop as from a bumper crop. In 1924, owing to a bad season, the farmers there had a crop 20 per cent. less than in 1923, and yet they made 350,000,000 dollars more in profit. The only chance of getting a decent price is to have a restricted output. The only way to avoid that is to guarantee a fixed price below which the millers should not pay, and if that is done the farmer would get an incentive to increased crops. That has been the experience of Great Britain during the war period, as well as other countries.
Is it a minimum price you suggest?
Yes, a guaranteed minimum price. I ask the Minister seriously to consider that because, under that proposal, if he accompanies that policy, by controlling the flour mills and saying you can only import the extra wheat flour that is required, under licence, conditional on your selling flour to the bakers at a fixed price, the bakers in turn being obliged to sell bread at a fixed price, so as to protect the consumer, you will not only benefit the farmer, but also the consumer.
The next thing you want is a minimum wage on the farms.
By adopting this policy you will encourage production, and you will not mulct the consumers as they are bound to be, under the proposals before the House. We are at one with the Minister in desiring to foster industry, but when you do so you should not say that this is the only way to do it, and there is no other way, because the Board of Trade has recommended it. In the light of experience elsewhere, you should be able to devise a method of fostering industry in this country without harming the consumers.
Judging by the speeches from hon. members opposite, we have had this afternoon many experts on farming, but this is the first time we have discovered them in this House. I wonder where they were in 1920, when the farmers had to be protected. At that time the export of mealies was stopped by the South African Party Government, and £3,000,000 damage was done to the mealie farmers. Where were hon. members opposite then, with their protection for farmers? The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is deeply concerned about the farmers to-night, but where was he then? The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) when Minister of Railways reduced the tariff for the transport of imported wheat on the railway, and that was a shock for our wheat farmers. The member who surprises me most is the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) the diamond king, who makes clear how farmers are taxed through the import duties. He is sorry for the farmer, but we as farmers know all about this sorrow—we have had experience of it, and we no longer believe that it will help us than it did in the past. We are thankful for the Government which we have to-day, and so is the whole population. But now hon. members opposite want to dictate to the Government. They were fourteen years in power and they didn’t help us farmers, as the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) knows as well as I do. I am a practical farmer who suffered loss through the actions of the previous Government because protection was not given. Now we have a Government which will do something for the farmers and protect the wheat farmers, so that they will not be plunged into the sad position in which the mealie farmers were in 1920. We as practical farmers know what protection the increased import duty on wheat and flour will give the wheat farmer. We know how things are with him, and what the production is per bag. We do not juggle with figures, as does the hon. member for Kimberley. We know from our own experience what we pay and what the production costs us. The hon. member—the diamond king—is naturally the new leader of the South African party on agricultural matters. If he talks about diamonds and shares, then I listen to him with attention, because he knows something about those things, but when he talks about agricultural matters then I believe nothing that he says. I expect practical farmers to rise and talk about such matters. The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Bergh) is a representative of the farmers, and hon. members have heard what he said. I believe him, and not the hon. member for Kimberley. I believe the latter if he talks about diamonds and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) if he talks about commerce, but I do not believe either when they talk about farming. We farmers are ready to support the Government, even if we must pay more for what we buy, because we expect that the industries in South Africa are going to be built up and that our descendants will reap the benefit. We are willing to pay £1 more for a plough, if industries in this country are fostered by a protection policy. If hon. members opposite want to protect the farmers, we will bear this in mind in the future when we need their help. They talk about protection when we do not need their help, but when we do need it they remain in the background and we stand alone. I hope the Government will proceed with its protection policy and so help the farmers.
In his big speech, the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. A. I. E. de Villiers) wants, like a schoolmaster, to teach us a lesson about farming. I have not yet spoken a word about protection because I am in its favour. The hon. member thanked the Minister for kindness shown to farmers, but he must know that some of us in this House are also representatives of the consumers. I do not say that the wheat industry should not be protected. But we must also take into account the people who have to buy bread, and the hon. member must understand that this must not be made too dear. The hon. member said that the farmers do not mind paying more for their agricultural implements. But the hon. member will find that the Loan Board will make agricultural necessities much dearer. We cannot obtain proper protection unless the labour is regulated. The Government may try to increase the import duties, but if manufacturers are not placed in a position to work the factories as cheaply as possible—
Do you think it proper that a woman should obtain only 2s. 9d. for making twelve shirts?
It is no use the hon. member jumping about like that. He would like to see factories in the country, but if the factories are not properly protected so far as concerns the wages which they must pay—
The hon. member must confine himself to the item in question.
I will confine myself to the protection for which the hon. member for Witbank thanked the Government so much. I want to allow him to think over the matter because we will experience in the future what it means if there is not a proper class of person in the factories who will work for a reasonable wage and not go on strike every day. The greatest protection that we can give the factories is security for the money invested. What is the reason that so many people invest in Government securities to-day?
The hon. member must confine himself to the item.
Talk about wheat.
I know that the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) and hon. members opposite do not want to hear what I have to say, because it hurts them. They talk so much about the fact that the previous Government did nothing for farmers, and the hon. member for Witbank said that we had fourteen years and did nothing. This is the story that is told on the platteland, but the present Government has still to carry out all the promises it made. I favour protection, but the Government must be careful not to go too far, particularly with foodstuffs. I represent a great part of the public that has to buy bread, and protection in this respect cannot go too far. We are not always certain of a good harvest, and if we tax imported wheat too heavily, we will have to import. In the days of the Transvaal Republic, we were glad to get things into the country, and the tax had to be taken off. We must be careful with the import duty, and although we must endeavour to protect the people as far as possible, we must do it in the right way. I do not believe in all this big talk about what is being done now.
