as Chairman, brought up the Third Report of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours.

Report and evidence to be printed and considered on 28th May.

I move—

seconded.

I am rather surprised that the Minister has moved this motion without a word of explanation of what it means. I suppose most hon. members have not taken the trouble to look up the “Gazette” of 28th April, 1926, but, if they did, they would find a whole series of regulations amending the regulations passed on the Higher Education Act, 1917. Some of them are quite important from a financial point of view, but I am not going to express any objection to any of them, except one, and that is the regulation which provides that no new professorship or lectureship or department in any University shall be established without the approval of the Minister. I regard that as a departure from a policy that was laid down by the late Government—a policy based on the principle that the universities should be free to manage their own affairs, that their grant should be decided with reference to their revenue, and that within the means which they have got from the Government under that grant they should be free to have whatever professorships or lectureships they thought fit. The amount that the Government contribute to their revenue is entirely unaffected by that matter. It does not mean that the Government has to provide any more assistance to the universities. That question is decided on entirely different principles. This regulation that the Minister has introduced and introduced without a word of explanation to this House, means that the Government, not on financial grounds, but on grounds of educational policy, are going to take control of the universities of this country. I think that is a great departure from policy, one which I think is unjustified and one which ought not to be introduced without some word of explanation.

Did the universities agree to it?

I do not know. I would like to know from the Minister whether any objection has been raised by the universities to this departure. I think it will be a great misfortune to this country if the Government is going to make university teaching subject to the control of the Department of Higher Education. We have already had one step in this direction where a faculty of the University of Stellenbosch is going to be made part of the Department of Agriculture, and now we are going to have the whole development of university education in this country made subject to the Department of Higher Education. I say that is a retrograde step, not in the direction of freedom, but of muzzling higher education in this country, tying it up to the leading strings of the Minister of the day. I move as an amendment—

seconded.

I am not surprised that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has asked me for an explanation of these amended regulations laid on the Table, but I must say that I am much surprised at the amendment he has proposed to delete one of the chief alterations I am trying to make. Let me first comply with the first request of the hon. member to give some explanation of the amending regulations. The regulations in connection with the universities were drawn up originally in 1917 under the university Acts passed in 1916. The regulations were revised in 1922 but from then until now there was no further amendment. The department made the peculiar provision that regulations under the University Acts could only be amended, or that new ones could only be issued, if for a certain time they had lain on the Table of the House and had thereafter been approved of by both Houses of Parliament. Therefore it is necessary for me on this occasion to ask for such a resolution. The alterations in the regulations, are for the most part literal and do not affect the essence of the matter. The reason for this is that the existing regulations are vague in a great many respects, and that the Auditor-General has complained that it is not always clear to him what the right construction of them is. Amendments have been made in quite a number of the regulations to make them clearer on hints given by the Auditor-General. I take it that there will be no difficulty about the passing of the alterations effected for this reason. Now there are two alterations of importance which will have a clear effect on the financial position. Therefore I am astonished at the motion of the hon. member for Yeoville being seconded by no less than the financial watchdog in the House, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). The first amending regulation to which no objection has been made is to make an alteration in the way in which the subsidies are given to the South African universities. Hitherto the basis has been that a certain subsidy is given according to examination and graduation fees. The subsidy on that basis led to a larger subsidy by the Government than what the university of South Africa required, and could usefully employ, and that led to great surplusses being accumulated by that university every year. Therefore an alteration is now being made that the subsidy shall only be given on the basis of registration fees, but not more than £1 per student per annum. That is a sound basis and will immediately lead to a saving of £6,000 per annum to the Government. The university of South Africa is so far satisfied with it that it has made no objection to the present alteration. Now I come to the amending regulation to which the hon. member for Yeoville objected. If there is one matter for which I was criticised when the Education Vote on the Estimates was on, and not the least by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), it was the continuous increase in the expenditure on higher education. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) did not only do so this year, but he has said year after year—

To-day he seconds the motion to scrap the amending regulation which is intended to give the Government more hold on higher education. Now I can mention another point in this connection other than finance. If the hon. member for Yeoville will look into the three University Acts passed in 1916 he will see that this provision is contained in those Acts. It was mentioned in the Act that no new professor or lecturer at the Cape Town, Stellenbosch or other universities could be appointed without the approval of the Minister. This limitation which was put upon the universities was not put upon the university colleges, in other words the university colleges which do not have the status of the universities and were not intended to have it have more power to extend without the approval of the Minister than the universities have. That is the existing position. What we are doing is simply to put the university colleges on the same footing as the universities. We have too many institutions in South Africa for higher education, but we do not intend to abolish one of them. Although we are not going to abolish one of the institutions we do not wish to saddle the country with unlimited expenditure for higher education. To do that we must keep the development in our hands, and not only that but co-ordinate the institutions for higher education with each other with regard to certain courses. We cannot e.g. permit that there shall be chairs for bantu languages in Cape Town. Stellenbosch, Johannesburg, Pretoria and Bloemfontein, where all the institutions for higher education are demanding it. If we permitted that, every institution, without the approval of the Minister, could create any faculty and lecture on ony subject, then I should like to know where we shall finally land. The only way for the Government to take with so many establishments is to say: “We shall permit one institution to apply itself in a certain department and another institution in another. The one can develop in a certain direction and not the other.” To co-ordinate as much as possible is the only rational way. The hon. member for Yeoville asked what the Government has to do with an appointment of a professor or lecturer. Even if he is paid out of the ordinary allowances, the new appointment attracts more students, therefore more fees are received and on that basis it may mean an unlimited development, and more subsidies directly or indirectly from the Government. The way we are now pursuing is the most rational thing to do. It is just what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) urged on the Education Estimates, and I therefore say again that I am much astonished that that hon. member is opposing this healthy amendment of the regulations.

Are the university authorities satisfied ?

These regulations have not only been laid on the Table but were first submitted to all the university authorities concerned. They have made no objection and therefore the amending regulations are laid on the Table with their approval.

Amendment was put and negatived.

Original motion put and agreed to, and transmitted to the Senate for concurrence.

I am still awaiting a reply from the Minister as to his policy in regard to the application of the Factories Act to farming operations.

The hon. member has raised the question of what I might call a border line case in the application of the Factories Act. There must of necessity be such cases, and he has just happened to drop on one of these and is using it as an argument that the Factories Act—which is before the House, and to that extent is out of order— should be amended to meet this position. A farmer is either a farmer or a manufacturer. The law lays down that where a farmer establishes a factory to manufacture his own products for consumption purposes, then he comes under certain exemptions in the Factory Act which was passed in 1918. In this case the farmer grows wattle and in order to market that wattle he sets up a small factory. He has got a saw mill and employs a few hands cutting up his timber for marketing purposes. It would be obviously unfair to leave these employees at the mercy of dangerous machinery. I consider that any person who uses machinery which might cause accidents and is regarded as dangerous, ought to be made to protect his employees, whether they are black or white, against the use of such machinery. In this case we go further, and say that not only must he guard the machinery, but we are bringing him in under the Factory Act with regard to the hours of labour. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), when the matter was raised not long ago, took the courageous stand that if a farmer sets up and runs a factory he should come under the operation of the Factory Act. This happens to be one of those borderline cases which we have met with, and we have given that gentleman what is known as a “seasonal exemption.” There is a season for doing certain work, and to that extent they have been granted an exemption. The hon, member is not satisfied with that, and says we must amend the Act. We cannot do that without giving the matter serious consideration. Either the Factory Act is a good thing or a bad thing for the country. There is a danger of going too far, and putting certain people on more favourable terms than other people who run factories. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) put a question to me about the Doornkop sugar estate proposition. It is the biggest, boldest and best attempt at co-operative settlement that has been tried in South Africa. There is a company which has an estate of 8,000 acres in Natal and has assets of something like £40,000, but you cannot have sugar produced without having a sugar mill. The company has said that they will raise the money to put up a sugar mill if the Labour Department will supply them with 100 tenant farmers under the ordinary tenant farmer scheme. These settlers will receive the subsidy, and the advances given in the usual way up to £150. In the ordinary way these subsidies are not recoverable, but under this scheme we are going to get back the advances made and the subsidies, but only after the first mortgage is met, and that mortgage is £70,000, which the British Government is lending this company for the purpose of establishing the mill.

How do the British Government come in ?

Under the Trade Facilities Act. The mill is to be ready for working by 1st of March, 1928.

Have you any papers about this? This mill is all moonshine.

The hon. member is mixing up quite another transaction, viz., the company’s dealings with Maxwell and Company. The condition made with the British Government is that the mill shall be supplied by a certain firm in Glasgow. They are going to have 100 settlers put on 50 acres each, and if the thing is properly handled, each ought to do fairly well out of it. Not only do they get a profit out of the cane, but they share in the profit of the mill.

What about the losses ?

The company stands to lose much more than we do. We stand to lose the subsidy but we lose that in the ordinary scheme because we don’t recover the subsidy. In this case the subsidy will have to carry on for a longer period because it takes longer to grow cane than other crops. The Labour Department has to take men of all kinds from all quarters who come to us wanting employment. We had to place these men, some on road construction, others on forestry settlements, training farms and so on. Those sent to the forestry settlements have not had an easy time of it, the life being very, very arduous. If a man works for a year or two on a forestry settlement, it is proof that he can make good, and these men have the first chance of any better openings that may present themselves. The men have been very carefully picked, and as far as possible we have selected men who are making good, not only in the settlement but in other walks of life. We have turned down a large number as being unsuitable. I have seen the record of each man we propose to settle. We are not concerned with the financial side, but only the labour. As soon as the mortgage is paid off these settlers will become two-third owners of the estate.

How long will the subsidy continue ?

Not longer than three years, but the British Government made it a condition that if the £70,000 were not paid off the subsidy should continue until it was. We have given that assurance, and the company has undertaken to meet any additional subsidy which may be necessary beyond the three years. A very keen business man in Great Britain (Lord Invernairn) has interested himself so much in this scheme and is so satisfied with the technical reports in support of the proposition, that he has put into it no less than £53,500. The mill will cost £100,000. As far as I can see the security is absolutely sound— at the most we stand to lose very little. We have control of the estate and the most we stand to lose is the subsidy for three years, which we should lose in the ordinary way for 15 months if the men were placed out with farmers. Before the matter was decided we had reports from the Natal Land Board and prominent sugar planters, and they reported very favourably on the proposition. The Land Board states that to-day’s prairie value of the ground is about £4 5s. an acre, but that as soon as the mill is erected it will be worth at least £10 an acre. The ground was bought for 35s. an acre before it could be proved that sugar could be grown upon it. To-day it is growing some of the finest sugar cane in Natal. As to the discrepancy in the paying of the labourers employed on the Hartbeestepoort dam and else-where, the Hartebeestepoort works will soon come to an end. If one department pays more than another department does you cannot upset that arrangement merely to bring the rates of pay into uniformity. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) raised the question of the Wage Board being applied to the mining industry and the alluvial diggings, and said that political influence should be removed. There is something in that, for it is going to be very invidious for any Minister to review a decision arrived at by the Wage Board. However, the Act lays down that the Minister’s decision shall be final. There is a body of opinion which says that as Government is responsible for the administration of legislation, it should not shelter itself behind a board. It is the same thing exactly with regard to legal prosecutions. I would welcome not having to decide on these important matters and it will only be for very weighty reasons before the decisions of the Wage Board are upset, for I regard the Board as being in the nature of a court of law. It is an open question whether the Board should have the responsibility. In other countries arbitration courts have the last say, and I am glad to know that hon. members opposite are of that opinion.

We pointed out that that is what would happen.

The right hon, gentleman is wrong when he goes about the country blaming the Board for wage conditions. He has made statements that on account of the Wage Board we find the carrying on of this or that industry becoming impossible.

That is not so.

The right hon. gentleman’s attention was drawn to the fact that he was blaming Pact legislation for something which happened under legislation he had passed.

I blamed you for your application of the Conciliation Act.

You had placed a good law on the statute book, but if you applied it in accordance with the views expressed by a good many hon. members opposite, it would have been a failure and a discredit.

You are discrediting it.

It is being administered fairly. For the last two years, with the exception of the seamen’s strike— which was not a South African strike—South Africa has been remarkably free from industrial disputes. I venture to say that we have, in consequence of the sympathetic application of our industrial legislation, set up a record amongst all the leading countries in the world for having gone for two years without having had a strike or industrial upheaval.

What about the building strike in Cape Town?

That was just on the tapis when the new Government came in. Let me say this, that you cannot have industrial peace unless you have got social progress. The price of industrial peace is social progress. Hon. members opposite want industrial peace, but they do not want to concede that necessary social progress. The first step towards the stopping of social progress and the bringing about of fair conditions of labour, and so on, in the various industries, is the first step towards putting a stop towards your industrial peace. When the late Government went out of office, they left this Bill on the statute book. It was not administered by them because there was no time before they went out of office. That Bill, together with the Wage Board, has had a remarkable effect in bringing together the employers and employees of South Africa to the mutual benefit of both and to the benefit of the larger interests, that is the national well-being of the country. The employers are testifying to that to-day.

The Wage Act is going to kill that.

No, the Wage Act is helping it in many ways. I have got here a good many references from people in industry, big employers in labour. I have some remarks by Mr. Simon Collier, president of the Midland Chamber of Industries, who remarked—

Mr. Collier also commented upon the “high tone maintained during the discussion, notwithstanding the exceedingly acute questions dealt with.” I have also got some remarks here by Mr. F. C. Williams, secretary of the Chamber of Industries, in reference to the conference held in connection with the furniture trade. He said that the councils already formed had fully justified their existence, and he was satisfied that the agreement concluded would be of great advantage to both sides.

How about the poor chaps who are left out, the men who cannot earn the wages ?

We have not had any yet.

There are at least 400 in the furniture trade.

If that Conciliation Act had been administered in the spirit of some of the speeches which we hear in this House, it would be condemned as a failure, and would be sidetracked and held up to opprobrium by the working classes in this country. In the past, when we have had these conflicts and upheavals, has it not been said—

They have pleaded for the very thing which we have given effect to and given effect to very successfully. Trade has gone ahead during this period. A good deal of the commercial and industrial prosperity which has been built up during the last 12 months is very largely due to the industrial peace and conditions which have made that prosperity possible.

I don’t agree with that. Don’t take too much credit to yourselves.

Industrial peace has an important bearing on the prosperity of the country. You must either pay the price and have healthy conditions and social progress, or you must have continual disruption and upheavals and bitterness and discord amongst the people. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) raised rather an important question in regard to the application of the Wage Board to the mining industry. I had hoped that, after the Economic Commission had reported, the mining industry, that is the Chamber and the employees, would have done the same as other industries have done, and that is set up an Industrial Council in order that they might arrange their affairs amicably, not only wages, but conditions generally. I think it would be a most excellent thing for the welfare of the miners themselves, as well as the industry and the country, if a satisfactory council could be set up to regulate the conditions in the mining industry, as they are doing in the printing industry, the building industry, and others.

I quite agree.

My predecessor made a promise that within a month of the receipt of the report of the Economic Commission by the Government, if the position was not satisfactory on the mines and the De Villiers award had not been given effect to, he would ask the Wage Board to investigate and deal with the matter. When I took office I was faced with that promise, but I got into touch with the officials of the Mine Workers’ Union and the officials of the Trade Union Congress, and I put to them that it would be, in my opinion, in the best interests of the men and the country if they were to set up an industrial council, instead of having the Wage Board applied. They had several meetings, and eventually there was disagreement on the point as to whether there should be one industrial council for the whole industry, or whether the underground workers, the mechanics, the reduction workers and the engine-drivers and winders, should each have a council. I had quite an open mind on the question. I said—

Personally, I thought one would be better. Negotiations went on for some time, and I was hoping that by means of an industrial council it would not have been necessary for the Wage Board to investigate. I found that they could not come to an agreement on that, and, as the delay has been going on for several months, and as I had no intention of going back on the promise made by my predecessor, I am instructing the Wage Board to pay attention to this question and deal with points arising out of the De Villiers award at a very early date. At present the Wage Board is just concluding its work in connection with the sweet industry and clothing industry, and I expect that within a couple of weeks the board will make its first determination with regard to those industries. Then it will turn its attention to the mining industry in accordance with the promise which was made. There has been no undue delay on my part, and no attempt at a breach of faith. It has only been in the last two or three months that the Mine Workers’ Union have been getting reorganized again. I wanted to give them every opportunity to reorganize, so that, whether they had a Wage Hoard or an industrial council, they would be in a better position to do full justice to themselves and their case. I do not think it is necessary to deal with the alluvial diggings because, as I say, I cannot alter the letter which was sent 12 months ago. So far as I am concerned, the less political influence is brought to bear on the operations of the Wage Hoard, the better I shall be pleased. Ultimately, I would like the Wage Hoard to be set up as a court of similar standing to the Supreme Court of South Africa. I would like to see a wage board or some wage court set up the same as they have in other countries, and as part of the judiciary of the country, to interpret these very knotty points which have arisen in connection with whether an award should apply to this industry or to this section. They write and ask, does it apply to us? I took the legal adviser’s opinion, and in some cases I got other opinion which was quite different. I cannot interpret ; that is for the courts of law; but if the Wages Board were a court of legal standing, it would be a good deal better for South Africa. I have a Hill drawn up, but it is hopeless to do anything in that direction at the present moment. In regard to the Elgin settlement, as the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) knows, the labour department send men to forestry settlements. There was a good deal of unemployment around Cape Town, and we started a settlement about nine or ten months ago at Elgin. We were going to set up 75 to 100 families, and they put up the huts and made all arrangements. Two things happened. The stress of unemployment was relieved a little, but, apart from that, certain owners, the Brothers Molteno and others, living on the lower part of the river, stated that the settlement was going to mean the pollution of their water supply. And I will say that when the contractor was out there putting up the huts, and had his natives working, undoubtedly there were signs of pollution having taken place. The case was taken to court, and an interdict was obtained, but the court decided that they could only give an interdict to the extent of saying that you shall not pollute the water ; if it can be shown that there is undue pollution, then you come at once under the law. So the interdict was not that they should not have a settlement, which was really what these people wanted. The court said it is unreasonable that you should say that the Government should not have a settlement ; all you can have is protection against preventable pollution. It is Government land. The Government could sell it to anybody who wanted to buy, and people could go there and settle anybody they liked, and the lower riparian owners, who are I now complaining, could raise no objection what ever to it. All they could claim is protection against preventable pollution. We are taking safeguards. We have had the chief medical officer of health there. I went with Dr. Mitchell, and we went into the whole thing thoroughly. The ground has been fenced off, and special sanitary arrangements have been made as far as possible. The refuse has to be carried about two to three miles in specially enclosed carts—in special tanks—and we are doing our best to see that there is no pollution. We are in no different position from anybody else who is settling on a river which is used by other people, and I am rather inclined to think that the objection was largely directed against having a settlement there at all than against the pollution. I will do everything in reason to see that there is no pollution of these people’s water supply.

Is it going on?

Yes, we are sending out 25 settlers shortly.

They will die of cold.

If the settlement proves to be unsuitable, we shall have to make other arrangements. I think the hon. member asked me a question about the small sum of subsidies for other Government departments. At one time the Labour department had to subsidize practically all departments where white labour was employed.

To a certain extent.

Very largely. They subsidized irrigation, railways and other departments, and this is really the petering out of this policy. There are 44 men engaged on harbour works at East London, and they were only taken on at the urgent request of the labour department at that time when unemployment was acute, and I think it costs us about £80 a month as our share of the subsidy. I am hoping that that amount will practically complete the subsidizing of any Government department. If there is going to be a white labour policy, let it be general throughout the Government service, and not have the other departments subsidized by the labour department.

I think my hon. friend in discussing the wages has given us the rosiest part of the view-. He has not given the other side. I studied what is stated about wages in the Economic Commission’s report, and they point out very strongly that in this country it is the unskilled labourer who gets the poor pay. The skilled man is paid better perhaps than in any other country, except perhaps the United States, and they state that attention should be given to the poor unskilled labourer. The Conciliation Board does not operate in that way. It has been applied to my knowledge to three industries. Take the building industry. Wages in that industry were put on a fairly high scale, so high that a good many builders in the Cape had to get rid of many of their employees who were not up to the standard and could not earn the wages set, and this report says it was a pity that more opinion was not got and more interests consulted in regard to that matter. I do not know the position to-day; but that was the position at one time. About a fortnight ago, I was told that the present Minister had given a good many exemptions by which men could be taken on at lower wages. Then take the furniture industry. There has been a conference about that, and the consequence is that the wages have been considerably raised in the case of the higher paid ; so much so that the cost of furniture has gone up 15 per cent., and I am also informed that at any rate, in this neighbourhood, there will be 400 of the lower skilled men put off or the Minister will have to give exemptions for them. Let me revert to the matter of building. I am informed that the cost of building in this neighbourhood has gone up by 15 per cent, because of this decision. There has recently been a meeting of the leather interests at Port Elizabeth. The consequence of that will be undoubtedly that the price of leather wear is going to be put up. Some manufacturers do not worry much about the wages because they have an idea that if they go to the Government they will get increased protection. How many workmen will be put out because of that I cannot say, but I know that some manufacturers have agreed to this higher scale, sheltering themselves under the idea that they can go to the Government. The result of the operation of this Conciliation Board is to put up the wage of the higher man and in many cases the semi-skilled man is thrown out of a billet.

