When the House adjourned last night I was drawing attention to the Opposition’s irresponsible behaviour in this debate. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) said that the United Party was the champion of the ordinary worker, the ordinary man and the ordinary woman, and with the little bit of enthusiasm which the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) could still muster after last week’s shattering election results, he exclaimed: “It is not the Government, but the workers and the taxpayers who have brought the prosperity that the country is enjoying at present.”

Since when has the United Party become a labour party? Surely with its history, with its composition, it can never be that? Is it not the United Party that is incessantly pleading for the abolition of work reservation? Is it not that party that pleads for unlimited numbers of Bantu to be drawn into our economy for the sake of achieving greater prosperity? Is it not that party that has all along wanted to remove the little bit of protection which the White worker still has, by lifting the colour bar? Was it not the hon. Opposition, in the persons of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) and the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), that objected yesterday afternoon to the high tax on gold mines? Was it not they who objected to the fact that the hon. the Minister of Finance once again wants to take R 16,000,000 from the pockets of the rich companies? And then they want to present themselves here as the champions of the man in the street, of the poor man and the poor woman! The hon. member for Pinetown also objected to the so-called savings levy and said: “Do not call it a savings levy. Are we ever going to get it back?”

Are we?

No, it is this side of the House and this Government that has always looked after the interests of the less-moneyed classes, of the man in the street, of the ordinary worker and his wife.

This is being done in this Budget as well. The Budget shows very clearly that it is this Government that looks after the interests of the lower and middle income groups. Is it not precisely the lower income group and the middle income group which are excluded in this Budget from the 5 per cent savings levy? When the hon. the Minister of Finance announced that married women would be granted a tax concession up to a maximum joint income of R8,000 it was that side of the House that pleaded that the R8,000 limit should be abolished. Not only the lower and middle income groups should receive some benefit, but also the rich groups. And then they want to present themselves as the champions of the ordinary man and woman! These are the so-called champions of the poor man, of the less-moneyed classes. Just as the leopard cannot change its spots, that party cannot change its plutocratic mentality. Because with its plutocratic mentality it can never understand the mind of the poor worker. The hon. the Prime Minister put it so well the other day when he said that this Government understood the mind of the poor man because he himself had known poverty and the same could be said of practically every member on this side of the House. The hon. the Minister of Finance himself probably felt the pinch in the parsonage in which he grew up, and that is why he adopts a sympathetic attitude towards the average worker and towards the lower and middle income groups. No, this cry of the hon. Opposition, as embodied in its amendment, namely “that the Government does not give the ordinary citizen a share in the prosperity of the country”, is as dishonest and as irresponsible as its new slogan of “White leadership over the whole of South Africa” shortly before the recent provincial elections. It will be rejected as decisively as the Opposition’s cry of “White leadership over the whole of South Africa”, has been rejected. No, the average voter in the Republic of South Africa is intelligent enough and has the necessary political sense to see through this clever new move.

I would definitely not have paid so much attention to this clever move, or supposedly clever move—and on the face of it this move is merely designed to catch votes, and heaven knows they need votes very badly—were it not for the fact that it was so terribly irresponsible. But the average worker in South Africa is a loyal citizen with an unswerving loyalty towards his country and, incidentally, towards this Government too. Naturally he is interested in the salary he earns, because who is not? But that is not what he values most in life, that is not his sole consideration. Much more important to him is a sense of the value of his work, a sense of achievement, the feeling that he forms an essential link, that he is virtually indispensable in his work and in his community. Just as the farmer who has bred a prize bull, or who has produced a promising new variety of grape, is proud of his achievement, so the average worker is proud of the work he does each day, and the factory worker who is able to make a new laboursaving suggestion to his shift boss is proud of the fact that he can do so.

I submit that there are things which are as important to the average worker as, or more important to him than, the salary he earns. The worker knows that he will be rewarded for any suggestions made by him. He has observed the rule laid down by the late C. J. Langenhoven in regard to work when he said: “Do not make money your primary objective, but endeavour to render the best service of which you are capable, and then your services will be in great demand, because people will realize their value, and your reward will follow of its own accord.” It is the essence of our capitalist system that the worker does his best and is rewarded for his effort. Does the United Party want to break down this system? No, I do not think so, but its actions may very easily have this result. If one keeps on telling the workers at all times that they are not getting their share, as the Opposition is again doing here, a sufficiently large number of workers may come to believe this, and the country will deteriorate into a socialist state before one realizes where one is. Is that what the Opposition wants? No, I do not think so. I do not think it really wants that.