I was pleased with the speech of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). I think he is as competent as anyone in his knowledge of the cultivation of wheat in the Western Province. It is a fact that this country cannot compete with other countries unless there is protection. I think that no one would like to see the wheat industry in our country entirely ruined. But without protection, it may happen. I just want to say something in connection with two remarks made by the hon. member for Gape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger.) In the first place, he asked why the Government gave more support to the wheat farmer, and why it did not see that the system of cultivation of wheat was improved. I think it was under the Government of Mr. van Heerden ; it was, in any case, a South African party Government, which made a special attempt to foster the cultivation of wheat. The whole country was covered, lectures were given on the best methods of fertilization and the best methods for ploughing, but it helped nothing. Then the hon. member asks why mealie farmers progress without protection. The answer is that it is a natural product. There are millions of morgen of ground where mealies can be cultivated. In the Free State and the Transvaal mealies can be produced almost everywhere, and they pay. On the other hand, wheat farming in the Transvaal goes backward and does not pay. Wheat farming pays only in the Western Province.
The income from farming in the Free State is larger than in any other province.
I do not deny that. The Free State farmers are progressive and perhaps more prosperous, but they are not prosperous through wheat farming, but through sheep and mealies. Farmers stick to anything that is profitable, whether protected or not. The cultivation of wheat does not pay so well if water has to be brought and furrows made. Still, we must not accept the proposal of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) to take off the duty. We in the northern provinces may perhaps pay more for our wheat, but we do not want this type of farming to come to a standstill. What will Caledon, Malmesbury, etc., do if they cannot cultivate wheat? Those districts are not suited to mealies, and there is no market for oats, because the horse is being replaced by the motor.
The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. A. I. E. de Villiers) raised the time-worn cry of the difference of opinion that exists on this side of the House in regard to the question of protection. These differences are admitted. But this is the only side of the House on which I have ever heard a cry raised for the consumer.
Oh!
I thought that would draw my hon. friends on the left and appeal to their consciences. I ask a few of them to get up in the course of this debate and prove that they speak for the consumer. If they are so tender for the rights of the consumer, are they going to take a stand on this proposal to increase these duties which mean an increase or the stabilization of the price of bread?
Will you move an amendment?
There is such a chorus on my left, that I do not get time to speak. One cannot deal with six different cat-calls from the left ; but I will deal with the interjection from the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn). I always understood that the party which undertook to represent the poor man in this House was the Labour party, and if they are united as a party in standing for the “under dog,” let them take upon themselves the duty of moving an amendment. But they run away. Then the hon. member for Witbank went on to twit the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) and the hon. member who sits in front of me with their lack of knowledge of farming. I am not aware that they claim that knowledge; but they take up the position of the person who has to pay the bill, and the people who pay the bill have a right to ask how that bill has arisen. I see, from the report of the Economic Commission, that the cost of living figures for 1925 showed that on the Rand a family man with £20 a month spent £8 11s. 7d. in food. Of that £8 11s. 7d. it is fair to say that from £2 10s. to £3 would be spent in bread, and there are plenty of men on the Rand to-day who are trying to bring up a family on £20 a month.
No.
The hon. member for Malmesbury, being engaged in bringing up a family on the Rand on £20 a month, knows all about it. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said that the cost of this duty was half a million a year. This was the actual duty collected by the Government, and the extra money paid in consequence of that duty to the farming community totalled half a million ; but that is what the miller pays. By the time it is passed on to the consumer—the family man—it costs the country a million a year. I ask my farming friends in this House not to be impatient of those of us who admit we know nothing about farming, but want a case made out as to why the consumer in South Africa should pay that million pounds a year. We have to pay it, and want to know why—when the wheat is produced at our door, and we have large areas devoted to wheat growing in this country, where the labour is black and the wages paid to white labour are exceedingly low—far lower than are paid to white labour in Australia or Canada ; why, with a benevolent Government and every help, have the consumers of South Africa to pay this tribute of a million pounds to the wheat farmers of South Africa? Is it worth it? Then I want to support what was said by the hon. member for Kimberley, in regard to a bounty. If we have to pay at all, is it not better that this should be done by means of a bounty, instead of this duty? A bounty has this virtue, that we know exactly what the bill is, and we know that we are helping the wheat farmers to the extent of that bounty. The burden is imposed on the State as a whole, and placed on the shoulders of those best able to bear it. The poorer a man is, the greater is the amount of bread he consumes in proportion to the remainder of his diet, and the richer one is, the less bread one eats. Thus, this is a tax paid by the poor man to the wheat farmer. I join issue with the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) when he maintains that the duty is necessary, but we are not debating that point to-night, but whether another turn shall be given to the screw of taxation. We are asked to increase the permanent duty by 5d. per 100 lbs. It sounds very little, but it all mounts up. I believe our bread is as dear as in any other country in the world, and I ask my protectionist and industrialist friends how they are going to build up industries on dear bread. The right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort gave the whole case away when he admitted that the methods of the wheat farmers were not as efficient as they should be. As long as the wheat duties continue, the incentive to increased efficiency will not come into force. The mealie farmers are not protected, and yet they compete in the world’s markets. They are not protected to-day.
The mealie industry was built up on a duty of 2s. a bag.
The duty is virtually not in force to-day, as we import no mealies, and the most successful branch of farming today is probably mealie growing. The Minister of Finance, in his budget speech, conveyed that in increasing the duty he was simultaneously removing the dumping duty.
I said this was to be substituted for the present dumping duty.
There was not one word in the Minister’s budget speech about reimposing the dumping duty, but the plain intimation is there that the dumping duty is to go.