I think there is no doubt that the position in the Cape is as stated by the hon, member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), and the result is a considerable amount of hardship to a number of deserving people. There is no doubt also that the cost of building, at any, rate, has been very considerably increased, but I do not quarrel altogether with that, because I think the system involved by coming under the Conciliation Act is the best system, all things considered, of dealing with disputes. One of the disadvantages is that it puts the cost of building or whatever it may be to a very high level, but there is no doubt that when the price gets beyond a certain level the matter will right itself, because people will stop building or buying furniture and the employers and employees will, come to their senses and find they cannot go on indefinitely passing on the cost to the public. But that process will not come so soon if they are going to the Government to ask for increased protection, in which case the cost of living to the unfortunate consumer is going to increase. The Minister has taken great credit to himself and his Government for the success attending the Conciliation Act, but that was passed by the S.A.P. Government, and what is happening now is exactly what we hoped would happen if proper consideration was given to the working of the Act when the discussions on the Wage Act took place last year. We said then, that we were entirely in favour of people getting together round a table and settling their difficulties, and we said then that we much preferred that system, although it has its demerits to the system embodied in the Wage Act under which power was given to a court which is composed of people who have no knowledge of the business in question, and therefore I really cannot see that because people have availed themselves of the Act passd by the last Parliament, the Minister is entitled to plume himself on the success that has attended the working of that Act. The Minister has just told us what he proposes to do with reference to the Wage Board and the conditions on the mines in Johannesburg. I do not know anything about the details of that matter, but it occurs to me that what is happening is precisely what we foresaw would happen. It was what we warned the Minister would happen when the Wage Bill was under discussion. If the matter is to be decided by a court appointed by the Minister and the Minister has to decide whether he will give effect to the decision of the court, the only natural conclusion is that people are not going to sit round a table and avail themselves of the Conciliation Act. I really do not think that the Minister can have it both ways.

The Minister’s predecessor will know that the very people who are now in court against the Government endeavoured to secure ; land in the same area. They are not against the settlement—neither am I—but what I am against is the site upon which the settlement has been fixed.

May I ask the hon. member whether that is sub judice?

I am not dealing with the water question, but with the settlement. I think the Minister made a mistake by touching on the legal aspect.

I was not aware that the matter was sub judice;

This settlement has been embarked upon on the plateau of a mountain where the rainfall averages between 60 and 70 inches per year. Last year the very site where the settlement is now was entirely covered with snow. Would you believe that the Government had spent £14,000 on that settlement before a single Minister came to inspect that site? The huts are built, not with wood and iron, but with asbestos, and the walls are less than one inch thick. There is no ceiling inside, and no protection to keep the asbestos firm. The roof is covered with corrugated asbestos. The wind blasts go right through the huts. The floor is made of ruberoid, half an inch thick, and if people put a bedstead there it would go right through. I warned the Minister to get suitable land nearer the forest. I have seen the report of the inspector of labour, Mr. Freestone, who said that in order to prevent pollution there, these people should not be allowed to keep fowls, cats, or any other domestic or other animals. The result is that you cannot train these people to keep a few poultry. The people who come from the Cape Town streets have to be placed in these surroundings. The huts are not more than 8 by 10 feet. Where on earth are the children to live, and how can you rear a family under circumstances like that? The establishment of these huts is an absolute disgrace to the public life of this country. The Minister was warned at the time. I am very anxious to see these people come to my district and have proper training and proper soil, but I am ashamed to represent a district in which the Government has established a settlement of that nature and in that form.

The reply of the Minister to the point I raised is very lame and unconvincing. To have wattle trees cut up by a saw is described by the Minister as being on the borderline. I do not view it at all from that standpoint. In my opinion, it is a “casus remissus” Factory Act. It was never intended that farming operations should come under the provisions of the Act, and farming is specifically exempted by sub-section (2) of section 2. We have this anomalous position, a man may use mechanical implements for the preparation of foodstuffs, and he will be exempt from the provisions of the Factory Act, but if the same implement (or saw) is used in the preparation of another product—wattle poles—he falls within the provisions of that Act, which could never have been contemplated by the legislature, and that is why this gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie) writes—

It is ridiculous that they should have a person possessing a certificate to render first aid, because, forsooth, of an omission in the Act. The Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of Agriculture say they are prepared to give relief, but the Minister of Labour, if he can keep a grip on the farmers, is not prepared to do so. It is for the Minister of Labour, in conjunction with the Minister Agriculture, to see that this kind of farming is exempted from the operation of the Factories Act, so that the farmers shall not be harassed and put to unnecessary vexation and expense.

The Minister of Labour has given a description of Doornkop in terms of panegyric reminiscent of an advertisement issued by Mr. Rosenberg in 1924, when he described this property as—

He was willing to sell at £25 an acre. The advertisement continued—

The money of every individual who bought has been returned in full, because they were not satisfied, and there are no settlers remaining on the property, which was originally owned by Mr. G. W. Young, who used it for wattel growing. The two best sections were bought by two settlers—Major Mansfield and Captain Woollam—and the remainder was acquired by Mr. Rosenberg at 30s. per acre. My information, derived from people who have lived there all their lives, is that one-third of the property is not sugar land at all, and even if the cane is rattooned it will only yield a crop for three years at the outside. The remainder of the property is reasonably good and might, with fertilization, grow cane of a passable kind. The Minister says that the British Trades Facilities Department has put up £70,000 with which to start building a mill on the property. A similar statement was made by Mr. Rosenberg to Messrs. Maxwell, and on the strength of that they acquired a certain interest in the property. There is a lawsuit pending in which they demand “the cancellation and setting aside of an agreement entered into in May, 1925, by reason of misrepresentation.” That demand is based on the declaration of Mr. Rosenberg to these gentlemen that he had the support of the Trade Facilities Department when it is alleged he did not have such support.

I will ask the hon, member not to refer to any matter which he thinks is sub-judice.

Surely this history of misrepresentation is not an accidental injustice to Mr. Rosenberg. On the merits of the case it seems to me that the Minister is suffering from excessive optimism. Is it feasible to suppose that the mere advancing of £15,000 by the Government to provide tenant farmers with buildings, implements and livestock and of a subsistence subsidy of £5 7s. 6d. per family per month, together with the value of the work they will do, will entitle them to claim two-thirds of a property worth £40,000. The Minister was remarkably vague in telling us how the value of £40,000 was arrived at. He says the prairie value was £4 15s. per acre. How can it increase from 30s. to £4 15s. per acre in two years just because 200 acres of cane have been planted ? The property is nine miles from the railway. The roads are very indifferent and the situation of the property for development is going to be very awkward. The Minister has had some experience of tenant farmer schemes and I give him full credit for the display of a great deal of spirit and energy in seeing that reasonable encouragement is given to the scheme and that the men are selected to the best advantage. But he must know that results are apt to be in disgusting discrepancy with anticipations. The Minister put 16 families of tenant farmers on a farm in the Underberg District, Natal, which is not capable of carrying more than three families. They received advances totalling £2,380. [Time limit.]

I do not question the motives of the Minister of Labour, but here we have a professional company promoter named Rosenberg who has already figured in the House in a very unfavourable light. The place was originally intended for a wattle plantation. It looks as if this company has simply got a supply of cheap indentured labour, which is an extraordinary system to be initiated by a Labour Minister. We had been accused of being in the hands of capitalists, but here we find a Nationalist-Labour Government giving cheap indentured labour. I hope the Minister will put the papers on the Table, for I think the scheme for a mill is all moonshine and will never materialize. What is going to be the relationship between these unfortunate tenant farmers and the mill? We have been suffering for ten years under these unfortunate tripartite agreements in Natal, where the settlers could not get on because of unfortunate agreements with the mill owners. I have no faith in the mill ever being built, and unless it is built the settlers are foredoomed to failure. Even if the mill is erected, unless the tenants are protected against the mill-owners and there are conditions safeguarding the price to be paid for the cane, it is no good putting men there, for if you gave them the land for nothing they could not make a living. I have the profoundest distrust of any scheme emanating from Rosenberg. I believe the whole scheme is a wild cat visionary one into which the Minister has been led quite sincerely. Why has the Minister entered into this scheme at all seeing that we have hundreds and thousands of acres of good sugar land belonging to the Government ? Why should we help a company to enhance the value of its land ? On the face of it there is something fishy about it. Sugar land in Zululand is being advertised for about 30s. an acre. Why on earth is the Minister lending himself to this extraordinary business when within a few miles of this property there is plenty of Government ground available? It seems to me that in the end the company will get the benefit and no one else. There must be a catch about this scheme somewhere. It seems to me from what I have heard of the Minister’s statement that after five years these settlers are to get two-thirds of the land gratis and the company is to be landed with one-third only. Nobody will tell me that that is a bona fide proposition. We would like to see the correspondence between the Minister and the company, the contract with the company and the contract about this mill scheme. I would like to know how the British Government is coming into this scheme. My information is that the British Government have under the Trade Facilities Act washed their hands of the whole thing. It seems to me that the Minister has rushed into this thing with insufficient information.

There is, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) too much vagueness about this transaction to justify our reposing too much confidence in it. In the first place, these tenant farmers are being put on a farm over which the Government have no fixity of tenure at all. They have no hold over it by way of lease or purchase or in any other way, except that under the tenant farmers scheme the proprietor of the land agrees to take these farmers on his land subject to certain conditions. But in case of the liquidation of the company, which does not seem at all an impossible eventuality, every one of these tenant farmers would be bundled off the place and their problematical interest in the two-thirds value of the property would disappear. It is stated that £70,000 is going to be expended or guaranteed by the Trade Facilities department for the building of a mill. A sugar mill capable of crushing 1,000 tons a day costs under present conditions something in the neighbourhood of £450,000. A 300 ton mill is a very uneconomical unit. The Minister is unable to say to whom the management is to be entrusted. A matter of considerable interest to the public is how it comes about that Mr. Rosenberg, of all people in the world, should be so singularly fortunate as to be able to get £15,000 from the Government for the development of a property over which the Government has no lease and no sort of binding agreement, no prospect, indeed, except the fact which is in the Minister’s mind that all is going to work out for good. Within a short space of time the £70,000 of the trade facilities department is to be repaid. The property was originally commended to the public by the Minister of Justice before becoming Minister of Justice, who said his opinion that the purchase of plots by the public would prove a sound investment had been strengthened by the guarantees. I think the Minister has lived to regret having penned that puff because as a matter of fact, so far from this having proved a sound investment, it has only proved a very good thing that these men were able to get their money back again. The public will desire to know how it comes about that Mr. Rosenberg, having failed to realize his £25 an acre, in spite of the boosting of the Minister of Justice, should now be in the position of being nursed by the Government under the optimistic prospects that have been outlined to us this afternoon by the Minister. I want to bring the Minister back from these optimistic forecasts to his actual experience which was disclosed by a reply to a question. Sixteen tenant farmers were placed on a farm in Underberg District, which was not capable of supporting more than three farmers at the kind of farming carried on in that neighbourhood. The Government spent £751 12s. in conveying these people to the property, maintaining them there and finally removing them from it. That was the actual dead loss to the Government on this experiment. During the short period in which these people remained on the farm the Government issued by way of advance £2,390 and the unfortunate sixteen families got an income altogether of £251 5s. 3d., from which fell to be deducted everything except £27. These sixteen farmers had to divide between them as the result of their work £27 5s. 3d. We are not dealing now in rosy forecasts ; we are now dealing in what the Minister has actually realized for these wretched tenant farmers. The £2,390 has not been repaid to the Government. That money has fallen into the lap of the farmer who was fortunate enough to induce the department to put sixteen men on to his land when it was uncapable of supporting them. That farmer has the use of that money free of interest for a period of six years. Re repays it in instalments of £400 per annum. The Government have some security in the shape of livestock, but the livestock that was bought by these people is at the use of the farmer himself. [Time limit.]

I want to put forward one or two points that occur to me about this scheme, not in any controversial manner, because I know that the Minister has done what he has done in what he thinks is the best interests of the tenant farmers concerned. I would like to know from the Minister whether he is quite satisfied that the Government and the settlers are adequately protected in the event of the company having to go into liquidation. What will happen it seems to me is this, that if the company should go into liquidation—and that is an event that ought to be taken into consideration—the land will go to their creditors. I take it that there is a bond over the land in favour of the trades facilities committee in respect of the money they are advancing for the building of the mill. That means that the Government will either have to buy out that bond or turn these settlers off. The result will be that they will have to buy the land, whether they like it or not, and it means practically that they will have to pay for the mill. One thing that the Minister said makes me a little nervous. He said that the British Government trade facilities committee had made it a condition that if the £70,000 was not repaid at the end of the first two years, the Government subsidy should continue. This means that the Government subsidy is going to be mortgaged, so to speak, to pay off this particular obligation of £70,000. The Government may find itself in the position of either having to buy the land or turn the settlers off, and the same position may arise in regard to the mill. If the company cannot carry out their obligations to build that mill, the Government has got to do it because a mill must be there. Without a mill the settlement will be useless. I do not know anything about this company, but there is just that risk which always exists in schemes of this kind that if the company should have to go into liquidation, the Government may find itself in a position where it will be compelled to buy the land and possibly build the mill or, in the alternative, turn these men off the settlement.

I wish to support the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) in the case which he has put before the Minister in regard to the farmer who has a machine sawing up his wattle wood or any kind of product which is not a foodstuff. That farmer comes under the Factory Act. The Minister says this is one of the border-line cases. The farmer concerned will think it is a border-line case between lunacy and sanity. These men are bombarded with inspectors, who require them to send returns as to their labour, overtime, etc., and this creates two kinds of employees. Here is an anomaly which I wish to stress upon the Minister. That same machine may cut up foodstuffs or—

Will the hon. member (Mr. Deane) tell me under which item he is now speaking ?

Inspector of factories.

The hon. member cannot discuss the inspector of factories. The hon. member cannot discuss machinery under this head.

I am discussing the Factory Act. The anomaly of it is that a machine that cuts up foodstuffs does not come under the Factory Act. Why should the farmers be persecuted in this manner ? I would urge the Minister to give favourable consideration to this matter. He has given seasonal exemptions to certain farmers in my district, thus showing it is not right to have those particular farmers under the Act. I hope he will make it perfectly clear by having it in black and white, and embodying it in the law when the amending Factory Act is before the House.

I should like to associate myself with the request made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) that the papers in connection with the settlement of tenant farmers on the Doornkop Estates should be laid on the Table. As the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has stated, litigation has been proceeding for some time, and it lends colour to his contention as to the necessity for looking further into this matter before definitely committing the Government. When this company was being floated, the Maxwell family were induced to apply for 30,000 £1 shares in this company, and they are to-day being sued for this £30,000 in connection with a property which only two years ago cost something like £13,000. This is an action which has been instituted by the Doornkop Estates Limited which is being resisted on the ground of misrepresentation. In addition to that, an action has been instituted by the Doornkop Estates against a mill manufacturing company.

Order! Are these papers not sub judice. I am in the hands of the hon. member, and would ask him not to go too far.

Judgment has been reserved. I am not going into detail. I am only giving the amount of the claim. In addition to this £30,000 claim there is one against the sugar machinery manufacturing company to implement their contract to erect this machinery or alternatively for damages for £50,000. That makes £80,000 which the Doornkop Estates are claiming in respect of this property which cost only £13,000 two years ago. If the Government commit themselves to this scheme, the position would be that in the event of the company going into liquidation, which is quite possible, the Government will have committed itself not only for this £15,000 advanced, but for another sum of something like £24,000 by way of subsidy paid to the settlers. That is assuming that the settlers each receive the maximum of £5 7s. 6d. per family per month. We know there is no fixity of tenure, and in the event of liquidation, that money will be lost to the country. In regard to the position of the tenant farmers themselves, it cannot be denied that a tenant farmer with a wife and family to support is unable to subsist on the maximum subsidy of £5 7s. 6d. per month. Has the Minister given serious thought to what these settlers are going to do in the interim until their sugar matures, in the way of keeping body and soul together? In terms of the 14th yearly-report of the central board of the Agricultural Land Bank these tenants have to repay the £150 they are entitled to borrow by instalments of £20 annually, and the first instalment becomes due at the end of one year; reckoned from the date on which the loan or any portion of it is paid out. No interest is charged. How is it possible for these tenant farmers to eke out a livelihood on £5 7s. 6d. a month, until they are able to produce sugar, when they are also required to pay back their loan at the rate of £20 a year? In the event of liquidation what would be the position in regard to improvements effected by tenant farmers on the property in buildings and other things? Will the Government have any claim? Has the Government any lien on these improvements in respect of the money they have advanced, or will they fall into the insolvent estate if it should become insolvent ? It seems to me, as far as the information which the Minister has given us goes, that in such an event the ordinary creditors will benefit, notwithstanding that these improvements have been effected with money-obtained from the Government. For these reasons I think this is a matter that requires further investigation, and I hope the Minister will place the papers on the Table.

Now that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has come back, I should like him to elucidate some statements he made in a speech at Victoria West on the 17th April, to which I referred last night. He is reported to have said that he had a girl in his office—not a qualified typist—who was being paid £5 per month, until the Wages Board called on him to pay ten guineas.

On a point of order, under what heading of the Vote does this come?

The hon. member may proceed.

I should like to have a little more information about this typist, because I was unaware that the Wages Board had made any determination in regard to typists. I would like the hon. member also to say how any determination of the Wages Board, as stated by him, had increased the price of building 50 per cent. Is it not a fact that he himself, as a member of the previous Government, was responsible for the Act under which the alleged increase he refers to has taken place. I would like him to explain these statements for the benefit of the House.

It is a mystery to me where the hon. member got his Information from. What I stated was that the effect of this Act is, or will be—

Ah!

I was explaining that the result was going to be to oust unqualified workers. I explained that if a man had been working at a building on a farm and came into town, he could not get work any more.

What about the typist ?

I gave that as an example. I explained that I had an unqualified typist who was trying to learn her business, at £5 a month, but I had to take a higher paid one, and that naturally the learner would go. In regard to building, I said that owing to the legislation of this Government, our building costs and everything had increased, and I went so far as to say that the cost of the Pact Government to the country would amount to £3,000,000.

All hypothetical cases.

But the payment is not going to be hypothetical. I said that if the Pact Government did what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth South (Sir William Macintosh) mentioned with regard to the medicine tax, or if these increased costs were marked in pounds, shillings and pence on the articles or goods, there would be a howl which would speedily eject the Pact Government. I want to return to Doornkop. We do want to assist the Minister in not putting his foot into it ; and as to land purchases, he is probably as innocent as an unborn babe. It looks to us that the Minister is getting involved in a transaction which is going to cost us a lot of money. Where are these 100 settlers to be housed, and who is going to house them? I take it that they are not going to be housed in hovels. These cottages will have to be built out of advances made by the Government. It seems to me this whole scheme is made to manoeuvre the Government into having to “nurse this baby,” and every time the company threatens to go into liquidation the Government will have to step in. It is quite on the cards this company will liquidate, and we will be landed with the mill, and will have to pay for it. We stand to lose anything up to £200,000 before we are finished. Why do we not do it on our own ground, and why do we build the mill and the cottages on the company’s ground? Who is going to build this mill? Unless the mill goes up, there is going to be no sugar produced—the crux of the whole matter is the mill. The Minister should give us a better guarantee than he has given that this mill is going to be built.

Do I understand from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Centrai) (Col. I). Reitz) that he was wrongly reported when he was reported to have said that he personally had a typist dismissed by the Wages Board ? Or is this mysterious typist a figure of speech?

I have not got a typist.

Were these actual facts as reported in the press, or was the hon. member merely instancing them as a pessimistic prophecy as to what might happen at some future date ?

The sugar industry has been very sympathetic towards this scheme, so far as it knows anything at all about it, and I understand the Minister has obtained the advice of two well known sugar planters as to its merits or otherwise, and that it is largely on their advice that he has acted. Now I respect very much the opinion of these two planters, but I think it rather unfortunate that Doornkop should have been chosen for this experiment, particularly because of its past history. I raised this matter before, because I thought it quite unsuitable for a settlement of this nature. Kearsney is one of the oldest established districts in Natal, and they have been growing tea there for years. It was only because it was considered unsuitable for sugar that it was not long ago used for that. My information is that you can get three crops only from this land—that is three separate plantings—and it does not ratoon well. That has been the experience of Messrs. Huletts in the neighbourhood. Even if the land is good, I think the total area is too small, because a mill of the capacity which is going to be erected will prove unprofitable. The tendency throughout the sugar industry is to build larger mills so that they can become more economic units. I understand that the cane is to be planted by the company.

Plant cane is already there.

Yes, but that has to be planted out by somebody. The Minister will realize that it is going to take a considerable time for a man and his children to plant 50 peres of cane which is the size of his plot and do the weeding. It is obvious that they cannot get 50 acres planted and attended to by the maided efforts of the tenant—unless the Minister goes in for mechanical planting on a cooperative effort. If this is gone on with and they are successful they will get a total of 100 tons of cane a year, at 20 tons per acre every two years. I assume that 40 acres out of 50 will be planted.