Its history and its composition militate against such an attitude, but people who try to be too clever often come to grief. Nevertheless I do not think the workers of South Africa will allow themselves to be duped by this clever move on the part of the Opposition. The White workers expect much more from a Budget and from a Government than just a larger slice of the cake for themselves. The workers want security for themselves and their families. The socialist state to which this clever move by the United Party is quite likely to lead will not be a White socialist state. As little as the federation policy of the United Party will guarantee White leadership over the whole of South Africa, just as little will the economic paradise the prospect of which the Opposition is holding out to the workers give security to the White worker. This Government has always adopted a sympathetic attitude towards the White worker, towards the ordinary man and woman in our country, towards the stricken farmer and the needy pensioner. Consequently it appreciates what they are striving for, and therefore it will attend to their best interests in future as well. This, however, will not be done by making irresponsible promises, but in a very responsible way, as is being done in this Budget.

Consider, for example, the new dispensation as far as social pensions are concerned. Under the old dispensation a person with private means, a person who had saved a bit of money during his working life, did not receive a Government pension if his income amounted to a minimum of R312 per annum. In actual fact this person consequently had a lower income than the man who had saved nothing during his working life, because the latter received R324 from the State. A person with limited means of his own, say R180 per annum, had an income as much as R504, as against the R312 of the man with a private income. This anomaly is now being eliminated. To the officials who devised this system I should like to extend my sincere congratulations on this excellent piece of work.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) said that the Minister of Finance spoke about the methods to be employed to promote saving, but then stated that the Minister was doing absolutely nothing in this regard. I submit, however, that this new pension scheme will contribute a great deal towards encouraging and promoting saving. The same applies to the plan of the hon. the Minister of Finance to encourage people to continue working till later in life, which is a brilliant plan. In due course this is sure to yield benefits in the economic field.

But, Mr. Speaker, I do feel concerned about the disappointingly small increase in savings in recent years. Our savings, expressed as a percentage of the gross national production, decreased from a figure in excess of 20 per cent in respect of past years to 14.8 per cent in 1964. To my mind this is a very serious matter, because we need capital for economic growth and capital is nothing but savings. On page 6 of the Budget Statement the hon. the Minister says that ways and means of promoting saving must undoubtedly be considered. I have already pointed out that the new dispensation in pensions will contribute towards greater saving, but I regard the observation made by the hon. the Minister as an invitation to make suggestions. For this reason I want to express a few thoughts in regard to this matter. Why has there been a decline in saving? In the first place as a result of an increase in the expenditure on consumer goods, an increase of 14 per cent. Therefore the first step to be taken if one wants to encourage saving is to check this excessive expenditure on consumer goods to some extent by restricting excessive credit provision for purchasing consumer goods. This is what the hon. the Minister has already done, not in his Budget Statement on Wednesday, but on 5 March, hardly three weeks ago. In addition there is the increase of the bank rate by ½ per cent, which will also have the effect of restricting personal expenditure on consumer goods to some extent. This is merely the negative side of combating excessive expenditure on consumer goods, this is the negative side of what has to be done to encourage saving. But there is also a positive approach, which takes the form of this new deal in pensions. But I should like to make a further suggestion to the hon. the Minister, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider giving a little more encouragement to one of our most important methods of saving. I am referring to insurance. There are probably few financial institutions in the Republic that have done as much as our insurance companies to develop thrift amongst our people. Admittedly a concession of 7 per cent of premiums up to a maximum of R25 per person is being made for income-tax purposes as far as insurance premiums are concerned. I respectfully want to suggest that this limit be increased considerably. If this is done, it will provide a considerable incentive to our people to be more thrifty.

One of the main reasons for excessive expenditure on consumer goods is a psychological economic one. Because there is a progressive decline in the value of money, the taxpayer is very much inclined to adopt the attitude that saving is not worth the trouble, because money decreases in value, and that he should rather spend it. For this reason I want to refer to what the great Henry Ford the First said a few decades ago, and that is that we are inclined to teach our children to save, but that we should much rather teach our children to spend correctly, not to spend money only on sweets and cool drinks and that type of thing, but on capital goods as well. This is what we must teach our people, not only to save, but to spend correctly, not only on consumer goods, but also on capital goods. If we do this, we shall again get our people to save, and in this way we shall obtain the necessary capital for the further development of our very sound economy.