I said the present dumping duty—the duty that was being collected.
If his intention was to take off the duty and reimpo.se another dumping duty, his speech gave no indication of t, and he allowed hon. members, in dealing with the matter, to base their remarks on the speech delivered by him. In the second last day of the budget debate, however, the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) elicited from the Minister that it was his intention to take powers to impose an additional dumping duty. I know it is only an accident that the Minister did not express himself more clearly. The country should know there is going to be a permanent set increase in the taxation on bread, and, should necessity arise, the imposition of a dumping duty. Who is going to pay for that duty? [Time limit.]
I think I am, entitled to take exception to the way in which hon. members have put the case in regard to my remarks in my budget speech. There is absolutely nothing that I said in that speech which is inconsistent with the course we are following. It was impossible to deal with every little point in the budget speech ; there are other proposals which were not contained in the budget speech. The hon. member says this will mean additional taxation. I distinctly stated that the dumping duty would be replaced by an ad valorem duty, and that is going to be the case. How can the hon. member say this will mean an increased burden on the people? The dumping duty on Australian wheat of 7d. per 100 lbs. will be incorporated in the ad valorem duty. If there is dumping to a great extent, a greater dumping duty will be levied. I think the actual addition to the duty will be 5d. per 100 lbs., and the dumping duty will only be resorted to when necessary, and to that extent the consumer will be better off. I pointed out that if there was dumping to a greater extent, the power to apply the dumping duty would remain, and we would reimpose the duty. We spread the duty over all the importations, and the 7d. only relates to the Australian importation, and if you spread it over that, the duty comes to 5d. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has said we are increasing the burdens on the people. What justification is there for that?
I showed it.
We are not increasing the actual taxation on flour.
You are making it impossible to reduce the price of bread.
The dumping duties are actually being paid.
They should be taken off.
That is a different story to saying the price of bread is going up. The hon. member said I was adding to the burdens on the people. What justification is there for that? I never said the price would come down, but you cannot have it both ways. If hon. members are in favour of giving the farmers protection, you must stabilize the price.
You are stabilizing the price of bread.
Yes, we are, and we deliberately do so in order to give protection to the farmer, for that is what the country wants. Suggestions have been made that we should not give protection in this way, but by way of a bounty. We are following what has always been our policy. The question whether it should be done by bounty is not now under discussion. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) suggests that we should fix a minimum price, but he will not be satisfied with a minimum price—he will want a maximum price.
I said: “Subject to controlling imports, and fixing prices.”
The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has said that if we want to grow wheat some sort of protection is necessary, and I think that is the consensus of opinion. We are not increasing the price to the consumer, although we may be preventing a fall in the price of bread, but there is very little possibility of that state of affairs coming to pass. We are so adjusting the difference between the duty paid on wheat and flour as to give additional protection to the farmer which is going to be of very great benefit to him without putting a burden on the consumer. The right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort asked whether we had not increased the importations of flour against wheat. The Board of Trade thinks the margin is still sufficient to make it profitable for the South African miller to continue importing wheat. We retain the old margin between the duty on wheat and flour ; consequently, we will still keep the industry as it will pay it to import wheat rather than flour.
In dealing with this matter, I would certainly prefer to be in the hands of the farmers rather than the importers of this country. By supporting the farmers you are paying an insurance premium on the growing of wheat in South Africa. By this protectionist policy you are creating a position whereby the farmers will be encouraged to grow wheat, which is the main food of the people in this country. Without that you would lay yourselves open to the overproduction of any country being shipped to this country and the lowering of the price of wheat to such an extent that the wheat growers here would have to go out of existence. By carrying out a protectionist policy you are not only protecting the farmers, but you are also protecting the inhabitants of this country, and securing that, if at any future time there is a scarcity of wheat in the world, there will always be a certain amount of wheat grown in this country, and I hope in time to come sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the people. A good deal of point has been made on the opposite benches about the consumer and about the price of food-stuffs being increased. The thing that worries me most of all is not the price of the food of the people. If a loaf of bread costs 3d. and the man who wants it has no money at all, is he not in a worse position than if a loaf of bread costs 6d., and he has 7d. to buy it with? Under a protectionist policy there must be a slight increase in the cost of commodities, but I would like hon. members to picture what would happen if the arguments of my hon. friend, the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) prevailed. My hon. friend uses the argument that you should always buy in the cheapest market. What would happen if we were to import everything we require, because we can purchase it cheaper than we can produce it? It would mean stagnation, unemployment and starvation. While there may be on some items a slight increase, I hold that as regards this particular item there will be no increase in the cost of bread, but even if there were, you are paying an insurance premium for the future well-being of the community by encouraging the growing of the staple food of the people. I consider that this Government, not only by finding work for the people, but by encouraging the farming community to grow the staple food of South Africa, has done a great deal for this country which our descendants will thank us for.
I would like to say a word in reply to my hon. friend, the member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). It appears to me that in discussing this question as to whether there should be a dumping duty or there should not be a dumping duty, we should ask ourselves why there is a dumping duty at all. A dumping duty is imposed on a commodity because it is being sold for consumption abroad at a price which is less than that at which it is sold in the country of production. The dumping duty represents the difference in price. The fact that the Government is translating this dumping duty into an effective tariff is merely placing our own wheat on a par with the price at which wheat is being sold in Australia. It has been proved, as the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has said, that a wheat industry is essential in this country and there is not the slightest doubt that it is essential. My town friends, when they talk about wheat and the production of wheat, should take into account two or three factors. New Zealand produces 31.2 bushels per acre, the United Kingdom 28.8 bushels, Australia 16.1 bushels, Canada 14.4 bushels, and the Union of South Africa 9.9 bushels per acre. The reason why South Africa produces such a small quantity per acre is, not because our farmers are inefficient, or because they desire a small yield. It is entirely owing to climatic causes. We have simply not got the rainfall nor the rich wheat soils. As an instance of how difficult it is to grow wheat against the competition of the rich wheat lands of the world I will quote from America. I have here the Agricultural Year Book of the United States, and the Secretary for Agriculture, in his latest publication, speaking about the production of wheat, refers to the large number of owner-farmers who have had to give up their farms, or who are in financial straits.