5,000 out of 7,000.

Assuming it is 500 tons per allotment at 15s. 6d. per ton, the total sum you will get is very small only £387 10s. and that merely covers the cost of production, as ascertained by the Board of Trade and Industries. The tenant cannot hope to receive more than £60 a year profit, even if he gets 2s. 6d. a ton profit. It seems to me that 50 acres is not sufficient. On the general question of tenant farmers, I do not think this is a branch which should be tinder the Labour Department at all. It is the business of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Lands to settle people on the land, it should not be mixed up with the industrial activities of the people. The Labour Department should deal with matters which it most thoroughly understands. In Zululand a certain number of tenant farmers have been distributed amongst settlers, who live on Government land. They have entered into their agreements with these settlers to clear and plant up the land, and share the produce with the farmer. These tenant farmers went with their wives and families on to virgin land. They pitched their camp in the bush which they just had to clear. The crops they planted were a failure, so that, ultimately, all they achieved was to clear the land for the farmer for nothing. After strenuous labour for months at Government expense, they produced nothing whatsoever. I do not think that experiments of this kind will advance us far in tenant settlement. The whole scheme has proved a failure— at any rate, it has not proved a success. According to the Minister’s own figures, there are 219 persons left on the land out of 535 ; 71 out of the 219 have been placed in some other field of activity. Although there are a certain number still remaining out of the original settlers, 60 per cent, of them have had to be removed. The money spent on this experiment has proved of no value. How can it be otherwise ? The Minister has laid down three conditions under which these settlements can be a success. First a satisfactory farmer, who will treat the settlers in the right way ; then that tenants must be willing to work, and finally, you must have suitable land. It would require a whole department of psychology to study all these circumstances. [Time limit.]

Did the British Trade Facilities Committee give its guarantee to Mr. Rosenberg or the Government ?

Is there any reservation of trading rights on the property?

I have received a letter from one of my constituents, who has taken great interest in these tenant farmers schemes towards which he is very favourably disposed. He says that the experiment is worth trying on a small scale with the right kind of supervision. The farmers have had land cleared free of cost, but it was mostly done in small patches, and unless the tenant farmers remain to work the ground, it will revert to bush. He adds that in the present state of the cotton market it is very doubtful whether the settlers could obtain a living from cotton; tobacco is a good thing to grow, and if the tenants are content to live as a kind of peasantry, my correspondent thinks the scheme is feasible, as any experiment in the way of solving the poor-white problem is worth trying. He is of the opinion that if 50 per cent, of the settlers remain the scheme will probably be justified. He also states that the Minister, in settling these people, was suffering from a good deal of optimism which was unjustified. The scheme that was started by the late Government was for the farmer to build a house in which the tenants could live. But the present Government sends tenant farmers to Zululand with their wives and children, where there are no school facilities and no protection at all from the elements. They are put into the virgin bush to clear it, and are given £5 7s. 6d. a month with which to eke out an existence, and at the very best they cannot produce sufficient wealth to lead a civilized life. The only person who benefits is the farmer who can get his bush cleared for him for nothing. If we wish to treat the question in a statesmanlike manner this is not the way to do it. At present we are only touching the very fringe of the problem—helping 500 out of the thousands who are seeking assistance. If the Minister handed over this scheme to the Land Department and Department of Agriculture and utilized the money to subsidize industries in which people could earn a decent living, he would be spending the money to much greater advantage. As regards the Doornkop proposal, we have thousands of acres suitable for settlement where people could be placed under proper supervision and find a better living than they can possibly make from worn-out wattle land. I think we are making a mistake in going on with Doornkop. The Minister should take counsel with the Minister of Lands and have an up-to-date scheme, such as I have already put before him.

I hope the Minister will take heed of the warning given from this side of the House by men who can speak from experience of sugar growing and knowledge of Doornkop. When this matter came up in 1924 and warnings were issued from this side of the House, we were told that we were trying to make political capital out of the matter. Mr. Rosenberg advertised that this was the finest small holding scheme ever presented. If this were such a wonderful scheme, how is it that the public have not taken up the lots ? The Government should exercise the greatest care before embarking on such a venture. I warn the Minister that the scheme will not be a success. It is a pity that he could not have found a better scheme. Mr. Rosenberg apparently has tremendous influence with the Government, for when he started the scheme he got the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, Major Trigger and Mr. Justice Krause. However, having failed to obtain public support, he asked the Minister to put tenant farmers on the land. I hope the Minister will reconsider this scheme. Surely he can find better virgin soil from the land owned by the Government in the sugar belt upon which to place settlers ? The Board of Trade, in its report on the sugar industry, confirms the statement by Mr. Crockett, which indicates that a farmer producing less than 2,000 tons of cane has no prospect of making a profit. I feel confident that the scheme is going to end in a calamity. It is certainly a very serious matter for money to be wasted in the way it is being done. I want to call the Minister’s attention to another matter which was mentioned by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) in reference to the wattle farmers. It is a serious matter for, the wattle farmers, who are cutting wood to-day, that they should be brought under the Factories Act. There are many onerous conditions applied to them which it was never intended to apply under that Act. It is possible that a farmer may have two machines running from the same engine, one for cutting wattle wood and the other for chopping up mangels or any other foodstuffs for the cattle. In the one case knives are used, and the farmer does not come under the Factories Act. In the other case, where he is cutting poles for mine props, he comes under the Factories Act. The distinction seems to me to be an absurd one. I hope the Minister will see the unreasonableness of applying the Act to one particular section, and will take steps to have the Factories Act amended, so as to exclude all farming operations therefrom.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to what he said just now about a farmer, when he is a manufacturer, coming under the Factories Act. I quite agree there. When farmers co-operate and bring their produce together and repack it, is that a factory? In that case no machinery is used, except that the farmers bring their produce as a cooperation together, and this stuff is repacked, or if it arrives in good order it is not repacked at all, but only turned over once a fortnight. Can you put a price like that under the Factories Act ?

I hope that the Minister is not going to be frightened by all the tales that he has heard from the Natal members, because, as representing a sugar constituency, I welcome the scheme of the Minister as introducing some of the other European population to the sugar industry. When that has happened. I am sure that this House and the Government will treat with more sympathy the troubles and trials of the sugar planter. They will also learn what truth there is in the fairy tales that, are being told about the large profits which are returned by sugar planting, and they will learn it in a very practical manner. The plots on this estate are going to be measured off in areas of 50 acres, but you have to deduct from that the homestead, roads, tramlines, etc. Twenty four acres at 20 tons an acre will give you 480 tons of cane which, at 15s., will bring in about £350 as the return for two years’ work, say, £175 per annum. The thing is absurd. This £100,000 to be expended on the mill does not take into account any expenditure for tramlines, and will only give you a very small and inefficient unit. The smallest paying proposition is a mill producing not less than 10,000 tons. The whole of the practice in Natal tends to make the lowest unit 20,000 tons, and I put it to the Minister that he could save this £100,000, which is going to be expended on a mill by building a light line to the nearest large central mill, which would be far more profitable than putting down a new unit in the back country.

I should like to ask the Minister to again give his attention to the old system prevailing a few years ago, which is, unfortunately, no longer in force. That is, that the Land Bank should again advance money to people on condition that the man receiving the advance takes a bywoner on his farm. The amount hitherto fixed was, I think, £200, without its being a question whether there was a bond registered against the ground. The policy was that the money was given in the same way as advances for fencing, a bond was not passed. The money was advanced on condition that he took a bywoner and supplied him with a house and oxen and trek animals with the money. The Government retains the ownership over the goods purchased. I may say that the general manager of the Land Bank says that at that time not much use was made of it, but I am convinced that the people did not know that they could make use of the system, and if the Minister will bring it into operation again he will find that many of the farmers, I may say practically all in the northern Transvaal, will take one or other bywoner on their ground again. This will help to settle this difficult problem. Another improvement on the Minister’s scheme is attained thereby, because the owner of a farm then knows what bywoner he is getting on his farm. He knows him. That was the very reason of the failure or partial failure of the Minister’s scheme that the farmers would not take anybody on their farms. Under the system which I suggest, they will know who they are getting. I am pointing out that the money advanced will not be lost. The £200 is given on a pledge of the goods bought with it, and the man undertakes to repay the money within a certain number of years. The director of the Land Bank also said that nothing had been lost of advances made in the past in that way. The Land Bank knows very well under this system what people have received advances, and in this way work will be given to several thousands of people who to-day go first from the country to the towns, from the towns to the forests and then back to the land. I found, after enquiry, that the Labour Department only makes advances when the people have already been at the plantations. They must first of all succeed to get to the towns and then struggle to get on to the plantations, and then, with difficulty, come back to the land. It will be much better to prevent the people first having to go to the towns. Then I should like to point out to the Minister that in the past the welfare officers were not so careful about their work. In many cases the necessary steps were not taken to put people on ground where they could make a success of it. They were placed where no one formerly had ever lived, and where it was impossible to farm successfully. This is looking for trouble, and I hope the Minister will see in the future that not only is the advice of the welfare officer obtained, but also of other people acquainted with conditions in the district where the man is placed ; such as the magistrate and the chief inspector of lands.

I would like to follow up that suggestion of my hon. friend (Brig-Gen. Arnott), because we do want to suggest to the Minister a reasonable solution of this difficulty. I understand that the Doornkop Sugar Estate did actually approach the nearest mill for the taking of the cane there, Darnell. Why has that suggestion gone by the board ? There you have an up-to-date mill, one of the largest mills in the country, capable of more economic production than will ever be possible to a small mill at Doornkop. Why not put up the money to make that a co-operative mill and get all the planters round mere to be co-operators? They would probably be very glad to join in and Hulett’s might be induced to sell. There is the possibility of the larger unit returning a much better price for cane than is possible with a smaller mill.

I hope the Minister will reply to the questions I put to him.

There is a good deal in what the last speaker has said. There are indications that whereas some welfare officers have done remarkably well in placing the right men in the right places, there are others where greater care might have been exercised. In order that that difficulty may be met I have given instructions that there must be no tenant farmer placed on any farm until the papers have been submitted to me with supporting reports from magistrates and others. As to whether it would be possible for the Land Bank to advance the money for the purpose of placing bywoners on the farms, I am afraid that would be a matter which would come under the Lands Department. The actual reason for my doing this work is that I get into the Labour Department all kinds of people and I must have an outlet for those who are suitable and it is no use allowing the farmer to pick the bywoner and the Land Bank to advance him that money unless the Land Bank is satisfied that the election is a wise one and that the position will be satisfactorily met. If the farmer, under these circumstances, is willing to give a bond as security to the Land Bank, that is for the Land Bank and the Lands Department to consider. Some of these men are placed away on railway construction, some on road work and others are suitable for farmers, and that is why it happens to come under the Labour Department, because we have to sort out those who are suitable for tenant farmers and so on. We have set up a clearing station and training farm so that we can pass them through their test and, if suitable for farming, put them on farms and keep in touch with them. The Lands Department is concerned with the material side of it. The Labour Department takes an interest in the human side; in their social as well as their enonomic welfare. We regard them as our proteges until we can pass them on to a proper land settlement scheme or to the Lands Department under the ordinary scheme. It is not that we want to overlap or do anything that is not our function. We have to see that the children are schooled and that there is medical provision made for them. On a forestry settlement we have a welfare officer. All they are concerned with in the Forestry Department is to have a forest officer to direct the operations. We are quite prepared to hand them over to the Lands Department when they are in a position to be handed over, but that Department is not so directly interested in the human element. We have to Keep in touch with them, and we find that the more we keep in touch with them the more successful we are. Our most successful tenant farmers are those placed in the Brits area on leased land at Sand-drift. We have leased a farm there and instead of placing them with individual farmers in that district we are placing them on the Government farm. After they have made good and have a little cash we want to hand them over to the Lands Department and in the ordinary way they become settlers under the Land Settlement Acts.

You are not sending any more out to the farmers ?

I have drawn in a bit. I am satisfied that there will be a large percentage of successes. One owner says he has made his tenant farmer a partner, as he was so pleased with him. And there are many pleasing indications that a number are successful ; but I want a bigger proportion of successes and am working towards that end. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) Mr. Jagger) made reference to the 15 per cent, increase on furniture owing to the wage agreement. I have an advertisement here of Messrs. McNamees, one of the biggest furniture makers in Natal. As soon as that agreement to increase prices was announced this firm refused to be a party to it. They said it was not justified. This advertisement denies the statement that all South African manufactured furniture has been increased in price. It also points out that from evidence tendered to the Conciliation Board in Cape Town it transpired that their firm was one of the very few who were still paying their workers an equitable and living wage; that the manufacturers who had increased prices were those who had been compelled to raise the remuneration of their employees; that they had always paid their skilled craftsmen top wages and that there was no necessity for increased prices. So if the furniture people increase the price when it is not justified, you cannot blame the Act. You cannot blame the Industrial Council or the wage agreement if some firms take advantage of it to increase their prices. I expected that hon. members on that side would have looked with great favour on the Doornkop proposition, and I thank the hon. member for Natal Coast (Brig.-Gen. Arnott) for the way in which he has courageously stood up and congratulated us for what we have done. That is the spirit. It is no good saying, reconsider it—the parties have entered into the arrangement, and we have to go through with it and make a success of it. With regard to the question of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), the Trade Facilities Board has not notified us that the agreement was good. All these agreements have been made over the water with the knowledge and approval of the High Commissioner, who has written to say that these transaction have been completed, and that is sufficient for us. It is only about three weeks ago since they were completed. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) asked me rather an important question—

What the hon. member seems to have overlooked is that the management of the estate is going to be under the control of the Government, and therefore we have control of the trading rights: but the company at my request has undertaken to run a store and supply all the requirements of the settlement at cost price, plus six per cent, on the capital outlay, plus working expenses. I am very sorry indeed that the bona fides of Mr. Rosenberg have been questioned in this House. The advertisement at which all the criticism seems to have been levelled, and which caused the breakdown of the scheme he had previously in hand, was put into a Johannesburg paper without his consent and knowledge, when he was lying ill in hospital. He at once cancelled and gave instructions that it should never have been put in. On the strength of that advertisement which was put in by someone who had more enthusiasm than discretion, there was a political hue and cry raised in Parliament and the settlers became scared.

Who put in the advertisement ? You don’t suggest we did ?

His manager or secretary, or one of his officials. It nearly ruined him, because at once the settlers on the estate thought the thing was a fraud. He did the straight and honest thing, and told every settler that those who considered the scheme was not sound and straight could have their money back. Those who were dissatisfied got their money back. About twenty of the settlers then said they would like to stay, but he said it was no use running the scheme with twenty people— the thing was discredited on account of the advertisement, and he would have to start with a fresh scheme.

And came to you for sympathy ?

No, he came to us with the scheme on its merits. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), with his gibes, sneers and jeers, says these men are coming on as cheap labour ; but for every ounce of sugar they produce and mill they will be credited with the proportionate value, and ultimately, when the cooperative society is formed in three years’ time, or at latest, four years, they will be entitled to the full ownership of the plots they have been working, and two-thirds of the assets of the whole estate. Surely you could not have anything fairer than that. I myself would be willing to go on that estate under these conditions. We could have put these same men on other farms, but we decided to concentrate on this estate. We are secured— all the implements belong to us, the management of the concern is under our own control, and after the first bond is paid off, we come in as creditors in the ordinary way, like anybody else. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central; asked, what if the mill is not put up? If it is not put up they will have no £70,000 to pay. I ne capital of the company is £175,000. I am quite satisfied that this scheme will show that sugar can be profitably produced under co-operative methods in a settlement of this description, and I ask hon. members on the other side that we should be given a chance to prove that it can be made a success. If not, then they can criticize. They have only, however, been putting up skittles and knocking them down again.

Have you an agreement with the company ?

Yes, on the lines I have indicated.

I want to bring the Minister’s attention back to the tenant farmers we have in Zululand, who have been having a very thin time of it. I want to plead that the subsidy of these people should be continued for a longer period. The same correspondent whose letter I quoted previously writes—

These people cannot make a living, and the Minister must do something.

Give me the letter.

I will do so. This letter shows the necessity for putting these people under the control of the Lands or Agricultural Department. It is no good sending a welfare officer there to look after them, unless he has some knowledge of agriculture and local conditions. Under the supervision of picked officials these people might make good, but with supervisors accustomed only to industrial conditions the thing will be a failure.

I am not at all satisfied with the Minister’s explanation of the scheme.

You never would be.

Don’t say that—it is most unfair. If the transaction is such a highly satisfactory one, there should be no hesitation on the part of the Minister in placing the papers on the Table, but apparently he is reluctant to do so. I support the request that the papers be placed on the Table of the House.

The Minister gave us to understand that Mr. Rosenberg’s advertisement was issued while he was in hospital, and that certain features of it were introduced without his approval. When Mr. Rosenberg wrote in regard to the matter, he said that the company had given certain undertakings and guarantees, fully set forth in the official brochure, which amply protected any investor. Mr. Rosenberg, so far from regretting the advetisement with the letter from the Minister of Justice, seemed to glory in the support which he had from the Government.

Business suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.6 p.m.

Evening Sitting.

This afternoon we had a very interesting arid informative debate on the question of this tenant farmers’ settlement in Natal. With regard to the assistance which is to be given by the Imperial Trade Facilities Committee, I would like to ask whether this amount is simply to be guaranteed by the Imperial Government, or whether they guarantee only the interest. It seems to me that under this arrangement the promoters of this company, not getting the tenants they wished for this particular enterprise, have now turned to the Union Government for assistance, and it is apparent that the Government is to find for them the tenants to carry out this work. I understand that our Government has not only guaranteed to find the tenants for the land, but has also undertaken that these tenants shall receive £5 7s. 6d. per family per month while working these lands for the next few years. It appears to me that the company are in the position of “Heads I win, tails you lose.” If the Minister is desirous of placing men on the land—and I know his intention is to try and carry out that scheme as far as possible in all branches of farming—why should he turn his attention to sugar growing? I understand there is a quantity of Government land in Zululand more suitable than this for the cultivation of sugar. Under these circumstances, why not place those tenants on Government land and give them that salary or wage that is already proposed and guaranteed to the tenants of the private company ? Quite apart from the merits and demerits of this scheme, there is this point, that, if the Minister wished to settle men upon the land, why take up sugar growing? We have heard in various debates many facts which show the very hard fate of the sugar farmer and the difficulty under which he is producing, and not only producing, but also disposing of his product. We know that the sugar farmers have to have a certain amount of assistance by way of protective duties in the growing and disposing of their sugar, and that the sugar plantations of the Union are able to produce more than the local demand requires. From what we have been told, the export sugar is going to be sold practically at a loss. I feel that the Minister ought to be very careful in this arrangement which he has made with the company, and should see that the conditions are very strictly adhered to, and that the interests of these tenant farmers whom he is going to place there are fully and fairly protected.

In reply to the hon. member (Mr. Moffat), I may state that the British Government is providing the capital, the whole £70,000, and not merely the interest. The company has undertaken to provide the interest. In regard to the question as to why we did not place these tenant farmers on land belonging to the Government, we have already, as I have explained previously, as part of our scheme, Government land or lands which we have leased and which we hold for the next ten years, with the option of purchase. On this land we have placed quite a good number of men. We have placed 150 to 160 on these lands. What the hon. member seems to forget is that on this estate we shall have control. The board of management is in the hands of the Government. It has been asked why we should put these tenant farmers on sugar growing. We have got some on wheat, some on tobacco, and some on other things, and this proposition opened up, and the Government were not prepared to go in for purchasing the estate or spending money on the building of a mill. May I say, in conclusion, that where these people will score over other planters is that they will not only be planters, but they will also become millers. They will be planters and millers. The people who have been making most of the money in the past have not been the planters, but the millers. They will be entitled to a share of the profits as planters, and to a share of the profits as millers. It will be, I think, a good example of a cooperative policy, with a co-operative mill working on these lines in fact, I am quite satisfied that large numbers of the sugar planters in Natal and Zululand will heartily welcome this in order that they may get to the bottom of what it exactly costs to mill sugar. I am also satisfied, in spite of what hon. members opposite may say, that the settlers, the Labour Department and the country will get an absolutely straight and square deal from Mr. Rosenberg, the managing director of that company. That was proved by his action on the previous occasion, when he paid out those who were dissatisfied owing to the agitation in this House against the scheme—an agitation caused by an unfortunate advertisement that he knew nothing about until it appeared. That practically ruined him, because people got scared. His action on that occasion has inspired me, at any rate, with a certain amount of confidence that this Government and this department and the settlers will get a fair and square deal from Mr. Rosenberg, a much straighter deal than they would get from many of his critics.

I do not know anything about this scheme apart from what I have heard during this debate, but the impression I have got is that the Minister is altogether too sanguine about it. I hope that it will work out well, but I should be profoundly astonished if it does work out on the lines that the Minister anticipated. The point raised by the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) is, to my mind, a good one. You are going to put these men on a piece of land to raise sugar. We already produce in Natal more sugar than the Union can consume, and a surplus of 65,000 tons has to be exported. Any further addition to the production of sugar in South Africa means a loss. You have got to export it and export it at a loss, as was shown the other day. There is little or no profit to be made out of this business, except the artificial profit which is made by the heavy duty on what is consumed in South Africa. I see an item here, “placement officer.” I would like some information about that. Then there is a grant-in aid to the National Service Fund. Perhaps the Minister will give a little more information about that item, and he might also tell us how the coloured labour exchange is working.

I should like to ask the Minister a question. As he is aware, there are a number of tenant farmers at Wolhuters Kop in the district of Rustenburg, and they were given advances to buy cattle. The welfare officer, Mr. Muller, who went about assisting the people, advised the tenant farmers to join up under the scheme, and he was one of the people who had to pass the oxen. I have a letter in my possession which says that the welfare officer advised that oxen belonging to a certain Mr. Jan Meyer should be bought, but it appeared subsequently that the oxen did not come from Pienaars River in the Bushveld. They came from other parts of the country, from Mashonaland and from the Free State, and after they had been there for a month, many of the oxen died. One man, a certain Mr. de Beer, lost six out of 12. Now I want to ask the Minister, seeing that the oxen were pressed upon the people by the welfare officer, if he will not make provision for the people not having to pay the full amount. It will be hard on the people to have to pay the full amount, because the oxen died within a month without their being able to be used at all.

The Minister appears quite to overlook this important point. When he claims that the property is under the control of the Government because the Board of Management is largely to consist of Government nominees, he seems to overlook the fact that financial obligations are of very little value unless you have security linked to the title of the land. The title to this ground is pledged to another party from the outset. The property is pledged to the people who hold the mortgage for the £70,000, and, charm he never so wisely, he can get no money out of the concern so long as the liability of the debenture holders has not been liquidated. The Minister stands up here to plead the cause of private enterprise—a Minister whose whole political past has been one declaration of belief in socialism. He comes here pleading not only for private enterprise, but in particular for Mr. Rosenberg, and we on this side of the House are held up and compared most unfavourably with Mr. Rosenberg ; we are told that he is a more honest man than his critics. I take strong exception to that. I am not prepared to take that from the Minister or anybody else. Mr. Rosenberg seems to have a, complaint against us because our criticisms last year against his attempt to foist upon the public, at £25 per acre, a property which he paid 30s. an acre for, has ruined him. As a matter of fact, if we were successful in keeping him from ensnaring more people than he had already secured under these circumstances, I think we did right well, and the public entirely approved of the action of this side of the House. The Minister has yet to learn that things are not what they seem, and certainly not as they seem when represented by Mr. Rosenberg. Mr. Rosenberg undoubtedly has been a very strong and faithful political supporter of the present Government. He received a most remarkable tribute from the Minister of Justice, which can only have been for political services rendered. To-day we have this remarkable fact that the Minister of Labour comes forward and asks this House to approve of an undertaking in which he is pledging the money of the State, thus committing himself to an expenditure of not less than £39,000 without a shred of security. He has no title to the ground, and he proposes to do this at a time when there is abundance of Government ground at his disposal, and ground which he could develop with this sum of money without any jeopardy. I fear me the closure is in sight, if I am to judge by the way in which the Minister is being entreated by his followers.

Don’t you think you deserve it ?

I saw the faithful gathering round the Minister to receive his instructions.

You know what you deserve, don’t you?

I have not sinned past enduring yet. I wish to show the Minister that he is embarking on an entirely wrong course, and one which is the antithesis of the one he has in the past professed. He was out for the development of the State’s property. He has the State’s property, but will not develop it. He chooses to expend money in the development of property which is pledged to another company, and in respect of which he has very little chance of seeing his money back. Surely it is a cruel thing to hold out to these tenant farmers the inducement that they are to become part owners of this property when the whole security is pledged to another company. It is bordering on the absurd for the Minister to take these hundred settlers and tell them they are to become owners of two-thirds of that property under these circumstances. The Minister has refused to give us a sight of these documents, and it appears to me it is nothing but the right of this House to have access to the papers which will pledge this State to this expenditure. If the thing is as sound as the Minister would have us believe, surely there should be no objection to our having access to these papers. There is another point: In some cases tenant farmers were induced to visit a property which was reserved by the Lands Department, and was not favourable for the occupation of tenant farmers. They were taken by motorcars to view this farm, and were delighted with the prospects, and when they returned with their belongings they were told that the property was not available. That was very inconsiderate to those men. The board of the Land Bank, in its annual report, has indicated that considerable disappointment has been experienced in connection with tenant farmer schemes. Some owners with whom tenants have been placed have failed to take an interest in them, and some tenants have failed to carry out the instructions of the owners, and the Land Bank wishes to be relieved of the accounting work in connection with this scheme. Does the Minister propose to accede to that suggestion, or does he intend to hold the Land Bank responsible for the administration of these funds ? The funds are voted by Parliament, and now that the Minister has an accounting branch of his own, the Land Bank would like to be relieved of this work. [Time limit.]

I have listened with some interest to this scheme of settlement, and I must admit that if I were hard up and looking for a job it is about the last thing I would tackle, and if the agitation from this side of the House last year prevented some good citizens of this country from sinking £25 an acre in that land, I hope the words from this side on this occasion will prevent another 100 good citizens-from taking up this job. I am afraid, however, that they are in the unfortunate position of having no option. Last year we had proposals discussed in regard to settling these unfortunate men who are called “poor whites,” and who originally belonged to the land. We have the Hartebeestpoort scheme and others for settling this type, and I consider we were on safe ground in that project. A man had an opportunity of working up from one position to another. He is placed on the ground and watched, and given the opportunity of eventually owning his own plot of ground, and it was on Government ground also, and that seems the only way to settle the poor whites in this country ; to give them something to look forward to, and as they gain strength of character and get into the habit of working, they will determine to obtain the ownership of that land. Is there the slightest possibility of these 100 men ever owning this ground? Not the slightest. It has a liability of at least £150,000. The mill is going to cost £100,000, and before these men can own a tittle of the ground, that liability has to be worked off. Put it at £70,000 for the mill. Are you going to tell these men that they are going to work off that amount in a few years and own the ground ? It is preposterous. I am sure this scheme is going to end in failure, and I think land settlement of this nature should be under the Lands Department. The Labour Department can draft men into the Department of Lands, but to have two organizations under two different departments seems to me to be a wrong principle and likely to cause double the expense. You will have the two departments running along different lines, with general dissatisfaction. The Department of Labour does not really know the conditions pertaining in the country.

I want to get an expression of opinion on the policy that is going to be pursued by the Government in regard to the settlement of poor whites. In a debate recently I pointed out that land settlement was no solution of the poor white problem at all, and my opinion has received striking confirmation in a report which emanates from a committee set up by the Reformed Church to enquire into this question—a committee consisting of the Rev. P. J. Perold and the Rev. Mr. Smuts, who point out in their report the result of their investigations into two sets of people. After 25 years 63 children of poor white families who drifted to the towns have entered different trades, and are earning from £3 to £28 per month, and, with one or two exceptions, there are now no poor whites amongst them ; but of those who had remained on the land, in 25 years only three of the children had succeeded by their own energy in acquiring farms. This evidence, I think, is very valuable testimony of the wisdom of providing industrial vocations for our poor whites instead of crying “back to the land.” Our whole policy ought to be clearly stated and more closely studied. I am convinced that this system of tenant farmers, and the system of forming poor white settlements of people with no capital, is a mistake, and I do ask the Minister, in view of that report, whether he would give expression to his opinion about it. I think the money we spend on schemes now coming before the House is wasteful expenditure. They merely result in the examples I have given. The Minister may be expending the money better in finding industrial careers for these people, by subsidizing suitable industries which would afford them remunerative employment.

I am glad the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has raised that point, because the department has been taking a great interest in it. These two gentlemen were asked to attend the advisory council meeting three weeks ago, when we discussed this aspect fully with them. I asked them to co-operate with a local committee in Cape Town in order to go more into detail, and to tell us exactly what their policy would be in this direction. Not everybody brought up on farms is suitable for farming. The statistics are striking that a percentage brought up on farms are more suitable for other careers than farming, and the object of the Labour Department is to set up a sorting station, so as to find the round pegs for the round holes. These gentlemen want to go into the country and to get boys who are suitable for industrial training, those who have a mechanical bent of mind and the like, bring them to Cape Town, and house them in hostels provided by the church associations, assisted by a Government subsidy. I have asked them to report to our next advisory council meeting.

Are you contributing money to put up these hostels ?

We are going to contribute for the establishment of a hostel at Stellenbosch at so much per head, to get them to start. The hostel at Port Elizabeth is being provided for out of the housing loan applied for by the municipality, and the manufacturers, the leather workers in particular, have formed themselves into a committee there, and contribute a sum every year to keep this going and to start a new one. We do not contribute anything to that at all. The hon, member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) said that certain oxen had been purchased on behalf of tenant farmers and brought into districts where they were not acclimatized, and as a result died. If the hon. member will give me the details I will see that the case is gone into on its merits, and we will give the most sympathetic consideration we can, after we have investigated. The placement officer referred to by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Sir. Jagger)—Norman is his name—is really an the Durban staff. I understand that all over the world the Norman family is occupied doing social work of that kind, and the result of his activities in Durban has been that they hold the record for boys found suitable for placement. The report is that there are practically none on their books, largely due to the activities of this officer. When the Mines and Industries Department ran the White Labour Bureau and the unemployment exchanges, they started a sort of sewing-room for women in Johannesburg. It was not very satisfactory, and caused a good many difficulties, so the department handed it over to the Women’s Reform Club, and gave them a grant in order to carry on that work. Supervision comes under the Divisional Inspector of Labour, and he reports they are doing very good work, and that many women have benefited by it. As to the coloured labour exchanges, in Cape. Town we have a Coloured Juvenile Affairs Board, and also in Kimberley. Pressure has been brought to bear to have one in Johannesburg. I went into it, and do not think the numbers justify the setting up of a separate department. The coloured people themselves have an office, and run it as a labour exchange for the coloured people, and the policy of the department in the past has been to pay these people a grant towards running their office. When I go to Johannesburg I will inspect the work they are doing to see whether it should be taken over, and attached to the White Labour Office, or the grant increased.

I do not want to criticize Mr. Rosenberg, who came very prominently before this House two years ago, but I am speaking merely as a practical farmer, and I know this land very well. I know that two or three thoroughly practical men tried to make something of this land, but they made a hopeless failure of it. As far as planting sugar cane there goes, anybody who knows anything about it knows that it is futile. Other crops failing, wattle, which will grow on the poorest land, was tried. A lot of money was lost on it, and the owner told me he did not know how to get out of his deal. He would be highly delighted if somebody took over the ground. Then Mr. Rosenberg came along. There is no doubt that the tremendous business acumen of this gentleman has recommended him to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Justice, but at the same time I am afraid that the people who will be left to “nurse the baby” will be the hard-working settlers the Minister intends to place there. Levity apart, I assure the Minister it is an absolutely rotten piece of ground for the purpose, and the Minister will be doing these men a very real injustice if he puts them on this land. If the Minister listens to the words of wisdom which have been addressed to him from this side of the House, he will save the State’s money and his own reputation.

I move—

High time, too!

Upon which the committee divided:

I move—

The great importance of the export of our perishable produce is generally known. Last year the House had an opportunity when passing the Fruit Export Control Act of going into the whole matter, and since that time it has been clear to everyone who takes an interest in our perishable produce—not only fruit but also other classes of produce—that the position to-day is such that steps must be taken in the matter. By giving a few figures the House will appreciate the importance of the various industries. In 1921 the export of citrus fruits was 229,000 boxes. In 1925 it was 832,000 boxes. In 1921 the export of deciduous fruit was 406,000 boxes, in 1925 it was 1,651,000 boxes. In 1921 eggs were exported to the value of £180,000, in 1925 the value would have been £250,000 if so much damage had not been suffered as a result of the contamination of the eggs. The last-mentioned figures are taken from the report of the Egg Export Commission. In 1925 butter and cheese were exported to a value of £69,000. This particularly large development in the export of our perishable produce is therefore clear and if we further remember that according to the latest census in 1925 the number of fruit trees planted was 18,000,000—I do not include the ordinary vines which mean a great deal to our export—and since that time certainly another two to three million trees have been planted and if we bear in mind that of the 18 million trees 11 million are hearing to-day and that certainly no less than half of the 11 million are in full bearing, hon. members will appreciate how necessary it is to place the whole matter of export of perishable produce on a proper and healthy oasis. It is more important because such a large number of small farmers are taking up tile export of deciduous fruit, citrus fruit and eggs. A large number of small farmers in all parts of South Africa where fruit is grown are engaged in producing perishable things and they are quite dependant on the proceeds of their produce. I say with conviction that if the necessary steps are not taken to properly carry out the export of our perishable produce then there will be a large number of farmers who will not be able to carry on in the long run. South Africa in this respect is in a peculiar position. We have not, like America, a large inland market for our produce, but in South Africa where we produce large quantities of perishable produce we have only a small population to consume them, and our country is thus in the special position of our market having to be looked for 6,000 miles away. Everything thus depends on proper transport, cooling at the docks and the proper consignment by ship to the market 6,000 miles away. My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, said recently at a congress in the Transvaal that he expected that within the next five or six years we should be exporting about 5,000,000 boxes of citrus fruit. 5,000,000 of citrus fruit alone! To give hon. members an idea of what this will mean to us, hon. members will remember that our Board of Control of the fruit export last year chartered a special ship because the fruit export did not have sufficient space in the ordinary lines coming to South Africa. And if in five years we reached the position I have just sketched we shall have to get at least fifty ships as large as the “Edda” to export our fruit, and I am assuming that the various ships will take 100,000 boxes each. Hon. members will therefore see what development is taking place today in connection with the producing of citrus fruits and other perishable produce. It is such that practically in the near future it will be of the very greatest importance. Another fact which must be borne in mind is that the State has already expended £8,000,000 in irrigation works. As a result of this—I am speaking only of State schemes, not of private ones— we are already able to put under irrigation 240,000 morgen of ground, but of the 240,000 of morgen there are still only 78,000 morgen being cultivated. In other words if we succeed, as we all hope, within a short time in having all the ground properly placed under irrigation schemes and under cultivation, then we shall have the position that while to-day there is only 78,000 morgen under cultivation that there will then be a further 160,000 to 170,000 morgens also under cultivation. If that happens, hon. members can appreciate how large and comprehensive the problem of transport of the produce will be. It is also quite clear, our experience in various parts of the country proves it, than when we speak of the increase of our population on the countryside, we must pay attention to the training of our farmers to produce various perishable products ; and to make the production profitable we must provide markets and transport to the markets. The experience of recent years has, I think, convinced everybody who takes an interest in our fruit industry how necessary it is to provide for proper shipping. We must once and for all look the facts in the face that the steamship lines, the Union-Castle Line, the Australian Lines, and other lines that run to South Africa have not sufficient cold storage accommodation for the produce available for export to-day. That is a fact the farmer producing for export must bear in mind, and the State must also remember that the existing steamship lines do not give sufficient facilities. The Board of Control which was itself obliged during last season to charter a ship the “Edda” to carry the large consignments of fruit overseas, and as I have already said, it will have to take place in the future to a greater extent in all probability. Let me in this connection say a word of praise, and I think hon. members on both sides of the House will agree with me, of the Board of Control in connection with the work which it did during the past year, from the chairman to every member of the Board. Proof was given that the Government were justified in asking this House last year to create such a board of control. I am further glad to say that the cooperation between the exchanges and the board of control was satisfactory and in that way the board of control was able to deal with the matter with a fairly large amount of success. With reference to the Bill now before the House, I want to point out in the first place what the Bill does not deal with, because it is quite clear to me from the large number of telegrams I have received from all parts of the country, and from the press, that a good deal of misunderstanding exists in connection with the proposed functions of the Board of Control laid down in this Bill. No powers are being given to the Board of Control as regards the organization of individual industries in the country. The Board will not have the least control over the packing despatch to the inland cold storage and the inland organization of private industries. That organization remains reserved for private individuals and of cooperative societies. Under the Bill the Board of Control will not have the power of meddling in the organization of the individual producers or by co-operation, or with the persons who will be individually exporting their produce. Another point about which there is considerable misunderstanding, as it seems to me, is that the Board of Control will possibly interfere with the matter of the internal market. There is nothing in the Bill which gives the Board of Control the least power in connection with the difficult matter of the internal market. This is again a matter which is left to the various producers, to organize themselves into co-operative societies, and to themselves regulate the inland market. I think there is no one in the House who does not know in what chaos the inland market is as regards the sale of produce, especially of fruit. Hon. members will agree as regards the marketing of produce in this country that there is a tremendously large field for the various fruit exchanges to show their capacity. According to the report in connection with the inland market, the exchanges are not at all doing enough to develop the inland markets. Complaints are constantly heard—and I can say justly—that as regards the marketing of fruits in this country conditions are quite unsatisfactory. I can say that the experience of the Railway Department in connection with the movement which was commenced to supply more fruit in the dining saloons and other refreshment places, is that the greatest difficulty is experienced to get good fruit at reasonable prices. The inland market is a great field to which the various fruit exchanges should give their attention. Another matter which the board will have nothing to do with is the marketing overseas. The question of marketing overseas, whether the fruit shall be sold on the continent of Europe, in England, or in other parts of the world, is a matter which is entirely left in the hands of the various exchanges. It seems to me that in this regard a considerable amount of misunderstanding exists. Hon. members will possibly refer me to the clause in the regulations whereby the power is given to the Board of Control to prepare regulations whereby it gets the right in certain circumstances of altering the destination of the fruit to certain harbours overseas, and to send it to another harbour than that to which it was despatched. Let me say that as far as I know not a single fruit farmer and producer is against that. How could they be opposed to it ? Let me point out how the Board of Control can exercise the power. On a certain date there may be available shipping accommodation for Glasgow but not for London. In these circumstances I ask whether it would be sensible not to give the Board of Control the power of consigning the fruit to Glasgow. In the negotiations with the fruit exchanges that was not a thing they objected to. There can be no question of there being any danger because the Board of Control will only have the right in certain circumstances.

What about Clause 4 (f).

That only deals with the matter of shipping from harbours in South Africa. The Board of Control gets the power as regards, shipping from South African harbours to also make an alteration. I will make it plain.

I understand that.

Then I need not further go into it. Power is given to the Board of Control to alter the harbour of shipment. If hon. members do not agree to that I will only say that it is necessary because in special circumstances it may happen that there is not the necessary cold storage accommodation, e.g., in Durban, but there is in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth or East London, and for this reason it is necessary to give the power to the board of control. Let me say in connection with the matter of overseas marketing that in this respect there is a particularly large field of work for the various fruit exchanges. What has experience taught us during the past season in connection with the shipment by the Edda? We learned that where in the past attention was concentrated on the British market, there is a good opportunity to also win markets for our fruit on the Continent. In this connection I want to say that the British market is still a particularly good one for the South African fruit farmers, and it would be foolish not to properly appreciate and bear in mind this market. Moreover as regards the British market, more steps can be taken by the various exchanges to get our fruit sold and made popular. The shipment of part of the fruit which was made by the Edda to the Continent has shown that Holland and the continental markets may be valuable to us if they are properly developed. There is a particular large field of operations for the various fruit exchanges in connection with overseas marketing, and this must be borne in mind and suitable, action taken. Let me also point out to the House where the powers of the board of control are being extended in certain respects. I refer to Clause 4. I will not detain the House by dealing with everything but hon. members will see that no powers are given to the board in connection with internal organization or inland or foreign marketing. The board of control is only given various powers as regards the export and the shipment of the fruit from here overseas. Clause (4) defines the powers very clearly, and I do not think it is necessary to say more about the matter. Only this that the powers which are here given only have reference to carriage over the railways, handling in the docks and shipping from South Africa.

Is there such legislation in Australia or New Zealand ?

Yes, of a more or less similar kind. Take, e.g., the dairy industry. There the corresponding board is not only responsible for the shipping but also for packing. It takes produce from the farms, sees to its carriage and for everything including shipment as well as for the sale, and then only hands over the proceeds to the producer.

Is that a nominated board ?

Partly.

Is it a Government board?

No, a board which is partly nominated by the Government, partly by the producers, but the producers have the majority on the board. As, however, I have said they do everything. They take the produce from the farm of the producer, sell it and hand the proceeds over to the producer. Under this bill the board on the contrary only see to the shipping. Let me then just point out what alteration has been made with regard to the guaranteeing of agreements. Hon. members will see that under the Bill the board is created a corporation. The board of control can be summoned and summon and of course it follows that the board has the right to enter into contracts which it could not do under last year’s Act. The board can now enter into contracts with shipping companies. Hon. members will remember that under the previous Act the board was not a corporate body and consequently could make no contracts, but the fruit exchange had to do that. Now the board itself can enter into the contracts, and the Minister of Agriculture will be able to give the required guarantees to shipping companies with reference to the carrying out of agreements. The Minister of Agriculture can guarantee the contracts in accordance with Clause 11 and 12 regarding the levy on produce. Clause 12 lays down the basis on which each industry shall contribute to the expenses of the board of control. In Clause 12 (4) it is provided that the amount for each separate industry shall be in proportion to the value of the export of the produce so that if an industry exports more, it will automatically pay more towards the expenses by increase of the levy.