That is in a protectionist country.
I thought that would come. That begs the whole question. The reason why these people lost their farms is because the agricultural community is not organized to obtain the price which it should obtain for its produce. My hon. friends on the cross-benches, who proclaim that they are going to have a minimum wage for the people in every industry, lose sight of the fact that they deny the means of existence to the people in their own country who produce the very food that they eat. If the agricultural industry was organized to sell its products as labour is organized to sell its labour, there would be a change in the whole sphere of agriculture. There is another factor in connection with the wheat production of this country which, I think, the House ought to know. In every 133 lbs. of wheat that comes into this country 33 lbs. is offal, for which there is very little sale in this country, while there is a large sale in Australia. My information is that there is a very large market in the dairy business of Australia for the bran and pollard produced, and a comparatively small market here for which we don’t get half the price, and hence the difference in price between the cost of milling here and the cost in Australia. The point is this, after all, that the dumping duty is imposed because they are selling wheat in Australia at the export price plus the dumping duty, and I do not see why we should permit wheat to be landed in this country at a lower price than it is sold in Australia. The price of bread in this country is precisely the same as in Canada, where they are producing the wheat that is coming to this country.
The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) said that if we protect wheat properly, we would not need later on to import, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said that protection came from the side of the Opposition. If protection came from them, then all I can say is that they were in power for years and should have seen that the cultivation of wheat was encouraged. In 1914 or 1915 a commission on dry farming was appointed, and they reported that 1,000,000 bags of wheat could be grown in Namaqualand. The people, however, always sowed small quantities because it cost from 10s. to 12s. to get to the nearest market. The previous Government would not give the people in Namaqualand a railway and advantages, and in short, it would not encourage the cultivation of wheat. The hon. member also said it was his party which showed regard for the interests of the consumer. He forgets, however, that in one year £600,000 was lost as the result of the importation of wheat and flour.
The loss was £800,000.
If the wheat farmer is not encouraged the consumer will not pay what he is paying now, but what other countries demand. If we do not cultivate wheat, bread will become more expensive. The protection given to the wheat farmer to-day is not sufficient. If the wheat industry enjoys protection we will be able to cultivate more and the consumer will get the advantage. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) would have supported the farmers strongly if he had been a farmer, but as his constituents are consumers he does not worry about what is to the advantage of the farmers. If he were to go to his constituents now and say that the wheat farmers must be protected so that the consumers might pay less for their wheat it would be a good thing. If we were dependent on Australia for our wheat, it would not be sold more cheaply here than in Australia but for from 20 to 30 per cent. more. If we need the wheat badly, they will increase the price. If we produce more wheat in this country, the consumer will be saved. We now find that the diamond king (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) is the protector of the farmers, not because he is sorry for them, but he wants the price of phosphates and of wheat to be fixed. He is a great producer of phosphates and he wants phosphates to be protected.
The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has been addressing a lecture to us in which he says that while we want a minimum wage for the worker we do not want to make one for the farmer, but that is precisely what I was suggesting. Just as we favour a minimum wage for the worker, so we favour a minimum wage for the farmer. I have stated he would be better protected and encouraged to produce wheat by means of a guaranteed price instead of being left in the power of the milling companies. I have realized it is difficult to break down the obstinacy of the Minister. Under the proposal that I am submitting to the Minister of giving a guaranteed price to the farmer so that the flour mills would be compelled to take every ounce of wheat grown in this country before taking a single ounce from overseas, the result would be that the farmers would be protected and would get a minimum wage. The farmer would know he had some inducement to continue to grow, because he would not be at the mercy of the flour mills. If that were accompanied by the provision that you are going to control the import of wheat and flour into the country, it would mean that that extra amount of wheat or flour would be sold at a very much reduced price, because there would be no necessity and no incentive to impose a tariff at all. The balance required by the country could come in under licence free from duty. Because we would be benefiting at the expense of people overseas, and we would be able to sell our flour and bread at the minimum price to the consumer of this country. That would save the consumer a considerable amount of money and protect the various sections of the community to a better extent than under the present proposals. I am looking at it from the point of view of the farmer. I may not be an expert on farming ; but, as Dr. Johnson once said, you do not need to be able to make a pudding to judge it. As to the other point which has emerged about the cost of bread going up or not going up, it may be, as I have already admitted on a previous occasion, that the cost of bread will actually not be in excess of the cost to-day, although in that respect I have some doubts, because the moment you increase your duty the millers may manipulate the prices. In any case it must be remembered that the falling price has been checked, and a price higher than existed in 1923, has been established by the Minister’s proposals.
It has been in force for a month.
That is so; but they are business people, and they are not likely to take undue advantage of it until they are quite secure of it for a period. Although the nominal price of bread may not be going up, the consumer no longer has a chance of the price going down so long as this proposal stands.