Will a private business man be able to export produce to Europe ?

Yes, even without joining the co-operative society. All he has to do is that if he wants to export produce he gives notice to the board of control and the board will make the agreement. Of course we have in view the pushing of co-operation, but hon. members will see that no one is compelled as far as the Government is concerned. We are anxious to see every producer being a member of a co-operative society, but nothing in the Bill compels anyone to become such a member of such society I then come to the only point of difference. I think what I have so far dealt with has the complete approval of the fruit farmers as well as of the egg circles. I will not say that there is unanimity in every respect, but as for the provisions in the beginning of the Bill, there is no objection to what I have discussed so far. All the various interests want such an export board to be created and I think I can safely say that not a single body, no co-operative society, is not in agreement with the necessity of the creating of such a body. There is, however, serious difference of opinion with regard to the composition of the board. Let me first point out what is proposed in the Bill and then say what is alleged by those who object to Clause 1. Clause 1 (2) provides that the board shall consist of six members, three of whom are called ordinary members and three representative members. The three ordinary members consist of the chairman and two other members nominated and appointed by the Governor-General, i.e., the Government. The three other members will be nominated by the particular industries mentioned here, viz.: those of deciduous and citrus fruits, eggs and poultry. The three separate industries will be asked by the Minister of Agriculture to nominate separately a panel of three persons. They are absolutely free to appoint to the panel who-ever they wish, and the Minister will appoint one person from each industry on the board. In this way we have six members, three of whom are ordinary and three representative members.

Must the Minister adopt the recommendations or not?

As regards the three ordinary members the Minister is free, as regards the three other members, he is obliged to nominate one out of each of the panels.

What about the dairy industry ?

That is not yet of sufficient importance as regards export to justify that it also should nominate a member. As I said the board for the present will consist of six members, but just as soon as the dairy industry becomes sufficiently important as regards export the industry will have the right to nominate a further representative on the board. The number then will be seven. Any other industry of perishable produce which in the future becomes of sufficiently great importance will also be able to nominate a representative, and so in course of time the board can be extended. The Government will then be able to appoint further representatives in the same proportion as at present. Let me now say what the great objection to the Bill is. The argument of the fruit exchanges is that the export of the products, deciduous or citrus fruit, should be under the control of a board which consists of nominees of the various exchanges. They have no objection to the appointment of an independent chairman, but to the way in which other members of the board are being appointed. They want the other nominees to be members as recommended by the various exchanges, say two of the deciduous fruit exchange, two for the citrus fruit exchange and two for the egg circle, and an extension to other industries if sufficient export takes place. That is the argument of the exchanges so far as I understand them. I have not the least objection to the members of the deciduous fruit exchange, of the Western Province or of the Transvaal or of any other place holding this view. They are quite entitled to think so, but I think the Government has good reason for following a different policy. What I object to is that the fruit exchanges during the past week—I will not say in a wilful way because that would be too serious a word to use—after I had confidentially submitted to them the Bill and had discussed details with them took steps which I think everybody in this House would strongly object to. Let me read a telegram which was sent to every part of the country where there are fruit producers. I will ask hon. members if there is the least justification for it in view of this Bill. The telegram is as follows—

Quite right.

If it is right in the hon. member’s opinion, then it is proof that he has never read the Bill. There it is said that the Minister refused to adopt the nominees of the exchanges, and that co-operative principles were disregarded in the Bill. What could be said by the exchanges is that there is not a majority representation of the exchanges on the Board of Control. If they say that they will be quite right, but to say that the principles of co-operation are ignored in the Bill while they know, and I discussed this with them, that provision is made in the Bill to have representatives of the exchanges for deciduous and citrus fruit growers on the board, then one can say that they have brought people in the country under a wrong impression. I do not want to use strong language, but I want to say that I do not at all doubt that the telegrams I have received from various parts of the country are based on wrong information given by the exchanges to the various co-operative societies. Will the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) contest that?

Yes.

I will hand the telegram to the hon. member. I want to go further and say that, as regards the three independent members, the Government will appoint the chairman without consulting the fruit exchange, but as regards the other two independent members, the Government is prepared to consult the different industries.

There is nothing of that in the Bill.

I admit that, but I want the hon. member to listen, so that he should not understand me wrongly. The Government is prepared to consult the fruit exchanges. If they make a good recommendation, it means that the Government will be prepared to consider it, but to do what the exchange did, viz., to bring the whole country under that wrong impression, I cannot approve. I was not even asked for permission to send it, although I had shown them the Bill in confidence. I should still not object if the actual facts had been given to the co-operative societies, but there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the matter in the country, and the co-operative societies have been given the impression that the Government is out to crush them, and there is not the least justification for that.

That is still a question.

Members may differ, but to say that we are against the principle of cooperative societies is quite untrue. I will tell hon. members, however, why the Government is not prepared to adopt the proposal to nominate the members of the board from persons indicated by the various exchanges. The Government feel that where we have to do with fruit and eggs, butter and cheese, we have to do with things each of which the individual member of a particular exchange has no special knowledge of. Will any hon. member say that, a producer of deciduous fruit is acquainted with the export of eggs?

Will the board be composed out of head officials in so far as the Government nominations are concerned ?

I will tell hon. members what men I am going to appoint. As regards the members of the board, they must be men with general business knowledge. They must have just as much business knowledge to judge about the interests of egg export as well as of citrus fruit. I am a farmer’s son, and I can therefore never depreciate a farmer. Nevertheless, I say that a farmer in general cannot have knowledge about the export of deciduous fruit, citrus fruits as well as of eggs.

What about the members of the Chambers of Commerce?

They are business men.

Are farmers not business men ?

In their own business, yes.

Who must pay?

The farmers, certainly. But that does not mean that because they have to pay we must not do the best for them that is possible, by appointing business men with general business knowledge.

Schlesinger and his family.

It seems as if the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) has Mr. Schlesinger on the brain. Let me ask the hon. member if he denies that Mr. Schlesinger and his company are large producers of citrus and other fruits in this country?

I do not at all deny that, but I became afraid about what I saw in the lobbies of this House.

The hon. member got a fright, but the Government has not on that account got one yet.

I hope it will become afraid.

I hope the hon. member will be sensible enough to see that as Mr. Schlesinger and his company are very large producers of fruit, they have just as much right to expect this or any other Government to properly look after the maintenance of their interests. Why, then, is the hon. member afraid ? There is no question of putting Mr. Schlesinger and his relatives on the board.

I represent a fruit district, and therefore I want to call attention to the matter.

The Government takes up this attitude so that the interests of each separate industry can be properly looked after. The staff of the board must have proper notice, and be fully acquainted with the complicated technical difficulties of shipping. It is not easy, and I say again, with all respect to the farmers, that they can certainly give very good advice and information as regards production, and the time for shipment, but when it comes to giving the technical policy, the Government must give preference to men who are acquainted with business generally. If at the same time they are fruit producers, so much the better. The first consideration in appointing the three men will, however, be not whether they are fruit farmers, but whether they are actually people who understand business principles.

Who is going to pay them ?

The fruit farmers. Am I to understand that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) really does not wish the board to be constituted as I have here suggested? Will such a board not look after in the best possible way the interests of the farmers ? Does he suggest that the Government will not appoint men who will look after the interests of the farmers?

Pecular men have been appointed on other boards.

The hon. member knows well enough that the boards which the Government has appointed have done good work, that the Board of Control appointed last year did excellent work in the interests of the fruit farmers. It did a great work as regards the export of fruit, and the hon. member knows it. Under his Government, the export of fruit suffered damage for years because proper cold storage accommodation was not provided. That Government allowed things to rip.

We made a commencement with cold storage accommodation at the docks.

Ask the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) if he made a commencement. He is not so shameless as the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts).

We gave instructions to make a commencement.

I made an offer last year to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) to place the files of my office at his disposal, so that he could prove to me, and the House, that he wrote a letter giving instructions to make a commencement. I repeat that offer to-day. If he finds a letter in the files giving such instructions, then he can say so in this House.

I shall not take any further trouble.

Hon. members know that there is nothing in it, yet they come here and attack the Government and try to make out that we are not looking after the interests of the fruit farmers. They are simply saying something which is not correct. The Government intends to appoint a Board of Control, which will be able to properly look after business interests, and on which the co-operative societies will also have proper representation. I make bold to say that notwithstanding all the agitation, there is a great and strong feeling in the country among the fruit farmers that the Government is doing the right thing. In the Western Province there is a large number of people who think that the Government is absolutely right to appoint a Board of Control which will look after the interests of the producer of deciduous and citrus fruits, eggs, butter and cheese. If the Board of Control has a proper appreciation of its responsibility, and if its members have thorough business knowledge, then it will meet with confidence, not only of one industry, but from each of the various important industries in the country.

I am sorry that the Minister of Railways has wound himself into such a state of excitement in the latter part of his speech. I can only account for it, because of the extraordinary position in which the Minister stands to-day compared to that in which he stood in this House last year. The Minister gained golden opinions from the farmers of this country. For what.? Because he stood up against the Minister of Agriculture, who refused to do anything. He took up the cause of the co-operative farmers of this country in this House against a certain amount of opposition, and in another place against the organized opposition of his own party, and carried through the Shipping Control Bill entirely in the interests of the co-operative fruit farmers. I would like to ask him why this falling off from the good position that he took up last year, and why the Minister, who fought the battle of the fruit exchange against the Minister of Agriculture, now passes such strictures upon the fruit exchange because, being informed of the character of the Bill, they communicated, as they were bound to do, with their various organizations throughout the country to ask them to uphold the co-operative principle for which that exchange had been established ?

Does that telegram set forth the facts correctly?

That telegram sets forth the facts correctly. It is not a co-operative board any longer, but a nominated board of the Government. I have not that confidence in the nominations of the Government that my hon. friend has. I have less confidence after the statement by the Minister of the Interior last night that he allowed political considerations to guide him in making certain appointments of an important character. What I feel as a fruit farmer and a member of the fruit exchange, and what other members of the fruit exchange feel as well, is that we are doubtful about whom the Minister is going to appoint, and we ask ourselves why has the Minister departed entirely from the policy which he so ably and eloquently advocated last session. I do not know the reasons. I was thunderstruck when I understood the Minister was introducing a Bill of this character. Not so long ago, the Bill of last year being passed, and influences being at work, which brought together these outside sections which had refused previously to join the fruit exchange, a meeting was called by the Minister of Agriculture. At that meeting were the then existing members of the fruit exchange, and the other interests which had, up to that period, refused to join up, and, with a view of harmonizing the views of both sections, citrus and deciduous, of the fruit growers of this country, the fruit exchange altered their articles of association and, instead of having a citrus and deciduous sub-board, they had a citrus and decidiuous fruit exchange amalgamated in the general co-operation of the two bodies. I would ask my hon. friend how, after 90 to 95 per cent, at least of the fruit growers of this country have thrown in their lot with the fruit exchange, was it to be expected that an alteration would be made in the law of such a character that the control went out of the hands of the people whom the Government had done so much in assisting to bring together. The Shipping Control Board that was appointed last year, having acted so well—I do not say, and the fruit exchange do not say, that there was not room for improvement—why should there be this attempt to interfere with co-operation, and put a levy upon producers, and refuse to allow them to administer that levy themselves ? I remember the attacks that I was subjected to by hon. members opposite when I suggested provisions that put levies on the growers of produce in this country in their own interests. I remember the shrieks that went up from hon. members opposite. Now what takes place in this Bill ? A levy is put on the growers of produce and, through the action of the Minister of Railways, so far as the shipping and export of that produce is Concerned, the producers who foot the Bill have not got a single word to say. The fruit exchange, the fruit growers of this country, agree with the main provisions and alterations that are made in this Bill. We recognize that, without a Shipping Control Board, it is impossible to deal with our produce. We also recognize that, with the production of perishable products in other industries, they also have a fair claim to ask for a certain amount of the shipping space of this country, and we also recognize that it is essential that you should have a shipping board which would allocate space fairly between the different interests. We further recognize the desirability of allowing these people to have a representative on the board. We recognize the essentiality of making contracts in advance. Our memories are not so short that we do not realize the great danger from which the farmers were rescued last year, largely owing to the action of my hon. friends, when certain interests were trying to get possession in advance for two or three years of the shipping space on the Australian steamers that call here. The Bill that my hon. friend introduced last year has worked very well. It is under that Act that we have been able, not in the interests of one individual or any powerful combination, but in the interests of the general fruit farmers of this country, to get space in advance, space which has been fairly allocated to all the various sections of the fruit-growing industry in this country. They have been able to charter the “Roman Star” in advance in the interests of the citrus growers, and to charter the “Edda” in advance in the interests of the deciduous growers. My hon. friend has tried to raise the idea that fruit should only be sent to England. The members of the fruit exchange have no such idea.

No one ever said that.

We are anxious to open up whatever trade we can. It is entirely opposed to the principles of co-operation, when they insist upon still placing a levy, not of 5s. a ton upon our fruit, it may be anything, because under this Bill the producers have no control. The Shipping Control Board, under this Bill, can enter into any contracts they like, and place the levy to meet those commitments. It is certainly taxation without representation. I feel strongly on this matter. The hon. gentleman talks about the Western Province. Has he read the report of the meeting held at the fruit exchange offices to-day? Does he not know that there was Major Anderson, who represents a large number of the citrus growers of the Transvaal ? In that meeting, which was representative of the majority of the farmers in the Western Province, when it was put to the vote, 64 voted in favour of co-operative control, and only 9 in the interests of my hon. friend.

Is that in any way representative of the Western Province farmers, as far as numbers are concerned ?

I say, unhesitatingly, that that meeting is representative of the Western Province fruit growers. I do not exaggerate when I say that 95 per cent, of the Western Province fruit growers are members of the fruit exchange. We realize that only by keeping up an organization like the fruit exchange are you going to make a success of the fruit industry in this country. But we object to a board of four, because it is only a board of four and not of six ; because there are three permanent members representing the Government, and one representative each representing the citrus growers, the deciduous growers and the poultry farmers respectively. I won’t give you my opinion alone, but I will give you a far better one, on the necessity of keeping to co-operative control—

I have been told the Minister said that last year, but I can hardly believe it.

In regard to a different board.

But at that time my hon. friend was in favour of a co-operative board composed of fruit farmers and them alone.

They had no power to make contracts.

The Minister went on to say that no outsider would have any control on the board, and that he, therefore, proposed to give the right to make contracts with the shipping companies. Then I said that I would have liked the Minister to say at once that this was a board representative of the fruit producers of this country, and the Minister replied—

That was delivered in another place where the Minister had a very hard row to hoe, and where, by his determination he carried through that co-operation. It is not the fruit exchange that have changed their views. This reads like a verse out of Ecclesiasticus—

That was my hon. friend, the Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Herbert Hoover, who is now Secretary of Commerce in the U.S.A., said in one of the leading papers devoted to fruit culture in California—

This is what Mr. Henry C. Wallis wrote—

This I commend to my hon. friend, and I say to him in all seriousness, if you want to make a fundamental alteration like this, which is opposed by the majority of fruit growers, do not put the Bill through like this, but let it go to a select committee. Whom did my hon. friend consult when he drew up this Bill ? Did he consult members of the Shipping Control Board or members of the fruit exchange? Does he think this is fair treatment of the growers of the country who have supplied the money to carry out the principles of this Bill ? Does he criticize the fruit exchange for, in the short time at their disposal, calling together a body of farmers ?

I never did that.

Sending telegrams.

Incorrect information.

How did they know that it was the intention of the Government to rush through the Bill at the end of the session ? Who saw a copy of the draft ? From my experience, I am nervous of a Bill of this character. At the eleventh hour, if the Minister is not prepared to send the Bill to a select committee, let him drop it for the session and have a real discussion with the representatives of the fruit growers. We believe that changes must take place, and that the Shipping Board should be carried out in a cheaper manner. If I stand alone, I maintain you have no right to take out of the hands of these people the control of their own business. The Minister has full control by putting three nominees on that board, who can outvote the people who are paying their own money. I maintain that is not a right thing, and it strikes a blow at the co-operative spirit of this country which has advanced so enormously during the last few years.

The outstanding demerit of this Bill is the nationalization and socialization of the fruit industry of the country. The Minister has told us what the board cannot do, but that is slight comfort, because the bulk of our fruit is marketed overseas. The Bill is intended to help the fruit grower, but is too autocratic altogether. As the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has pointed out, it is not a board of six, but a board of four. What say have the cooperative societies in any of these vital matters affecting their export, for as I read the Bill the board under Section 4 will control the export of perishable products from the Union.

That is shipping—not the sale.

You lose control of the sale if you lose control of the shipping. I have received a great many telegrams from cooperative societies protesting against clause 4, and it seems to me that the minister has been acting aroiorarily in the Bill. The Minister ought to take the views of the fruitgrowers into consideration, as the co-operative societies have not been consulted. We have columns of statements in Hansard last year from the Minister in which he definitely promised the fruitgrowers that they would have—

The Minister should give us stronger reasons for going back on his own statement than he has. He has not touched on the fact that his attitude to-day is a complete reversal of what it was last year. We don’t want to make this a contentious business, for we are all anxious to help the fruit industry, but the Bill is beginning in the wrong spirit. If the fruitgrowers are wrong they should be given an opportunity of stating their case. But at present they are under the idea that they are being deprived of the control of their own interests. To push the Bill through would be undemocratic and unwise in the interests of the fruit industry, I hope the Minister will accept my hon. friend’s suggestion, either to refer the Bill to a select committee or to hang it up for the present.

The Minister takes entire credit to himself for any progress that has been made in the fruit industry and has stated that the late Government sneered at the fruit export trade.

I was referring to pre-cooling.

Up to that time we did not understand pre-cooling and then the late Minister of Agriculture brought out an expert on the subject, and that was the turning point of the fruit export trade. I did agree to provide cold storage at the east pier.

I have got the office tile.

I discussed the matter with the Railway Board, and we agreed to go on with the provision of cold storage. I am prepared to give the Minister any credit to which he is entitled, and he ought to be content with that. We both had the same object in view— the prosperity of the fruit industry: the late Government was just as anxious over that matter as the present Government is. But for the Minister to introduce this Bill at this late stage of the Parliamentary session, when we are sitting five nights a week and pretty well worn out, is no credit to the Government. Why was not the measure brought in weeks ago? How can it receive adequate consideration now ? The Bill is going to touch private interests. Why should I have to hand my fruit over to a board of officials to do with as they think fit? The Bill should be withdrawn, as it is too late now to refer it to a select committee. Why this desperate hurry? It is an extremely important Bill as it affects the interests not only of fruitgrowers, but egg circles, and I expect later on, dairymen. The Bill is also important from the great power it gives to the board, which takes charge of the fruit from the moment it is put on the train in South Africa until it is landed in Europe. The shipper has no choice as to the port to which his fruit is to be sent. I ship, as a rule, to Southampton, but under the Bill my fruit may be sent to Liverpool, London, Hull or the Continent. Furthermore, all these instructions and all this business take place at the cost of the shippers, the growers. I recognize that the time has come when we have got to have shipping control. What we do say—and that is where we differ from the Minister—is that this control should be exercised by the fruitgrowers themselves, by the egg circles, and the people interested in dairy products and so forth, and not by a board of officials such as is suggested by the Minister.

It is the same in Australia.

Never mind Australia, We are in South Africa now. There is no doubt that this Bill strikes a blow at co-operation and I maintain that the fruit exchange were perfectly justified in the steps that they took. We are quite prepared to submit to control, but we are not prepared to submit to a board of control consisting of officials. The Minister says that he is not against co-operation. What is the position ? There are three members appointed by the Government to the board, three permanent members. We do not know for how long they are appointed. In addition there are three occasional or temporary members, appointed for 12 months only. These are appointed on the nomination of the fruitgrowers. They can come in to the discussions, they can be invited to a meeting of the board when anything concerning their own particular interests is going to be discussed. At these meetings there will be four members of the board present—the three permanent members and the representative member for the interest concerned. We understand co-operation to mean that the producers themselves should have control. Further, this extra or temporary member has got to be specially invited by the Chairman when, for instance, the deciduous fruit interests are under discussion. If he does not turn up or cannot turn up, the business goes on just the same. That is where we maintain there is no co-operation. The temporary or representative member has only power to vote upon interests which he represents. Every time these occasional members can be outvoted by the permanent members of the board. Why has there been this change since last year, a complete revolutionary change ?

So are the functions of the board changed.

The position is that the fruit produced in South Africa belongs to the producers and not to the Government. There has been, since last year, a complete fundamental change in the whole policy.

Because there has been a fundamental change in regard to the powers under the Bill. The members of the board will now have power to contract.

Who is going to be responsible for the contract ?

The board.

Exactly. Shall we not have to pay it ? We have got to pay the piper, both as regards the expenses and in case of any loss, and we have not a word to say. We are getting more and more in the hands of bureaucracy in this country. The whole position is wrong. First of all, this Bill ought never to have been brought in at this late hour of the session. It is a Bill that ought to be thoroughly examined, and on which we ought to hear what the people have got to say. I am very strongly opposed to the principle of the board being run by a bureaucracy of three officials appointed by the Government. Take the present chairman. He has managed remarkably well. I have not heard one word of criticism in regard to him. What special knowledge had be of fruit ?

He is a trained business man.

He is a trained attorney. All attorneys are not business men by a long; way. My hon. friend’s argument does not hold water. If this chairman picked up the business in the mariner he has done, there is no reason why some callable fruit-grower should not pick it up in the same way. And they have to consult their own interests and so forth. I hope my hon. friend will reconsider this matter and go back to the principle which he advocated only twelve months ago.

I hope the Minister will press forward with this Bill. It is practically word for word with Acts which have been passed by the New Zealand and Australian Governments. In this country we must travel the same road to perfect co-operation, we also know that under the different co-operative Acts no co-operative society has power to contract or deal with anyone who is not a member of a co-operative society, therefore, as in Australia and New Zealand, the State must step-in. In the Australia Acts of 1924 the Acts (the Canned Fruit Bounty Act, 1924 ; the Dried Fruits Advances Act, 1924; the Dried Fruits Export Control Act, 1924, and the Dried Fruits Export Charges Act, 1924) were passed whereby the Governor-General had power to appoint three members of the board to represent the Government and three to represent the different growers of perishable fruit. At present, in South Africa, it is impossible for co-operative organizations, except with Government assistance, to negotiate in regard to shipping or cold storage. I therefore hold that this Act is necessary, especially as it has proved such a success as the connecting link in the shipping of perishable goods in Australia and New Zealand.

I think the Minister must be finding that his chickens are coming home to roost. I tried to give him some advice on his Bill last year. I pointed out that the system he was proposing would not work because he had not made provision for the proper representation of a large number of people who were not represented on the exchange. The body should either be a body of impartial men to act as judges between the conflicting interests, or a body entirely representative of those interests. But although the machinery was bad it has not worked so badly and the people who have taken advantage of the machinery have had little cause to complain of the way in which their affairs have been handled; though I consider they were dealing with machinery of a most difficult character. The reason the Minister gave last year for taking these powers—I am in favour of a control board—was that the bulk of the people concerned were represented on that body. Under this Bill the Minister includes, besides the fruit growers, a lot of other people who are interested in butter, cheese, eggs, and flowers. Has the Minister taken any steps to ascertain whether those interested in these perishables want to come under the provisions of this Bill? After all the whole of the basis of this Bill last year was that the vast majority of the people who were interested wanted this machinery. If they have not asked to come in, the whole basis of bringing them in disappears. You cannot take away peoples’ business from them like this and arrange for the transfer of their produce without consulting them and then give them inadequate representation. As already pointed out they can put their case, but can always be outvoted. Some representatives of the egg industry saw me recently and I believe had an interview with the Minister afterwards. They said they had been in the habit of sending their produce themselves and have been, hard hit in connection with the matter of tainted eggs and they are afraid the powers contained in this Bill are going to ruin them. They point out that the eggs may be shipped to Liverpool whereas their contract may be to deliver them in London and that the carriage between Liverpool and London may swallow up their profit. The Minister ought to provide that no new industry like this should be made to come in before 60 per cent, of its members are willing. It would have been better if this Bill had been introduced earlier. Last year the same thing happened and we had not an opportunity of dealing adequately with it. I think it ought to go to a select committee, so that these people will have an opportunity of putting their case. The Minister says that it is impossible, but we know what happened in the case of the Wine Bill introduced by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). We remember how within a very short time an agreement was arrived at.

That was at the beginning of the session.

Three or four morning sittings from 9 o’clock to 10.30, before the House meets, would, I think, be sufficient to lick this Bill into shape. The people in question are alarmed, and it is not a question of others having alarmed them. They say that if this Bill goes through as it stands, they will be absolutely ruined, and they cannot make any contracts, their margin of profit being so small that it may disappear if the ports are changed. If you are going to take away a man’s business, at least appoint an impartial body before whom he can argue his case. You can give him control over his own affairs, and at the same time bring in the spirit of cooperation and control. From a meeting which, took place to-day, apparently the people interested in fruit growing have not been consulted. The Minister took strong exception to the telegram. The effect of this Bill is as it is described in the telegram, and one of the effects will be to kill co-operation, although that may not be the intention of the Minister. I do not see that there is anything very inaccurate in the telegram. Under those circumstances, I hope the Minister will seriously take into account the criticisms which have been made, and I think they are well founded.

I move—

My reason is that this is a matter of all embracing importance to the farmers of the Western Province and to all fruit farmers in South Africa. I can assure the Minister that there is much feeling amongst the farmers about this Bill and it is impossible for me to-night at this late hour to properly discuss big interests which I have at heart as a representative of the fruit farmers, and to properly go into the merits of the case shortly before 11 o’clock at night. I know that there are many members who still wish to speak on the matter and I hope the Minister will be sensible and not want to push the matter through at this late hour.

seconded.

In view of the long time which was spent to-day in discussing the Labour Vote, I think the House will be able to go on for at least another twenty minutes. The Government thought that this Bill would be passed today, but there has been so much time occupied by the discussion this afternoon on the vote referred to that I think we can go on for another twenty minutes.

There are still several who want to speak on this Bill, and there are representatives of the Western Province who want to speak on it who are not present.

Motion put, and Mr. Krige called for a division.

Upon which the House divided.

Before I give my views on the Bill, I want to say that the method in which this very important matter is being dealt with is a clear sign that by accepting the proposals of the Prime Minister about the hours of sitting, the other day, we violated the rules of the procedure of the House, and not only the procedure, but also the rights of the people given to us in this Parliament.

I do not think the hon. member is entitled to make that remark with reference to a resolution of this House.

I will just say that I am sorry that the procedure was agreed to, and what it means clearly appears when we have to discuss a matter of so great importance at this time of night at the end of a week when we are all tired and played out. Here we are compelled to do this by a party which states outside every day that it is looking after the interests of the farmers. It is a clear sign what the farmers may expect. As regards the Bill, I should like in the first place to ask who is the origin of it? As far as I know, the fruit farmers of South Africa are represented by the Fruit Exchange. I should like to know whether the Bill was introduced at the request of the Fruit Exchange? I want to ask the Minister whether the chairman of the Fruit Exchange, Mr. Pickstone, who has given his whole life to building up fruit growing in South Africa, and who is an acknowledged authority in that department and possesses the confidence of the fruit farmers of South Africa, was consulted ?

Yes.

I will state how he was consulted. He was given a few hours’ time to come to Cape Town to see the Minister, and he telegraphed the Minister what his opinion was. He completely condemned the Bill.

Quite incorrect.

And was Mr. Anderson, the other member of the Fruit Exchange, consulted ?

Yes.

When ? What was his opinion.

He approved of the principle of the Bill.

Was Mr. Bullen consulted?

Yes.

I ask: Were members who control the industry consulted? Were they given sufficient chance? Did they actually advise in favour of the Bill as introduced ? They advised in the direction that the Board of Control which is here being appointed should be appointed on a different basis. Their advice was ignored when the Bill was drafted and brought before the House. The Board of Control was appointed on the Government basis, quite in conflict with the advice of the chairman and members of the Fruit Exchange. I go further, and ask the Minister whether a man like Mr. du Preez, a member of the Board of Control, was consulted ? He lives at Paarl, near Cape Town. He was not ocnsulted. I say, therefore, that people actually interested in the industry are not behind the Bill. The fruit farmers of South Africa have not asked for this kind of legislation. What is the position under the Bill ? What the fruit farmers feel strongly is that all control is taken out of the hands of farmers and placed with the Government. We cannot get away from that.

That is incorrect.

That the farmers who have to pay the levy to carry out the Act have no representation on the Board of Control.

Also incorrect.

The hon. Minister says it is incorrect. They are represented in a roundabout way in that there will be one person from the industry concerned.

With full voting rights.

Yes, but they are in the minority. The chairman has a deliberative and a casting vote.

That is nothing extraordinary.

The fruit farmers of South Africa are not prepared to hand over their interests to the Government, and I want to know what has taken place since the last session. It is interesting to read what the Minister of Agriculture—and, as a matter of fact, also the Minister of Railways and Harbours—said during the last session in the Senate, viz., that in no circumstances they as a Government would permit the farmers not to decide about the industry: “It would be the greatest mistake to hand those over to the Government. To-morrow wool, the day after mealies, would be controlled by the Government.” That was the attitude of the Minister last session. I now want to know what is behind the Bill, why this radical change is being made? There were at least 20 fruit farmers from the Caledon district here to-day, and the people together own about half a million fruit trees. We can be proud of our having farmers in the country who invest their capital in fruit growing and develop that branch of farming. The brothers Molteno are now being contemptuously referred to because they are fruit farmers. I ask hon. members who spoke in that way to go to Elgin and look at the fruit trees they have on their farm, and at the cold storage chambers they have built out of their own pockets at a cost of £8,000 at Elgin Station. Those are the farmers who are now sneered at. It is not only the brothers Molteno who came to Cape Town, but Mr. Blackburn, who has 30,000 fruit trees on his farm, also the manager of the farm of Sir John Viljoen, on which there are 50,000 fruit trees in full bearing. They were all in Cape Town to protest against the Bill. They want control, but it must be in their own hands. They are not against the principle of control, and are willing to agree to it, but they say it was only to be exercised by them as farmers, and not by the Government. I should like to know where things will go to in future. What is the meaning of it? Why should the right of management be taken out of the hands of the farmers in such an important matter as this ? The farmers can conclude that they are only looked upon with contempt and that it is thought that they are not competent to take the responsibility and management on themselves. Otherwise, I can see no reason why this is being done. I say to the Minister that unless he is willing to refer the Bill to a select committee, I tell him that although it is late, that we who represent the fruit farmers will fight the Bill point by point. The time has, come that we will put our foot down as regards State control of private undertakings. Is it the intention of the Government to carry out the idea of State control, the principle of hon. members on the cross benches ? Is socialism the idea behind the Bill.

No, Moscow.

Is socialism behind the Bill ? If that is not so, why should the farmers then be ignored, and be slapped in the face by saying that they cannot have the control of their own industry ? We hear every day of co-operation and of building up co-operation. Hon. members on the cross benches are never tired of encouraging co-operation, but this Bill is giving a blow to co-operation. If the Bill is passed, co-operation will be ended as far as the fruit farmers are concerned, and they will give up the idea of co-operation. I say we are now engaged in giving a death blow to a young industry which is just getting on to its legs. I think that 20,000,000 fruit trees have been planted in South Africa, and we are now really commencing to make a big industry of it. Those of us who have invested capital and worked hard to develop the industry—I am one of them, because I have invested much money in it—have to learn to-day that we are not able to manage our own affairs. I say in all seriousness to the Minister, and I hope the Minister will bear it in mind, that the fruit farmers must be heard through a select committee. We are not against the control, but the control proposed by the Bill must be altered. The fruit farmers all ask the Government to have a chance of giving evidence before a select committee, and of proving there that a change of management is necessary in the interests of the fruit industry. I therefore hope that the Minister will agree to it. If that is not done, the Minister must expect great opposition to the Bill. The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) talks about New Zealand and Australia. I can tell the hon. member that the farmers in New Zealand and Australia have the control, and not the Government, notwithstanding the fact that the Labour party have often been in office there. It is just the same in the United States of America, in Canada, and other countries where the fruit industry is of importance. Here in South Africa the first step is being taken of placing the control in the hands of the Government, and thereby declaring that the farmers are not capable of managing their own affairs. On behalf of the farmers that I represent, I protest against the Bill.

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) says in the House to-day that the farmers have been spoken of contemptuously. The Minister of Railways and Harbours was the only speaker on this side of the House.

I said the Bill sneered at the farmers.

No, the hon. member said that the farmers had been spoken of contemptuously. It must, therefore, have been the Opposition and not the members on this side of the House. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) wanted to tell us that in other countries the control was left in the hands of the farmers, and instanced Australia as an example. Let me refer to the Australian Act of 1924, section 4, with reference to dried fruit. There is a dried fruit exchange which consists of: (a) One member as Government representative to be appointed by the Governor-General ; (b) three representatives appointed by the producers; (c) two members appointed by the Governor-General.

That is for dried fruit.

What is the difference? The hon. member for Caledon sees that he is trying to make out something which is not a fact.

What the Minister read out refers to dried fruits—we are dealing now with fresh fruits.

What is the difference? The principle is the same, viz.: Control over produce. Now hon. members have suggested here that the Government should only appoint a chairman, and that the other members should be appointed by the producers. If hon. members insist so strongly on the Board of Control being entirely elected by the growers themselves, why then must the Government have the right to appoint the chairman? Hon. members said that we spoke differently last year. We are still adopting precisely the same attitude.

What ?

The hon. member referred to speeches, but one can easily put a wrong construction on speeches. The Minister of Railways does not take away the least right of co-operative societies to collect their produce and put them on the market. The only thing is that the Government takes control as soon as the fruit reaches the cold storage until it arrives on the other side. As soon as the fruit arrives overseas it is handed over for sale to the representatives of the cooperative societies concerned. Therefore, the Government does not interfere there, but says that a proper Government control with regard to shipping of fruit is necessary, and the greatest part of the fruit farmers agree with the proposals of the Minister of Railways and Harbours We do not want to make co-operation compulsory, but to encourage it.

It is stated that you want to crush co-operation.

No, that is not true. We want to encourage co-operation, but we do not want to make it a failure. In past years, and especially last year, the fruit farmers were injured because proper provision was not made for shipping accommodation. This year we have had a Board of Control, and there were no difficulties. I say that the Bill passed by us last year was an experiment, and we now feel that the Act must necessarily be altered, which alterations are contained in this Bill to-day. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) said that the egg circles were apparently against the Bill. He asks if their opinion was obtained. To-day there was another deputation at my office in connection with egg matters, and they did not say that they were opposed to the Bill. I think they also were satisfied. No, I think that the hon. members opposite are only kicking up dust. If they would go into matters they would see that the fruit farmers are satisfied with the Bill. In the Bill it is entirely left to the co-operative societies to manage things in South Africa and to ship the fruit overseas. The work of the co-operative society is not interfered with, but assisted by steps being taken for the proper shipment of the fruit. Now the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) says that the board of control will have the power of taxing the people. The Minister of Railways and Harbours is surely responsible to this House for the carrying out of the Bill, and the board of control will not be permitted to throw burdens on the farmers without the consent of the Minister of Agriculture. Consequently, I do not see the difficulty, but I think it is an improvement. In other countries the fruit industry is under certain control, and we have waited long enough to get a better control in this respect. The only point on which there has been objection is the appointment of the board of control, the principle of control has not been objected to. The appointment of the members of the board of control is a matter which can be fully discussed in committee, and I, therefore, hope that hon. members will now allow the second reading to be taken.

I want to say that I speak here as a representative of deciduous fruit growers, because a great deal of fruit is exported from my district which ends close to the Paarl. The Minister of Agriculture asked what the difference is between the export of dried and fresh fruit, and if he does not know, then I must say that the Minister knows nothing about the matter.

The principle of control is the same.

The principle may be the same, but if the wrong man has the control over dried fruits then they do not deteriorate, but if the wrong man has control over fresh fruit then the loss falls on the packer. I have received telegrams and letters which make the strongest objections against the Bill. I would advise the Minister to send the Bill to a select committee even if he limits the taking of evidence to two or three days. I do not wish to retard the Bill, but I think it would be unfair not to give the fruit farmers an opportunity of giving evidence. The Minister of Agriculture referred to the remarks of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) in which the latter said that the fruit farmers had been sneered at. It was not done by the Minister of Railways and Harbours, or by an hon. member who spoke, but by an interruption by the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst), who has never in his life seen a fruit farmer. Hon. members opposite have been asleep in the Reading Room and, therefore, they are prepared to sit on till morning. The Minister and hon. members, who have passed the day in the House are not so prepared. The Minister of Agriculture said last year that we would encourage co-operation and give the farmers a chance to export their fruit, but this Bill, by which the farmers in a certain branch of the fruit industry have only one representative on the Board of Control as against three independent members, is absolutely in conflict with what the Minister said last year. The hon. Senator Potgieter then interrupted the Minister, and said that the fruit exchanges ought to have the majority of members on the Board of Control. 80 per cent, of the fruit growers are members of the fruit exchanges, and, therefore, the Minister of Agriculture then decided that the majority of the Board of Control should be appointed by the fruit exchanges. How does one reconcile this with the attitude of the Minister last year ? The Government have now turned a somersault, as the Bill provides that the producers shall not have a say over the control of their industry. I should heartily decline to allow any Minister to appoint people to say where I am to sell my fruit. There is no product in the country which is so taxed as fruit is. The Fruit Exchange takes a certain amount per box, and the money is used for costs of inspection and for other purposes, interalia, advertisements. I hear that the Minister has taken a large amount of the money to advertise—

in the newspapers. What other producers would permit such a thing? Would the mealie farmers, e.g., allow money to be taken for advertising a slogan in the papers like—

Although that is a healthy food, I do not think the mealie farmers would allow it. Therefore, I ask the Minister respectfully to refer the matter to a select committee who should have two or three days for taking evidence. I also want the Bill to be introduced this year because, to a great extent, it is quite acceptable. The provision under which the fruit growers will not have the control in order to say where their own fruit shall be sent is impossible of acceptance. I move—

seconded.

Before the question is put I just want to say that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), who sits on the front benches opposite, threatened the House, and said that if the Government was not prepared to act on his hint, the Opposition would hold up the Bill at every stage. In consequence of his words, the Government is not prepared to allow the House to adjourn.

Motion that debate be adjourned put and negatived.

The Minister of Agriculture said that with reference to the export of fruit in Australia, there was a board on which two members were chosen by the producers and two were nominated by the Government there, and that one of the members was appointed as chairman of the board. The representatives of the producers, therefore, have a majority on the board there, and that is just what we are asking for in the Bill now before the House. The Government has on our board, seeing that the chairman has an ordinary, as well as a casting, vote, four votes, and the producers only three. As a representative of the district which has a great future with regard to fruit culture, I feel it is my duty not to remain quiet with regard to this important difference. The Government will have a majority on the Board of Control.

This is a good Government. We can trust it.

Even if that is true the hon. member must still think of the future. The hon. member may be so optimistic as to think that this Government will always remain in office, but there he is wrong. That board on which the Government has the majority has the capacity to make a levy to cover the expenses in connection with carrying out the Bill. It seems to be very socialistic for the Government to have the control over the produce of the farmers. I feel that the farmers are quite capable enough. The country has, undoubtedly, had very little opportunity of considering this Bill, and the Minister will be accepting good advice if he postpones the further consideration for a little, or refers the matters to a select committee, so that the producers have a proper chance of laying their views before the Government. The Minister of Agriculture said last year that wool and mealies, e.g., might come under the control of such a Board of Control, and I see here that provision is made that such other perishable products as the Governor-General may approve, after a resolution of both Houses of Parliament may be proclaimed and fall under the Board of Control. Therefore, it may happen that the Government will obtain the control over all agricultural produce and the principle is entirely wrong. Let the farmers feel their own responsibility in connection with produce and market it themselves in the best possible way. There is control required in connection with the shipping, but why cannot the farmers look after it ? Why the controlling Government vote ?

Because they have no technical knowledge.

But they possess what is in their own interests, and the matter is taken out of their hands. The board with the approval of the Minister has a say in the levy.

No, the hon. member is wrong, as appears from Clause 12. The Minister of Agriculture makes the levy.

Well and good, the levy can be made. Why is it not then left in the hands of the farmers themselves ?

The Minister of Agriculture has a responsibility to Parliament.

The board is so constituted that the farmers cannot get a majority at all on the Board of Control. Now it is here laid down that sub committees can be appointed in Port Elizabeth, East London, etc., on which, as I understand, the producers will have the right to the same representation as on the Board of Control, or are the sub-committees only appointed without consideration of the interests of the producers ?

Reference has been made to legislation of a similar character recently dealt with by the legislatures of New Zealand and Australia. The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) asked the Minister whether he would not adopt that legislation as a pattern, because it had been entirely successful. New Zealand had found it essential for Government to assume control of the trade, and it would serve a good purpose if the Minister would follow the differences between his Bill and the New Zealand Act, and to consider whether, hurriedly, to put through this measure without consultation with the interests concerned, may work to the detriment of producers as well as to the distributors. I have before me one of the very first Acts which was passed, largely as an experiment, by the New Zealand Parliament. It is rather singular to notice when this Bill is examined that the first principle on which the Government started out was to recognize that the interests of the producers were paramount and that the interests of the State must be confined to representation on the board of control, largely and almost solely to control its financial interest as guarantor of obligations that might be entered into by the board of control. The preamble to the Meat Control Act of 1921 in New Zealand sets out that the board should have power to act as agents of the producers.

Here we only deal with shipping.