If you were to ask me my candid opinion of the last speaker’s remarks, I would have to admit that he is deficient in common sense. Hon. members during this debate have, in my opinion, looked upon this duty in the wrong way, or that it is a tax on the consumer. It is an incentive to greater production. Who pays it? Take the case of maize. Before the 1s. per 100 lbs. was imposed South Africa was importing its maize from North America, and the consumer was paying 17s. to £1 per muid. To-day the production has increased to such an enormous extent that during the past year we have exported maize to the extent of six millions sterling, and the consumer is getting this article at a very reasonable rate. Now I hope that the Western Province farmers will rise to the occasion in the same way that the mealie farmers have done. I was recently through that district, and was amazed at the conservative methods followed by the Western Province farmers. It is a reflection on the country that our wheat lands are producing only 9 bushels an acre. We have increased the mealie yield 400 per cent. The wheat farmers in the Western Province are handicapped in one direction, by using mules and equines in traction. The maize farmer, in regard to animal traction, is fortunate in having oxen, and the question of feed is not such a heavy item. Let the Western Province farmers put aside animal traction, and go in for mechanical traction, which is going to solve the problem of cheaper production. Let the Western Province farmers, instead of letting their wheat lands lie fallow one year, and crop them every alternate year, feed them more with fertilizers. There is no doubt about it, that we can produce all the wheat we want in South Africa. The Western Province has an ideal climate for wheat producing. We get our rains in the winter there, and rust is practically unknown. It is shocking to see the puny efforts the wheat farmer is making.
It is quite evident that the hon. member who has just spoken knows nothing about it. In defence of the Western Province farmer, I would invite him to come to my district, especially now, and he will see the energies displayed by the farmers. The hon. member says wheat does not get rust in the Western Province, but that is one of the biggest factors the farmers have to fight, and not only that, but the rains are so irregular. As I said on a previous occasion, I do not begrudge the additional duty given to the farmer ; in fact, it is too little. The position is that the farmer is not getting an equivalent price with Australia. The present price is 12s. 1d. for 100 lbs., and add the import duty, and sundry expenses, makes it 28s. 3d. The farmer is getting only 26s. on his farm. Admittedly, it costs something to bring the wheat from the port. I still submit that the farmer is to the bad to the extent of a shilling. I am convinced that there is no cereal less prolific than wheat. The average production in the Caledon district, and also my district, averages about 9 bags from a bag of wheat sown.
Why?
Because of the soil. You have a big expense in connection with that. It practically takes two bags of superphosphates. Therefore, I submit that the wheat farmer should get every possible assistance in the way of protection. My hon. friend is wrong in regard to the methods of our farmers. They are going in extensively for tractors, but they do not always pay. If the hon. member would come my way, I would show him that most of the wheat is grown practically on the hill tops, ruggens, with the result that you cannot employ these tractors. I heartily support the further duty.
This question has been revolving round, and we have had many phases of the question put before us, but we have not come down to bedrock of facts. The crux of the whole position is, what is the cost of production? After all, unless we know that we cannot possibly expect the wheat farmer to decide what amount of protection he requires per bag, so as to make a profit. I have learned that to compete in the world’s market for wheat, we must raise it at a cost of 5s. a bushel, which works out at 16s. 8d. per 200 lb. bag. The wheat farmers who have spoken this evening have never mentioned what the cost of a bag would amount to, and that is the bedrock of the whole question. What one feels in regard to our wheat farmers is that they expect their wheat crop to carry them through the 12 months. But are they working 12 months on that wheat crop? I think not. Probably they and their employees may be working six months.
Twenty-four hours a day.
I know they work more than eight hours a day, but I know the ordinary wheat farmer is expecting to make an income out of six months’ work to pay him for his 12 months’ living. Without the cost of production, I do not think we can discuss this matter in a fair way, and come to a reasonable conclusion. Thirty years ago a deputation was sent to Australia by the then Cape Colonial Government to investigate dairying and wheat production, and on their return wrote a most interesting report, one which I recommend the Government to republish. It was a most valuable report in regard to the work put in by the wheat farmer in Australia. I remember a conversation I had with Mr. McDonald on the question. He said that South Africa would never be a large wheat-producing country, but that South Africa would one day be a mealie-producing country. That was 30 years ago, and I consider it was most prophetic. He also said that the climatic conditions in the Western Province were adapted for wheat growing, because of the winter rains and the summer drought. That is the position with the wheat lands of Australia, where the wheat farmer is able to put in the seed with the rains, and it ripens when the rains have ceased. I agree with my hon. friend that in the Western Province more should be done in the cultivation and production of wheat than at present. I do not wish to cast any reflection on the hard work of the farmers, but they do not cultivate these lands to-day as they ought to. Even some of our mealie growers to-day take advantage of sowing legumes, so as to be able to improve the nitrogen of the soil. How many farmers in the Western Province are doing that? This is the oldest agricultural part of the country, and I feel that a great many of our Western Province farmers have still to go to the back veld to find out how to cultivate their soils. I agree with the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) that rust is one of the troubles in wheat-growing in the Western Province, but it is also the trouble elsewhere in South Africa. It is not only rust in wheat that troubles the farmers in the Western Province, but rust among the farmers.
I am glad that the hon. member for Swellendam has learnt his lesson, and has pleaded on behalf of the farmers of his district. Then we hear the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat), who reminds me of the looker-on who sees most of the game. He wants to teach the farmer of the Western Province how to plough and work his ground. I agree with the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) that we suffer a good deal from drought and rust, and that if we take everything into account we obtain about nine bags of wheat from a bag of seed. In addition, we must expend a good deal on manures. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) talks about all our difficulties, as if he knows anything about farming! He says he must speak as a consumer, but he knows just as little about it as I do about the barristers’ profession, and if I have to go to him I have to put down £50 before he will undertake my case. He says that the consumer cannot pay too much. Why do not his people bake for themselves? That would be cheaper. They do not fetch their bread from the baker, but the baker’s cart has to bring it to the house. If they baked for themselves, they would see that wheat is not so expensive. The cost would not be £2 10s., but £1, and more bread could be eaten. I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is busy catching votes. If he had to get up at four o’clock and work the whole day on the land, he would acknowledge that the people earn their reward. The wheat farmers are not rich, but poor people, who have to make a living out of wheat. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) says that the farmers are being taxed, and that the consumer has to pay more, but he does not add that his Government put a tax on the ploughs and machinery and self-binders and other parts of ploughs which come in. He wants to sow dissension between us and the Labour party. The working classes pay a reasonable price, and the farmers obtain a fair price for the wheat.
Can the Minister give a little more consideration to the suggestion of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge)? I think every member of the Labour party is in favour of protection and supporting the wheat farmer to get a decent price for his produce. But at the same time the Government should pay a little attention to the poorer classes who eat bread, the price of which is raised by this tariff. I don't believe the farmer reaps the benefit of the protection which is given by the duty, but I do think the middleman obtains more than his fair share. If the Government would only see that the bulk of the protection goes to the wheat farmer they will be doing the country a service. The millers to-day get the benefit of the bulk of the duty. I have it on very credible authority that the milling companies are making 40 to 45 per cent. per annum, that they are building up reserves which exceed their original capital, and that the depreciation on their machinery is in one case five times the original cost of the machinery.
What company is that?
There are four milling companies. I suggest that if that has happened and if the companies are being allowed to batten on the people, it is high time the Government looked after the interests of the consumer. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) complains that he does not hear the Labour members speak on these topics, but he is usually on the Rand complaining of the absence of the Prime Minister from the House. If the hon. member would attend more to his parliamentary duties and less to his private practice he would be able to hear the Labour party. The Minister should think over what is a cardinal principle of the Labour party. We are in favour of protection, but it ought to be accompanied by proper safeguards to the consumer against excessive prices. The Minister in the case of sugar has definitely fixed the price to the farmer, the miller and the consumer. Bread is just as important to the poor people as is sugar. The Minister should consider the position of the Pact majority of this House and should help us a little by doing his best to go a certain way towards fixing prices.
The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) in somewhat doubtful taste has made a personal allusion to myself. May I remind him that his job in life, apart from membership of the House, is apparently the editorship of a Labour paper in Durban.
It is not.
That duty he conducts from these benches. Unfortunately, my professional duties cannot be conducted in this House. In any case, my absences have been of exceedingly short duration.
Why throw stones when you live in a glass house?
I am not throwing stones. When the present Prime Minister was leader of the Opposition he was frequently absent from the House for three or four weeks at a time.
You say you never heard us.
I have not heard a single member of the Labour party denounce these proposals, but I have heard nothing but shallow and fictitious talk about price fixing, which has as much chance of being achieved as the moon has of being made of green cheese. I want honest opposition to the Government’s proposal. I hear shallow talk about moving a Labour amendment. If the Labour members object to this tax, I will vote with them against it, but don’t let us have a lot of talk about price fixing. We were told by the hon. member for Piquetberg that the immediate effect of the new duty would be to raise the price to the farmer of 1s. 6d. per 200-lb. bag. That increase will be paid for by the constituents of the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) and by my constituents who belong in the main to the poorer classes. The constituents of the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) will have a lot to say to him at the next election about his attitude on the price of bread. If the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo), instead of indulging in a sham fight—it is all sham and no fight—will tell the Government that it is making a mistake, I will have more respect for him. We have been twitted with the difference of opinion on this subject expressed from this side of the House, but I have heard the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) differing radically from the hon. member for Liesbeek on this very point to-night. The hon. member for Liesbeek, like the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), is a not gospeller of protection. It does not matter apparently to him what the poor people who live in Liesbeek pay so long as protection is given to every industry. The Minister of Finance was rather “touchy” as to our criticisms of his failure to make clear what his proposals involve. He said he could not be expected to go into every detail in his budget speech. What we can and do expect the Minister in his budget speech to do is to make quite plain to the public exactly what his taxation proposals are. Every member of this House understood his proposals to be that he was removing the dumping duty altogether and putting this duty on. I am sorry that the Minister made that mistake, and that he allowed us in our budget speeches to speak under that misapprehension. There is no suggestion made by any of us that the Minister deliberately did that. I want the country to understand that his proposals involve an increase in the duty on wheat of 41 per cent. I think the country should be grateful to the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) for the courageous speech which he made about the farmers in the Western Province. This proposal is to give a section of the community, which is not functioning efficiently, not the same protection as it had before, but to increase that protection by 41 per cent. and to ask the people in the towns to pay it. In addition we are told that in the future they may have to contemplate the possibility of paying an additional dumping duty. An eminent Australian authority on wheat, speaking in regard to our dumping duty, says—
That is the opinion of Mr. T. H. Jackett, chairman of the corn exchange of South Australia. I do say that the effect of a dumping duty is to make local buyers less keen. Behind the wall that the Government erects they are relieved from any necessity of competing in other markets against each other. The protection has been raised from 1s. to 1s. 5d. We are told that our wheat farmers, up to now, have not been functioning efficiently. I ask this House and this committee if, with the existing protection, they have failed to function efficiently, what are they likely to do when the tariff wall is raised higher by 41 per cent.? The price of bread will not rise at this moment, but the price of bread is an unhealthy factor in our industrial life in South Africa to-day and we could legitimately have hoped that this dumping duty would have disappeared and the price of bread in future would have gone down, with all that that means to South Africa. The burden that has been borne by the poor man will continue to be borne by him. Yet not a word of useful protest has fallen from any speaker on the Labour benches in regard to this matter. All we have had is the gimcrack suggestions from the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) about price-fixing.