I am going to show the Minister later that the inevitable sequel to the course he is now taking is that there must be State marketing of these products in the markets of the world. Under that Act the Governor-General appointed on the board two persons on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture. It was provided in that Act that the board of control would make advances to the producers. Under the present Bill the Minister proposes that the Minister of Agriculture shall have the right under certain circumstances to guarantee the performance of contracts that may be made by the board. Two persons, as I have stated, were appointed to represent the Government and five persons were appointed as representatives of the producers of meat for export on election by such producers in such manner as may be prescribed. They recognized the interests of the stock and station agents in connection with representation on that board. If we go further and examine the provisions of this Bill, we find that it makes provision for a very important matter, and that is for the protection of those persons who may have made contracts at the time of coming into force of the Bill or of any particular provision which might interfere with the free export of any product. My point for the moment is that the Minister who apparently has founded his Bill upon some of the provisions of the New Zealand and Australian legislation, has altogether failed to recognize the principle that it is those primarily concerned, whether as producers or as distributors, who should be consulted in the constitution of the board. The effect of the powers that he proposes to take in this Bill would mean that he would be driven to indulge in a system of State marketing of those products. He takes power here to completely alter the normal course of trade. The Minister appears to assume that the persons to be affected by this Act will be the farmers only, but I do not suppose, for instance, that there is a producer who exports his eggs. They are dealt with by persons who purchase them and export them as distributors to the London market or elsewhere. What is to be the effect when a person who has made a contract is unable to specify his port of destination, and the freight charges may be raised or reduced in accordance with the decision of the board ? I take these three points as justifying my suggestion that to have a board with these latent powers exercisable at any moment in the supposed interest of trade will actually mean that [no quorum] How does the Minister expect people to make contracts where there is this very great uncertainty? An exporter asked to give quotations for a definite time and port of shipment and port of destination could not do business at all. This board will have it in their power to decree that eggs shall be exported only from Port Elizabeth or Durban, and shipped only to Liverpool or Hull. This board is to be immune—a privilege accorded in another country to the king—the board can do no wrong. It is like a trade union in England —entitled to do as much wrong as it likes, and break as many contracts as it pleases, and yet not be subject to the ordinary processes of law. [No quorum.] The only liability on the part of the board is when the Minister of Agriculture has given a guarantee on its be-half. I cite that extraordinary position because it seems to me that the Minister is making that declaration not only to his farming friends, but the whole of the business men in South Africa who may be concerned in the export of products of a perishable nature. If the Minister is going to have a board of control it should be responsible under the law for its wrongs and contracts. This system has been going through a testing time in New Zealand and Australia, and the experience has not been altogether satisfactory. The Minister will find some exceedingly interesting references to this matter in recent articles in the “Bound Table” referring to Australasian affairs. Some hon. members in this House profess not to be fond of monopolies yet they are lending their aid to establish one here. This, perhaps, is a step towards state socialism which they would like to have.

We are glad to have it.

Before the country is committed to that it should at least be consulted. It is perfectly correct that this is nationalisation. Australian experience proves that once this control and state marketing are brought about, a demand follows on the part of the state monopolies that the market should be held against the consumer and that is what has happened in the case of Australian produce, the controllers of which have withheld supplies with the object of increasing prices. It was shown in England that the Australian state monopoly was very much akin to private monopoly, and the people of the United Kingdom made very strong complaints against this system of interfering with their food supply by state monopoly. I am coming to another point. The Minister himself must realize that in taking this important step of interfering with the ordinary course of business he cannot hope to do so without creating antagonism on the part of the trade interests concerned, and in endeavouring by this Bill and I understand another Bill, to regulate freight between this country and other countries he is also going to set at variance those shipping interests which have served us in the past. [No quorum.] I would like to ask the Minister whether he has consulted those interests ?

Which interests ?

Those particular interests which are to be affected by this Bill and those shipping interests which he is going to interfere with.

They are not affected. Contracts will be made with them in the ordinary way.

Yes, at the direction of the board. I turn to what is the power and duty of the board. The point I was making is that the Minister will be in a position to dictate to the shipping interests how much freight they shall carry and the point from which they shall carry it.

The board will have power. Where has the Government got the power?

Is the Minister drawing a distinction between the board and the Government ?

Of course.

I hope the Minister is not going to deal with the Bill and the whole of the arguments in that spirit.

Where is the power of control by the Government ?

In the board. I hope the Minister is going to take a wider and more sensible view than that. When I was engaged in using the word “Government,” I will make it quite clear that I was referring to the board. [Section 4 read.] The Minister, I suppose, asks us to believe that the board will be free from any suggestion on his part. I ask him not to antagonize those interests so that we may come to this pass in the market of the world, that he has antagonized those distributors through whose co-operation alone it would be possible to dispose of those products., The danger he runs is that within our borders, or just outside, it may be possible to interfere with the ordinary course of business, and eliminate the distributor, but he must sell in a market where there is still private trade and interest, and if it is found that this country has been interfering with this course of business, does he not think that other places will be deliberately brought into the sharpest competition with South Africa ? One of the difficulties in connection with the egg export trade was to obtain the support of those who were responsible for distribution throughout the United Kingdom. Logically, this is a forerunner of a policy of State trading. We may not like the name of socialism, but this is State monopoly. I ask that the country should be given an opportunity of judging whether we have arrived at a time when South Africa is evidently to be regarded as a country where State monopoly in its products holds the field. It might be stated that I have no sufficient reason for suggesting that this is a Government policy. On the 1st of April (a very suitable date), at Somerset West, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs dealt with the distributors in this country, these egg exporters and others who have been referred to, and he said they were—

That was a statement by a responsible Minister of the Crown. He said that the distributing class were the curse of South Africa, and these doctrines, which a few years ago would have sounded very harshly to the Minister of Railways and Harbours, now seem to be quite acceptable to him. [Interruption.]

On a point of order, sir ; are we sitting in Parliament or in a farmyard ?

We see some very funny animals in front of us.

I hope the Minister will now agree to the adjournment of the debate, in order that the matter may be considered. I move—

I second.

Mr. Speaker, I hope I will have your protection from the bovine grumblings which there are in the chamber, and which there have been for a considerable period of time. It] is difficult for hon. members to speak when these extraordinary bovine grumblings come from the other side. I am rising to point out to the Minister that what we asked for some time ago has now been proved to be correct—that, in an important question of this sort, it was not fair to the fruit growers, to the House, to the country and to the officials of this House, that we should continue an important debate of this sort at this hour. From the number of times that the bell rang because there was no quorum, it was perfectly evident that hon. members on the Ministerial side of the House take no interest whatever in matters affecting the interests of the country. May I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, and point out that the scenes which have been enacted here are unworthy of the dignity of Parliament, and I appeal to you, sir, as the preserver of those dignities, to prevent them being undermined by the action of hon. members over there. They have been absent from the House, and have had to be called in by the division bell—where they have been and what was the cause of their unseemly behaviour, I do not know. I call for your protection, sir.

Don’t lose your temper.

I am not losing my temper, but I don’t want young members like you to lose your manners. Youth has to be respectful, and must not be impertinent. There are certain young men in this House, and my hon. friend is one of them, who want a lesson. When he made his first speech here he received praise from hon. members on both sides, but I am exceedingly sorry to say that he has fallen from that high estate. I appeal to the Minister not to make a farce of a measure of this character. Surely he is not afraid to meet the arguments that will be brought forward against the measure. Surely the Minister must recognize on this Saturday morning that the House has worked hard all day long, and hon. members on that side have been subjected to extraordinary pangs of anxiety during the whole of the day, although I am glad to see a more pleasant expression on their faces than they wore this afternoon.

I do not at all see that it is necessary to adjourn the debate. Hon. members opposite have already spoken about the Bill and made long speeches, and they said that they approve of the principle of the Bill. All we now have to vote about is the principle of the Bill, and there was not a single member who spoke who opposed the principle of the Bill. There is only a difference of opinion about the composition of the Board of Control. There will be an opportunity to discuss that at the committee stage. The principle, however, is approved by all. I also represent fruit farmers, and my constituency (Ceres) exports more fruit than any other constituency in the country.

Do you support the composition of the Board of Control according to the Bill ?

I support it, and I am prepared, on behalf of my constituents, who are fruit farmers, to approve of its composition. That is, however, not the matter about which we have to vote now. We only have to vote about the principle of control, and the principle of control is approved by all the fruit farmers in the country, whether they belong to co-operative societies or not.

I am sorry that the hon. member who has just spoken has not tried to throw a little oil on the troubled waters. I do not think it is right to say that the principle of this Bill is acceptable. It would be right, no doubt, to say that the principle of co-operation and control is acceptable. I think that the Minister must realize that when we ate sitting morning, afternoon and night, we really cannot do justice to measures in circumstances under which this measure has been brought forward. I am certain that if the Minister had not been annoyed by some of the remarks made on the other side, he would have agreed to the adjournment long ago. He must try and rule out any feeling of that kind. The discussion on this Bill was only started between nine and ten to-night, and really there has not been proper time for the discussion of such an important matter. You are going to reduce the Parliamentary machine to a farce if you are going to go on in this way. I know there are a number of men, at any rate in the egg industry who are seriously concerned about this Bill. What is the hurry to get the Bill through this stage to-night ? I hope the Minister will consider this matter as if he had not been annoyed by anything that had happened in the House and that he will regard this request for the adjournment as a reasonable one. If he cannnot give us justice, at any rate let him show us mercy.

It is now half past twelve and if the Minister does not agree to the proposal of a select committee I said that in the interests of the farmers we intended to fight the Bill. My right to discuss the matter on the second reading is passed, but the Minister promised us that we should sit another twenty minutes. Because the Minister does not intend to do that I said that unless he was willing to do so and willing to send the Bill to a select committee we would have the right in all fairness of opposing the Bill. Now the Minister is not prepared to adjourn. Parliamentary procedure permits a member to protect his rights in all fairness and as I have been speaker in the past I knew quite well what I intended. By it I mean that we have the right to maintain our rights according to Parliamentary procedure. I meant that we would fight the Bill according to the procedure of the House, nothing else. Now the interests of the fruit-farmers are being encroached upon here because of a statement of mine which does not coincide with the view of the Minister. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as representing the rights of Parliament, where is Parliament heading for? What is becoming of the rights of the people ? I ask this seriously as a representative of the people and as a representative of that particular part of the people who are greatly interested in the Bill. The Minister of Justice in a speech made in my division the other day said—

What becomes of Parliament in this way ? Is that the way we ought to be treated ? I say that we have come to a point when we can speak of the contempt of the rights of the people by Parliament.

The hon. member is not entitled to say that the rights of the people are being violated by Parliament. The hon. member certainly knows that a remark of that kind cannot be permitted.

Am I in order if I say that the rights of the people are being violated by the conduct of the Government ?

That will be in order.

That is what I meant. The rights of the people are violated by the Government to-night in connection with a very important principle. This morning I attended a conference of fruit farmers. I am a fruit farmer myself and am greatly interested in the subject, and I notice the seriousness of the people, and this matter is being dealt with by the Government to-night in that manner which, according to themselves, stands for the democratic rights of the people. I now ask the Minister: Give the farmers a chance to meet on Monday morning. We as their representatives here must act on behalf of their rights according to the procedure in proper Parliamentary manner. Give the farmers a chance. It is a fair request. Where the farmers say that it is not right to take the management in this case out of their hands, I want to ask if it is not quite fair to request that the Bill be sent to a select committee so that evidence can be taken there. The request is a reasonable one, but yet it is refused. If the House is not now adjourned it will be a deprivation of the rights of a large portion of the farmers who have invested millions of pounds of capital in the industry, and development will be impeded. The rights of the farmers are being reduced to-night, in that it is being said that in future they shall not have control over the matter. I ask the Government to adjourn the debate in order to give the fruit farmers a chance to be heard before the House. This Bill was reached to-night at about 10 o’clock. 1s it not an insult to an industry of this kind that at half past twelve on Saturday morning we should be going on with it? We are mentally and physically unfit to do the work. Why are we unfit? I feel that I am personally tired out because I have tried to do my duty in connection with all the important legislation that comes before the House. I am so busy that I have not a moment to attend to my own private business. Yet I must rise to defend my own interests and the interests of the farmers whom I represent. I ask the Minister to accept the adjournment to see whether he will not feel differently about the matter on Monday and then allow the Bill to go to a select committee. The reporters in the press gallery at this time of the night do not report the proceedings. Is that possibly the consideration of the Government that no report of this discussion should reach the country ? I ask the Government to agree to the adjournment of the debate.

I always knew that the Minister of Justice was a doughty opponent but after the result of his meeting at Caledon last weekend I want to say that my opinion of his doughtiness as an opponent has gone up very much. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) is the man who now wants the debate to be adjourned, but he was discourteous enough to threaten the Government and the House that he would oppose the Bill at every possible stage.

In a reasonable way.

That is what the hon. member says now, just as, when Mr. Speaker called him to order, he said on second thoughts that he meant the Government and not the Parliament. Let us test the attitude of hon. members opposite. When the bells rang some time ago because there was not a quorum in the House it was required on account of the fact that three members opposite had walked out to break the quorum. They are quite entitled to do that I admit, but it indicates the seriousness of their attitude. I shall give hon. members who are so serious about the adjournment of the House another example. When the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) had commenced his speech, I had already risen to reply. At the last moment the hon. member got up and I sat down again. The debate is already talked out, and it is now nearly a repetition of trifles. There is not an hon. member opposite who seriously objects to the principle of the Bill. As the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) said, the only difference is about the composition of the hoard of control.

The principle in the Bill is that the board of control is a Government body.

Every hon. member of the Opposition has approved of the principle of the board of control. The only point of difference is the composition of the board and that can be discussed in committee. It is an important point in the Bill but it does not touch the principle of control. That principle is accepted by every hon. member of the Opposition and there is therefore no reason to accept the motion for adjournment.

Mr. Speaker

Before the hon. member for Caledon speaks I just want to say that the Committee stage is being put down for Monday because that will make the regulation of the work easier. The Bill will, however, only be dealt with in committee on Tuesday.

We should not discuss this Bill in a spirit of personal vendetta. The Minister is annoyed or peevish. Are the reasons he advanced for refusing to agree to the adjournment of the debate valid ? What will the farmers think if their interests are debated in this spirit? The fruit farmers had to hold an emergency meeting this morning on this subject, and many of them will wake up on Monday morning to find that the Bill has passed its second reading, and that the House has thus given its assent to the principle embodied in the measure without the people most closely affected having been consulted. I know of two hon. members representing fruit-growing constituencies who intended to speak on this Bill, but they had no idea that the Government was going to bludgeon the measure through in this unseemly manner in the early hours of the morning. They were entitled to think that the Bill would not be pushed through in this way, and they believed that the Government would treat the House and the country fairly. I am trying to get the debate back to a calmer atmosphere, and I was astonished at the behaviour of some of the younger members in the corner. I believe, Mr. Speaker, if you had been here personally, you would have called them to order.

The hon. member must not pass any reflection on the Deputy-Speaker.

I will not do so, but I was astonished at the behaviour of those young members, and it is regrettable, if that is the spirit in which measures are going to be treated by hon. members who purport to represent the farmers of the country. I do not want to introduce any acrimonious matter into this debate in the small hours of the morning. We are asked to affirm the principle of the Government taking sole control of the fruit industry. That is what is going to be bludgeoned through this House in the early hours of the morning.

You wasted time on Doornkop.

It is better to waste time than to waste the taxpayers’ money. The way this matter has been treated transgresses all rules of fairness. Once more I do hope the Minister will listen to reason. Surely he is not going to let the farmers of this country think that their interests are the shuttlecock and battledore of small, private feuds in this House.

I want to plead a little with the Minister. He is a sportsman. I have a telegram here from a meeting of fruit farmers strongly protesting against the method followed in connection with this Bill by which no time or opportunity is given to the producers to properly consider the matter. Let the Minister hold his name as a sportsman high and meet us.

I would also add my appeal to the Government. I have been 25 years a member of this House and I say this: That invariably these late sittings tend to demoralization in the House. It is not in accordance with the dignity of this House. This is the most responsible body in South Africa to-day. Do we get any respect from the way we have carried on to-night ? It does not make South Africans proud of their Parliament.

The debate is exhausted.

No, this is a most important matter, and we are strongly opposed to this. We are not out for obstruction.

Was not there obstruction during the afternoon?

If there is one thing that is going to cost this country money it is this Doornkop business. I do not know how long my hon. friend and myself will live, but I would like to take a bet on it. We were quite justified in our criticism of that project. The Government will add to their dignity and the dignity of Parliament by letting us adjourn.

Motion put, and Sir Thomas Smartt called for a division.

Upon which the House divided:

Yesterday afternoon, when I was speaking to the resolution by the Prime Minister to commence morning sittings, I alluded to the fact that once already this week this House was compelled to sit till close on to 2 o’clock in the morning. It seems to be the policy of the Government to bulldoze the Opposition into a state of stupefaction, in fact the Government has initiated a new policy of legislation by stupefaction. That process is not in the least hindered by the male voice sextet to which we have had the pleasure of listening this evening. The Government which will go down to history as the “board creating Government” has set out to create a sort of Tammany Hall, and to distribute largesse to its political friends, and is adding to its political jobbery by setting up a new board, and claiming that it shall have the right to appoint three members of that body while the interests which provide the money shall have the right to appoint only one member. In other words the Government claims the right to appoint three persons to tell the farmers how to carry on their business. I take it the next step will be a Bill to give the Government a majority on the executive of the Society of Advocates.

I promise not to do that.

If past experience is any guide as to how the Government will fill up these posts on this board, I can predict the result. Three of the pals will get three of the jobs to be created on this board. I remember how the last vacancy on the Native Affairs Commission was filled.

There were three vacancies.

It even struck some of the members of the Pact with horror. Only yesterday this House was told that, because an independent board of civil servants had ventured to disagree with the Minister of the Interior in connection with one appointment, they were to be scrapped, and when I look through the list of appointments of members on commissions during the last two years, members who, to a large extent, were hangers-on to the present Government, I ask, can this Government be trusted with the powers it asks for in this Bill, and do the fruit farmers think they can be trusted ? The fruit farmers who have been articulate have given a decided negative to that question. Is this, in another form, a recrudescence of the idea of the Minister of Justice of putting Government nominees on the boards of companies. This Government has devoted most of its time to setting up boards and commissions. Why don’t they pass an omnibus Bil to set up a sort of dictatorship, and let the country be run by a board appointed by the Government ?

Not a bad idea.

When they have members like the hon, member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce), who complacently stated yesterday—

There are very many good points in this Bill, but at the same time I do, maintain that the fruit growers have not had an opportunity of meeting the Minister and of expressing their views. We have had previous, experience of Government controls. We had the brandy control-about 15 or 20 years ago and it was disastrous. The fruit industry is a great and important industry, and it is up to the Government to give to the people interested every opportunity of stating their views. I am sure it will be an advantage to this House to hear the views of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) and the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager). There are other interests concerned in this Bill. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) is correct in mentioning that the egg exporters are greatly interested. They have had no opportunity of being consulted. My experience has been that once a Government go and control private business they make an utter failure of it.

“ The Government, of all the talents.”

I do not agree with the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that all the talents are on that side. We have the predominance of the talents. I again appeal to the Minister to give an opportunity to these people who are so greatly interested in this big industry to be heard on Monday.

I just wish to draw the attention of the Minister to a wire I received from Durban, dated May 21st, stating that the Bill is not available there, so that they cannot express an opinion for or against. The country has had no opportunity whatever of learning anything about this Bill. If the Government is going to use its majority as it has been trying to do in the last week, it is heading at express speed for disaster, not only for itself, but for this country. As far as I can see, we are not in for a good time for the next year, and we are in for a very thin time. If you are going to get public opinion against you, and interfere with people’s business, you are not doing the best for South Africa. By the establishment of a Government board of control you are going the wrong way about it.

Last year when the Minister introduced this Bill he made it quite clear that the farmers should have the control through nominating their own board. The Minister of Agriculture also said that if the Government controlled it, it would simply mean that they were taking over the business of the farmers ; in view of the two statements made, why has the Minister decided that the Government should take control without consulting the farmers interested who are producing the fruit ? It is only right that the interests affected should have the opportunity to study the Bill and express their views thereon. For the Government to take control of produce is absolutely wrong, and I think farmers will deprecate it. Who is at the bottom of the Bill, and why has the Minister changed his views since last year ? Is it because the Act passed last year has not worked satisfactorily ? Speaking as a farmers’ representative I think it is wrong for any Government to seek to control farm produce.

And iron ?

We don’t want control of iron either. The principle of the Bill is wrong. There must be some reason for pushing through the measure. I think the Minister has acted very unsympathetically towards the producers —one would think that he would at least have consulted the various farmers’ organizations on the subject, before proceeding with the Bill. Why should this control be taken away from the farmers, particularly where the farmers have to pay for it ? Is it the decided opinion of the Minister that the farmers are not competent to take control, or is it that the Minister wants to find more “jobs for pals ”? I think the Minister is acting most unreasonably, because the farmers have not had an opportunity of expressing their views on this Bill. So far as the Natal farmers are concerned, at any rate, there has been absolutely no consultation. There are interests in South Africa which are trying to get control of the fruit industry. If the Minister is determined to force the Bill through second reading now, I hope that he will, at all events, give an opportunity to the farmers before we reach the committee stage of expressing their views.