There is no doubt about it that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is quite right in what he is saying, but unfortunately he does not believe it for one moment. He is trying to make a party speech on this particular question. Look at the egg dance which we have had from the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) is now offering praise to the Government. I do not know what party he belongs to! I should think his constituency is going Nationalist very fast. He has been talking nothing but Nationalism for the last month. He wants us to protect the country against dumping and yet he is the great high priest of dumping; they are going to dump sugar all over the world. The point is this. As far as I am concerned I am right up against this particular tax on the consumer and always have been.
What about that Minister over there?
The hon. member should go to a place where they stoke! What appeals to me most is the speech by the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) who spoke as a practical farmer and not from a party point of view. It is an extraordinary thing in South Africa that here we have the wheat farmers of the Western Province finding it does not pay, and like wise men they are going in for something else. In Australia the farmers use white labour ; they pay 10s. a day and they send the wheat a great distance and yet we have to put up a huge tariff wall. What does it show? Either that this country is worse than Australia or our farmers are more inefficient. You can have it which way you like. The Australian wheat farmer works eight hours a day. I have heard that the farmer in this country works all sorts of hours. Well, he does not. As a rule he does not work at all. The Australian wheat farmer is working eight hours a day ; he is using white labour costing him at least £3 a week, yet he puts his wheat right into this market and we have to put up a huge tariff wall at the expense of the consumer to stop it. What is wrong with South Africa? Then we go to England and tell people they had better come here and farm wheat than go to Australia. We cannot grow wheat ; it is no use saying we can. Take the Free State, a great wheat-growing country at one time. Finished. The Lithuanians have gone there and they are to-day growing potatoes. You cannot grow wheat at the world’s price, but we have got to pay for that, and the Government is going out of its way to protect these people. It would be much better if they said “We cannot grow wheat. We will do something else.” How many people are growing wheat and how many are dependent on those who are growing wheat? I do not suppose there are 1,000 growing wheat to day. For those people who are growing wheat South Africa has to pay a tribute of £1,000,000 and a million and a half to the sugar grower. This country cannot stand it. If you are going to build up all these wonderful industries which we hear about you will have to bring down the price of bread. One of the worst things I have ever heard in my political life is the statement made by the Minister to-night in which he said—
The minimum at which it is fixed to-day is the dearest in the world and dearer than it was two years ago. If you are going to compete against other countries of the world you must bring the price of bread down to their level. In England to-day they sell bread much cheaper than we do. I say the consumer is being taxed at the expense of the farmer. Every farmer in the Free State, and every farmer in South Africa, is being taxed for a little group of farmers in the Western Province. Is it for votes? Let the South African party have the votes if they want them. It won’t help the farmers at all, because steadily and slowly they will go under. I find that the farmer is getting 2s. to 3s. more to-day than some years ago, and from these returns here I see his cost of living has fallen 2 per cent. since 1923. Notwithstanding that, we are going to put on that tax. If the Labour party was not to-day the ally of the Government I have not the slightest doubt that they would have moved that amendment. But it is the duty of the Opposition to look after the interests of the people, and the people will always look to the Opposition as the particular party that will do that class of work. If the hon. member moves that amendment I will vote for it with both hands, because I think it is a wrong and wicked principle. What is the good of trying to make party capital out of it? We have hon. members in front of us, and every one has a different opinion—we have the hottest protectionist and we have free traders. It is, to a certain extent, creeping into our party, but very little. The rules of order will not allow us, or we would move an amendment to-night to fix the price. I am sorry that the Minister has not taken his courage in his hands and said that, as far as South Africa is concerned, we shall have cheap bread. I am not here to speak for the mines, but I say that if you make the production of the gold mines as cheap as possible, you will keep ten mines alive, and employ 3,000 white people. Apart from their wives and families, and apart from what these mines spend on your railways, these 3,000 white people are worth more to South Africa, although you may not believe it, than the 1,000 men who are producing wheat. Who is producing wheat? The white man? No, the coloured man. We are putting on this tax to keep alive the coloured man. As one representing the consuming public, I am going to fight this tax on principle whether the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Basson) likes it or not. I know my hon. friend is a great wheat producer, and he represents the wheat producers of the Beaufort West district. Beaufort West is trying to produce wheat, and so are other parts of South Africa, and we have to pay for it. The hon. member for Queenstown told us about the deputation that went to Australia 30 years ago. These people returned and said, you cannot grow wheat in South Africa. You should take their advice. We found it out in the Free State and gave it up and the farmers are much more well-to-do than when they tried to grow wheat. If the Western Province farmers would do the same, it would be much better for South Africa. This is the old vote-catching story. The few wheat farmers are being protected at the expense of the other farmers and the consuming public of South Africa. The Government that has the pluck to introduce free trade for foodstuffs is going to score. We are going into the world’s market and that is where we are going to score.
One can understand the position the hon. member who has just spoken takes up. He is against a duty on foodstuffs altogether. But I wish to point out what the actual effect of these proposals will be. People talk about the burden being increased. That I deny. As far as flour is concerned—which is the article which controls the price of bread—the existing effective taxation is not interfered with at all.
What is the benefit to the wheat farmer?
I am coming to that. As far as the present proposals are concerned, they will not mean an increase in the effective protection which is at present being enjoyed by the farmer so far as flour is concerned, but we do increase the protection on wheat and that will come out of the pockets of the millers, because up to the present they have been making more profits than is absolutely necessary. The duty on flour is not interfered with.