I am not a fruit farmer nor do I represent fruit farmers, but it is a fact that hon. members opposite have lost all the confidence of the farmers in the country and now we are held up late into the night because of their obstruction.

I understand that the hon. gentleman is levelling a charge of obstruction against the opposition. Is that in order, Mr. Speaker ?

I do not think it is out of order.

Is it competent for an hon. member to say that the attitude adopted is for the purpose of obstruction?

I understand that the practice here has been to rule it out of order. In the House of Commons the question has on frequent occasions come up for decision, and the Speaker has ruled it as not out of order. In view of the practice in this House, I would ask hon. members in future not to accuse other hon. members of deliberate obstruction.

Hon. members opposite held up the House this afternoon during the discussion of the vote of the Minister of Labour, and time was wasted then. That is usually the case with people who catch at a straw. The majority of the farmers’ representatives sit on this side of the House. Hon. members opposite must learn that there is a different Government in office to-day, one that governs in the interests of the people of South Africa. Hon. members are now trying to make the people outside think that they represent the farmers, but there are three times as many farmers’ representatives on this side of the House. We think it is better to leave it to the Government to regulate the shipping. Now hon. members opposite are representing to the people that they are fighting on their behalf, but hon. members opposite are lost, and will never persuade the people to vote for them again. They had fourteen years to govern and made chaos of the Government of the country. Hon. members opposite rode roughshod over the farmers so that they could no longer make a living, but this Government has helped the farmers along, so that they can once more stand on their feet. Now they say that they represent the farmers to try and make a name again.

Hon. members on the other side, more especially the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel), have raised the bogey, that this board is going to be a Government board. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) has gone so far as to speak about Government interference. I can well understand the hon. member fearing the disastrous results of Government interference, remembering the action the previous Government took with regard to the importation of wheat and flour. But hon. members have evidently not read the terms of the Bill. It is proposed to establish, not a Government board, but a board whose members are appointed by the Government.

A distinction without a difference!

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has in his speech made repeated reference to Government officials.

Of course they are—officials appointed by the Government.

I want to ask the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) and those who have spoken about Government control and Government interference, whether they consider Mr. le Roux showed any sign [Interruption.]

What is the difference?

If we were to appoint Sir William Hoy, the Secretary for Finance, or another official, there would be a board of Government officials. We are appointing business men to this board. I challenge the hon. members on the other side to show any clause in the Bill where it says the Government will exercise any control. It is all very well for hon. members to make these loose statements, but where is the proof ? Where do they find that the Government will influence the policy of this board ? Hon. members have made a deliberate attempt to mislead the country.

I rise to a point of order. Has the Minister a right to say that members have made statements for the purpose of deliberately misleading the country ?

The hon. Minister must not use those words.

I certainly withdraw that word. Does the mere fact that an individual has been appointed as a member of a board take away his freedom of action ?

Where do the fruit-growers come in ?

That is another story. I am now referring to the three members nominated by the Government. The fruit-growers taken as a whole are satisfied that the Government will look after their interests.

Take the meeting this morning.

The representatives of Fransch Hoek, Ceres and several other districts, as well as Mr. W. H. Lategan, of Constantia, support the Bill.

He is a Government supporter.

Now we get to the root of the objections. Must we take it that those farmers who oppose the Bill are the supporters of the Opposition ?

At this morning’s meeting 64 voted against the Bill and only nine for.

Mr. Lategan is one of our respected farmers in the Peninsula, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has no right to reflect on the expression of opinion by Mr. Lategan unless he has good cause to do so. The reason many telegrams have been sent against the Bill is that the farmers’ co-operative societies have not had a correct knowledge of the facts of the case. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) made the extraordinary statement that Bills of this sort would ultimately lead to State marketing. Evidently he is against all control. If that is so, what becomes of the argument that we should have control, only the control must be exercised by the producers ? The principle is the same. The hon. member took up much time with legal quibble over small points. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has asked what the position is which has been taken up by producers of eggs. I have had an interview with them. Mr. Curtis, who represents the egg circles, told me that he personally was in favour of the terms of this Bill, but that he could not speak for all the egg circles, because he had not had an opportunity of consulting them all.

Do they export or sell to exporters ?

I have no information on the point. At the same interview, there were quite a number of buyers of eggs and they were, quite frankly, opposed to the terms of the Bill.

Those are the people who saw me.

They are not producers.

They are valuable to South Africa.

That is so. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said that the late Government had brought out Mr. Griffiths and he paid tribute to the good work done by Mr. Griffiths. I thoroughly agree. But that is just where the late Government went wrong. Mr. Griffiths advised them in the matter of pre-cooling facilities and they failed to carry his advice into effect.

The Minister will remember that investigations were carried out, and the work was stopped because it was said that the piles would not carry the superstructure.

When this Government took office we had the piles strengthened. That is the whole difference. The members of the fruit exchange, whom I saw, are not, as far as I understood them, opposed to the right of diversion of posts of discharge under certain circumstances. It is not a power which is given to the board under clause 4, but under clause 14 (h) the Governor-General may make regulations—

I think it would be a great mistake to take away that power from the Governor-General. The hon. member (Mr. Jagger) made great play with the allegation that the producers will have no voice in the affairs of the board. I think I have sufficiently indicated to the House that that is not so. The producers will have a say.

You have not explained why you changed your mind since last year.

The constitution of the board is different. Under this Bill the board becomes a corporate body with power to sue and be sued and power to make contracts, and it therefore becomes necessary that there should be three business men on the board.

If they lose money who pays ?

It has to be recovered from the levy. Does the hon. member suggest that if we had a board on which the co-operators were in the majority that they might not also lose money ? If the board loses money on contracts the exporters will pay under the levy.

They ought to have the right to appoint the board.

My point is that the Government, in appointing a board with business men as some of the members, are studying the interests of the producers. Let me put a question to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). Does he know what tentative offer I made to the director of the fruit exchange in regard to one of the permanent members of the board ?

Yes.

Does the hon. member suggest that the gentleman whose name I submitted to the exchange for consideration is that of a political friend ?

No, how about the third man?

Is he a political friend?

Who ? I know the appointment you made, because it was the expressed wish of the fruit farmers.

We have it from the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that the member for Fort Beaufort is aware of the tentative offer I made to the fruit exchange, and I, therefore, say that when the hon. member for Fort Beaufort stated that we were holding these appointments open for political friends he was making a statement which he knew was not correct. That is why I protest against the methods of the Opposition. The hon. member was perfectly well aware that the Government in this matter was studying the interests of the fruit farmers, and that we were dealing with the matter not on political grounds. I say conduct like that is not what I expected from the right hon. gentleman.

On a point of order, I did not know, and I think that my district exports more fruit than any other.

I hope that the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) will, at a later stage, indicate to the House that when he made that accusation against the Government he was making an accusation which he knew was not correct. If he does not, the responsibility rests with him. The right hon. gentleman, as usual, is now running away. Hon. members have asked me to refer this Bill to a select committee—why ? Do they believe that it is possible now to take evidence from all over the country, and for the committee to report in time ?

Why did you not introduce the Bill at an earlier time ?

It is necessary that the Bill should pass this session.

Why not introduce it months ago ?

That is a question the right hon. gentleman can fairly ask me. We have been very busy with important matters. We submitted the Bill to all the exporters of the different produce, and gave them time to consider the Bill, and as far as I am aware, there is no interest concerned which did not communicate with me during the course of the week. The Government have given due consideration to their representations. The right hon. gentleman ended his speech by saying—

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) said—

That is typical of the action which the Opposition would take. That, however, is not the attitude of the Government and of the parties sitting on this side of the House. We do not take up that attitude. No, we study and look after their interests, and because we do so, we know that they will support this Bill which, we believe, will become law. Exporters will find within the next twelve months that, as a result of the passage of this Bill, the whole of the export of our perishable products will be placed on a sound basis.

Motion for second reading put and the House divided:

I move—

seconded.

I move, as an amendment—

The Government has determined upon adopting the principle contained in this Bill. That is nothing else but Government control, and the farmers of this country are entirely opposed to that principle. They desire that the Control Board shall consist of members nominated by themselves, and for that reason they ask to be heard before this House by means of select committee. The fruit farmers in other parts of the Union have had no opportunity of studying this Bill and hearing the opinion of their brother farmers, as assembled in conference in Cape Town this morning. Last year, by compromise and co-operation of the two sides of the House, we agreed upon the Bill which is now law. The present Bill is an entire reversal of the existing law of the land, and the Minister has not proved to the country and to Parliament why there is this grave departure from the principle adopted last year. Not a single farming member on the other side has dared to get up and express his opinion on this Bill. Now I am taunted with standing up here and speaking on behalf of the farmers.

We represent farmers.

Yes, but you are docile followers of the Government. As long as you can keep the Pact together, you are prepared to sacrifice the farmers’ interests. For these reasons, I hope that the Government at the last moment will give the fruit industry an opportunity of being heard.

seconded.

I hope that the Minister will not accept the motion. We, as representatives of farmers, are quite prepared to take the whole responsibility on ourselves. I also want to say that the farmers sent us to Parliament because they know we are well acquainted with all the matters affecting them, and therefore it is not necessary to consult them again on every point. The farmers have chosen men on this side of the House who have sound common-sense, and are not mentally and physically unfit to do the work. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has, however, said to-night that that is their condition. It is certainly the reason why the hon. member committed blunders. If there is one man who should know the rules of the House, it should be the hon. member for Caledon, but I do not think there is anyone who breaks the rules of the House more than he does. This is a matter concerning the fruit farmers, but where are the two most important representatives of fruit farmers opposite ?

Here he is.

Where are the hon. members for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) and Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) ? They apparently did not consider it such an important matter. We are now engaged in looking after the interests of the farmers, but the two hon. members are now very restfully sleeping at their homes. They certainly found it much nicer to go there, but they knew that the Bill was on the Order Paper. If they did not know it, it was their duty to find out, because early this morning an agitation was commenced, and, as representatives of constituencies where fruit is grown, I think that they were given notice of it. They, however, found it more interesting to remain at home. In the circumstances, I hope that the Government will not accept the motion.

The hon. gentleman who has just spoken asks, where to-night are the representatives of Paarl and Worcester ? They have gone home for the week-end, be cause the second order on to-day’s Order List was for the House to resume in Committee of Supply, and after the House had gone a certain length in that committee, the Minister of Finance moved to report progress, and we got on to this third order. It was never dreamed, when the adjournment was moved at a quarter to eleven, that the Minister of Railways would adopt the course he has done, and it little becomes the hon. member to taunt these hon. members on their absence, because on a Bill of this sort, which is not a matter which ought to stir up feeling, the Government have taken up an attitude which is unprecedented. The Minister of Railways and Harbours has completely given away the case in his reply by his admission that he should have introduced this Bill much earlier in the session.

I did not say that.

If he did not say that, he does not know the meaning of the English language.

I said I was sorry ; that it was unfortunate.

He admitted he was open to criticism for not having introduced this Bill earlier. Had he introduced it earlier, I have no doubt he would have agreed to send it to a select committee. He has refused to do so, because he has not introduced the Bill earlier. People who want to lay their case before the select committee cannot do so, because of the delay of the Minister. It seems to be the policy of the present Government to delay their important measures to the last fortnight of the session, and then to force them through. Which is the greater need, to have an enquiry whether there is a need for this change, or to have the Bill pushed through because it was introduced so late that it cannot get proper attention from the House ? A gentleman of the egg circle had to tell the Minister that, although he personally favoured the Bill, he could not answer for his colleagues, because he did not have the time to consult them.

I must say that I am surprised at the speech of the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels). I in turn might ask where the Minister of Lands is, because he also is a representative of fruit farmers ?

He is ill in bed.

I accept that, but then I ask where is the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood)? Will he say that his farmers are satisfied with the Bill ? He has not spoken a word about the Bill, and it is very important. I should be glad to hear him speak on behalf of the farmers of Barberton. Will he be able to say that they are satisfied with the Government taking the control into their hands ?

When the Government is doing the right thing I tell them so, but when they do a wrong thing I have no hesitation also in telling them. The Government is absolutely wrong in refusing to give an opportunity to those affected by the Bill to state their case. A committee could take evidence and report within a week, as the industry has its representatives here. I hope the Minister will accept the very reasonable amendment.

I also hope that the Minister will show his sweet reasonableness by agreeing to the amendment. The Minister evidently has been under the impression that he is fighting for the principle of the Bill, and that once the principle is accepted there is nothing further to do but to proceed to the committee stage. There are, however, quite a number of points in the Bill on which evidence might very usefully be taken. For instance, the Minister has been under a complete misapprehension as to who are interested in the egg export trade. I want to show the Minister reasons which make it imperatively necessary, in the interests of the country and, if not in the interests of the country, then in the interests of the farmers, whom the Minister says he specially represents, that this matter should go before a select committee. I would like to ask the Minister whether he should not have some evidence as to the particular section of the community from whom these three ordinary members should be drawn to constitute this board. I do not think the Minister has appreciated the danger of placing this particular industry under a board which might, quite unknown to the Minister, come under the control of some commercial influence, which may mean that a great deal of damage may be done to the whole of the producers. One feels that the Minister ought to have the evidence taken from the farmers, distributors and other interests affected as to the principle on which he will decide to make that selection. In paragraph 2 I see something on which I feel that evidence is necessary. If we turn to Clause 13, we find it is entitled—

For acts done bona fide.

I should like to have evidence as to what the term bona fide, as it is here used, means. This board, acting with the best intentions, might cause enormous loss to particular interests in this country. What does experience show to be the consequence of exempting any person or body from the operation of the common law ? The general strike in England was largely rendered possible because there had been given to trade unions and employers’ associations complete immunity before the law. Experience has shown that once you introduce a novel principle like this in legislation, and show the Government how to forge a weapon which will enable them to bludgeon their opponents, it is essential that there should be some evidence showing that there is some real demand from the community that a particular section or body should be placed in that position. Was the Minister called on by any farmer’s association or section of public opinion in this country to bring in a measure whereby this immunity should be given to this board of control ? We come to another aspect of the Bill, on which a good deal of evidence could be taken. The Minister proposes to take power to cut across numerous commercial transactions. He has taken the bad points of the New Zealand Act, and omitted to take the good ones. I would like to hear evidence, from those engaged in business, what the precise effect is going to be of interference of this kind on their contracts.

On a point of order, is the hon. member not dealing with the merits of the Bill, and should he not be confined to the motion before the House ?

I am dealing with the points on which evidence is necessary.

The hon. member is taking a very roundabout way of dealing with the question before the House.

Am I entitled to say that the Minister is seeking in a roundabout way to introduce nationalization ?

The merits of the Bill must not now be discussed.

I now want to deal with the question of the guarantee of the board’s contracts. I would like to hear evidence from the treasury on that point.

We have examined that point.

The MINISTER knows that, but does not give the information to the House. Is that entirely fair ?

I think the hon. member can quite easily deal with those points in committee.

I must bow to your ruling, sir, but, with great respect, I do feel that you cramp my style.

I hope the Bill will be referred to a select committee. The Minister told us that the only reason for not doing so was because of lack of time, but there are 33 Bills on the Order Paper, and a dozen of them are going to be referred to select committees. [No quorum.] I would like to reiterate how much we all deplore the lack of interest taken on the Government benches in this important Bill. Only recently the Minister of Justice referred to the Opposition as a contemptible little army not worthy of the name of an Opposition and yet all through the long hours of the night these old contemptibles have to hold the fort in the interest of the farmers. I have far more cogent reasons for asking this House to refer this Bill to a select committee. Let me refer the Minister to the meeting of the fruit growers’ association which took place this morning. I will read the report which appeared in the Argus—

The hon. member should not quote newspaper reports in regard to a Bill before the House.

Very well, I shall then try and do without the paper. Here we have it on record that this very day an emergency meeting of fruit growers was held in Cape Town.

That was yesterday.

This choice witticism of the Minister of Labour merely strengthens my argument. Here we have an emergency meeting. Why was it an emergency meeting? Because these fruit growers had not been notified in regard to the Bill.

I sent a copy of the Bill 10 or 14 days ago to the exchange.

Here you have members who had never seen it.

I cannot help that. You don’t suggest that I should send it to every fruit grower in the country ?

Here we have it on record from the chief fruit growers in the country that this thing has come upon them as a thunderbolt.

There are thousands of fruit farmers here, and only 70 attended the meeting.

They are as much representative of the fruit growers of the Western Province as we are of the country.

I gave you the facts about Ceres.

Those gentlemen at the meeting yesterday morning represented an important fraction of the fruit industry of this country, and they knew nothing about it until yesterday morning. These unfortunate men are going to be taxed without being consulted or represented.

The hon. member must not discuss the merits of the Bill.

Who is going to be financially responsible for the running of this business. If some shipments of tainted eggs were sent across, what would happen? This Bill is enough to taint all the eggs in the Union. The Minister of Labour can joke at the expense of the farmers, but it is going to be an expensive joke.

The farmers are very safe in the hands of the Government.

From what I have seen yesterday afternoon and evening I am in great doubt about it. It would be a sorry day in South Africa for the farmers if they had only the hon. members on the other side to befriend them. If the Minister will give a guarantee that he will not take the committee stage for three weeks, we might have something more or rather less to say on the matter.

Hon. members opposite are anxious to know why we are so silent. The answer is because we farmer members absolutely trust the Government.

Are you then only voting dummies ?

No, the farmers in the country that belong to the South African party agree. Has the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) seen the letter from Mr. Naudé of Aliwal North, in which he says that he refuses to belong to the South African party any longer, because that party is asleep ? Let me assure hon. members opposite that many South African party supporters are now saying good-bye to the South African party. The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) says that 70 Saps, there have resigned from their party and come over to the Nationalist party. The interests of the farmers are safe in the hands of the Government.

We are not attorneys of the Imperial Cold Storage.

Let me tell the attorney friends of the farmers that they can talk for three days about the matter, but the farmers will not take any notice of them.

I appeal to the Minister to allow the Bill to go to a select committee. I think the general manager of railways, who is probably the author of the Bill, should have an opportunity of giving evidence before the select committee, and telling it whether there is any connection between this Bill and the Ocean Freights Control Bill, and whether the intention is to get control first of perishable articles, then the freights and to follow that up with State shipping.

I move—

seconded.

Upon which the House divided:

I move—

seconded.

Upon which the House divided:

I move—

My attention has been drawn to Standing Order No. 36. which precludes the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins I who seconded the previous resolution, from moving this one.

I move—

seconded.

Upon which the House divided.

I move—

I cannot accept that motion. The question has already been decided and no question on the Bill has intervened.

I would point out to the Minister of Finance that the words—

appearing here are very ambiguous. I would suggest that the words should be more precisely defined. At what stage are goods said to be shipped ?

I wish to raise a point of order. In committee on Item 318, we left that item unaltered, but unless I am mistaken, I see in the present Bill it is very materially altered.

The hon. member had better raise that when we get there. We are dealing with the amendment on Clause 1.

I see we have in line 26 a reference to a dominion. In the Flag Bill this is rendered as a nation within the British community of nations.

The hon. member cannot refer to that in this debate.

Is the language in this clause not such as would lead to a great deal of ambiguity ? Is the Minister of Finance right in the terminology he has adopted in the Bill, or should we not refer to South Africa as part of the British dominions? Or he might have them described as—

In the Flag Bill one noticed a reference to the British community of nations, but the Minister appears to have adopted the middle line and refers to them as dominions. I hope the Minister is moving very warily, otherwise he may create a precedent which may cause trouble. It seems to me that this is an attempt to introduce a new phrase which is apt to create a very misleading impression.

There is no question of any such terminology as the hon. member is making use of.

Is it not very important that the terminology used in different Bills should, as far as possible, be the same, for if you use the word “dominion” in one case, and another expression in another case, it may eventually lead to confusion. Would not the hon. member be in order to move an amendment ?

I do not think there is any ambiguity about the word “dominions.”

Has not the hon. member the right to discuss the legal meaning of this proviso ?

The hon. member was not discussing the legal effect of the amendment, but the difference between the terminology used in this Bill and that used in a Bill which has still to come before the House.

If the hon. member considers that the other terminology is better than the word “dominion” as it appears in this amendment, would he not be in order to move an amendment to substitute another terminology ?

It would be open for the hon. member to move any amendment to the amendment which is here, but a question may arise as to whether the amendment would not be frivolous.

I move—

I am not prepared to accept the motion at this stage.

Amendment in Clause 1 then put and agreed to.

New Item 21a and amendments in Items 65 and 139 (Dutch) of First Schedule, put and agreed to.

I move—

That can only be moved as an unopposed motion.

I would like to explain that the letters “n.e.e.” mean “not elsewhere enumerated ”. Any item which is not specifically mentioned in the tariff comes under the general ad valorem rate, but these brushes are elsewhere enumerated.

I object to the amendment. The steam roller goes both ways— backwards and forwards.

I move—

The hon. member is not in order in moving that.

On the motion of the Minister of Justice, debate adjourned ; to be resumed on 24th May.