That is why the miller is laughing up his sleeve.
I do not know that that is so, but that is no proof that we are increasing the actual taxation on flour and the increased duty on wheat does not mean an increase in the price of bread. The present proposals will not mean an increased burden ore your consumer.
I am sorry I have to speak again, but the longer this discussion continues, the more clear it becomes that I was right when I said that the wheat farmer will gain little from this duty. The Minister acknowledged that. Now I would like to say that if the Minister goes into the matter of trade, he will find that the increased import duty is not going to help the wheat farmer. I live among the wheat farmers, and I am acquainted with the business, and the Minister can accept that from me.
Then do you not want it?
No, I take with thanks everything the Minister will give, but if he increases the import duty on wheat and takes off the dumping duty on flour—
Will the farmers not be helped by the proposal?
I am trying to make the position clear. I say that if he thinks he is going to help the wheat farmers by increasing the import duty on wheat by 5d., then he is wrong.
Can we then leave alone the increase of 5d.?
The Minister will see that in practice the price of wheat is regulated by the price of the flour that is imported, and not by the price of the wheat. The price of flour regulates the price of wheat. That is a fact which we cannot get away from. The millers in South Africa, the purchasers of South African wheat, pay for that according to the price of flour which is imported. The point is that if the Minister takes off the dumping duty of 7d. per 100 lbs. which was put on flour, and increases the import duty on flour by 5d., the farmers will be worse off by 2d. I think the Minister will find in practice that the 5d. put on the import duty on wheat is not going to help as he thinks and intends. That is my feeling. I have tried to make the position clear, and I maintain that if the Minister does not put on an effective dumping duty, the wheat farmer will be worse off.
I do not understand what the object of the arguments of hon. members opposite is. It often occurs to me that hon. members do not mean what they say unless they are merely busy catching votes. This is an important matter which we must deal with on its merits. The hon. member for. Caledon (Mr. Krige) asserted that the dumping duty of 7d. was better than the protection now proposed. I will make clear that the fivepenny protection is better, and doesn’t necessarily mean an increase to the consumer, because, when the dumping duty existed, the miller, as middleman, had the opportunity of rigging the market as he liked, and this is what the Government wishes to prevent. Rigging of the market by the miller will become less. It means more for the producer without causing the consumer to suffer. I am glad the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) defended the platteland against what some members on the other side said about the wheat farmers. They said that the wheat farmers were incapable, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said that the farmers were careless. I take exception to that ; he has much interest in the platteland, and I would suggest that he go and see how modern the system of wheat production is to-day. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) asked why the mealie farmers progressed without protection, which shows his ignorance. The quality of the ground in the Western Province is not at all good. If it were as good as that in the Eastern Province, the position would be different. We have regular seasons which make production possible. Throughout the whole world wheat is produced by the poor man. Even in America wheat is a product that is only sold at its economic value. People who are acquainted with the facts agree that the wheat-producing people are the most hard-working, or, at least, are as hard-working as any other portion. I protest against this charge of ignorance. There are a hundred and one professions in the country, and what sort of a row would there be if people from the platteland charged business men with ignorance?
I would be a poor protectionist indeed if I was prepared to stand by one portion of the community only. The farmer Is as entitled to protection as the industrialist, and the question is a simple one, after all, whether you are going to send your money out, or to keep your money in the country. In Australia to-day they point out that the sugar industry is costing the people so much money and mention a very large amount. On the face it looks as if it were, but what would be the advantage to Australia sending its money away to get sugar brought in when it can raise its own sugar and keep its money too. I am not afraid of the figures that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) quotes that we are giving the sugar producers a million and a half and the wheat farmers another million. If it were absolutely correct that we were doing so, that money would remain in the country and assist in developing it. To obtain a harvest one must have seed. It seems to me a case has been made out by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) to treat wheat production and bread in the same way as sugar is to be treated. I am glad to hear the Minister say that the miller is not going to be permitted to profit to a greater extent than he is at the present time. The milling industry is worth supporting and keeping, but it is up to every Government to see it only gets a fair deal, and the balance is kept even as between producers and consumers. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the time has not arrived for a very close enquiry as to the condition of wheat farming in this country, and particularly in regard to railway rates on fertilizers. If it is a question of fertilization, and assisting the wheat farmers in that way, the wheat farmers should be assisted to the greatest possible extent. I have here, from the “Melbourne Age” of March, this year, a very interesting statement bearing on what was said by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) who attributed the larger output per acre in Australia to its better rainfall, but that does not altogether account for it. The “Melbourne Age” says that wheat production there has shown a great increase since 1901. For the 10 years from 1900 to 1909 wheat averaged 9.8 bushels to the acre, and for the six years from 1920 to 1926 it averaged 13.2 bushels to the acre. Now the Australian rainfall could not have altered in the last six years. There is some other explanation for the increase per acre.
Those figures are wrong.
The “Melbourne Age” surely knows what it is writing about, and this is an article on industrial development and the remarkable progress made during the last quarter of a century. I would like the Minister of Agriculture to enquire closely why we have low comparative production in the Union. Is it that the soil in this country is poorer, as our wheat producers say? Although I am not an expert in wheat growing or in soil analysis, in Queensland it did not seem to me that they had such valuable and rich wheat lands. Our wheat farmers are entitled to the protection asked for by other industries. While I am entirely for the reduced cost of bread, that can be brought about in another way, I am sure, and the member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) seems to have indicated it most practically.
On the motion of Mr. Nieuwenhuize it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
House Resumed :
Progress reported ; House to resume in committee to-morrow.
The House adjourned at