Accordingly I want to reject totally the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia, because it is irresponsible, and I want to give my strong support to the hon. the Minister of Finance for his very clever Budget.

The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) has been reproaching this side of the House for advocating the interests of the ordinary man, the man in the street, the common man. I would like to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that all the shoals of red herrings that he tried to draw across the trail, have failed, as all his statements, to hide that there is little in this Budget for the man in the street. And what the hon. member perhaps has forgotten is that the men and the women that I am referring to, the ordinary workers, are the forgotten rank and file of the Nationalist Party; they have been forgotten in this Budget, and we on this side of the House would not have had to plead for them year after year and to ask by way of amendments and motions for increased wages and salaries for postmen, railwaymen, Government servants, policemen, for low-grade State employees if the Nationalist Government have not acted in this way, and also if they had acted by deeds of increased benefits instead of by words.

The Budget of the hon. the Minister of Finance as presented to this House is an attempt to counteract inflation, and it is appreciated that while it is difficult to strike the correct central balance between achieving this purpose without causing economic recession, the hon. the Minister of Finance has handled this problem with proper caution as far as the curbing of high consumption is concerned and the hon. Minister has applied classical short-term measures of reducing the circulation of money and by curbing credit, and also by applying fiscal policies and by increased taxation of companies, except mining companies, and the taxation of individuals in the higher income brackets, combined, of course, with the compulsory savings levy. Now while it has to be admitted that the hon. Minister had to budget for a year ahead for our finances, the Minister has to anticipate developments which are still far ahead in the unknown future. On the other hand, one feels that the hon. the Minister can watch carefully the current influx of revenue to-day through the P.A.Y.E. system and therefore he should be able to adjust any variations that could deviate from a planned Budget. It has to be understood that the hon. the Minister is probably intentionally avoiding a rigid clamping down on inflation. In doing so, he and his advisers are following the well-known Keynesian pattern of controlled inflation, which could be said to be an attitude shared everywhere in planning much of national economics in the world. Now looking at the hon. Minister’s Budget as a whole, it appears to be a deficit budget, except for the suspicion that the revenue when finally counted will result again in a large surplus due to over-taxation, as has been carried out over the last years. But I would like to say here that I feel that it is a great pity that the high-class tailoring of our efficient Department of Finance is spoiled by this incurable habit of the hon. the Minister of Finance which makes the pockets of the Budget sag and bulge with surplus taxation. I feel that this is really a sin against real sartorial elegance as well as against clean economic planning. Sir, the complete failure of this Budget lies in the fact that while it curbs consumption demand by short-term measures, it completely ignores the need for increased production, and, Sir, increased production is the long-range counterpart of anti-inflation measures as against the short-term curbing of consumption. Now I feel that it is impossible to understand the hon. Minister’s neglect of these long-term anti-inflationary measures, and in the lack of these measures we can expect perhaps a repetition of the stop-go trek-halt policy that was touched on by the hon. member for Parktown yesterday and that is fatally damaging to the economy of any country; we have seen what it can do by the example of the United Kingdom. This peculiar avoidance of dealing with long-term problems is, I feel, characteristic of the Government which has failed to solve in 17 years the country’s long-term problems in economy and in racial relations and in relations also with the civilized world; this attitude is an attitude of opportunism and not of statesmanship. Sir, in my speech on the Part Appropriation last month, on 17 February, I said—

The hon. the Minister in his answer to that on the same day said—

And he added: “But that is a long-term policy, and that the Government had not sat still in that regard, but that the Government had been active in that regard by, for example, to mention only one matter, tremendously increasing State expenditure on vocational training, in that in 1948, the amount was R2,300,000, in 1961 it rose to R9,100,000 and in 1963 it was R 11,100,000”. Sir, I feel that this juggling with figures does no alter the fact of the well-known acute shortage of skilled labour which still exists to-day, and I would draw the hon. Minister’s attention to a statement by the Administrator of the Transvaal in which he said that the shortage of labour was a threat to our economy, that too many jobs were chasing too few people, and that low educating was hindering our economy. Sir, I feel that in the present Budget there is a neglect of this vital problem. The hon. Minister has ignored the manpower problem and also the problem of more efficient production and the training of skilled labour, the training of more scientists, the training of more technologists. I find it very difficult to understand the cause of this shortsighted attitude of the hon. the Minister, especially as the hon. Minister in reply to my remarks on the Part Appropriation said that increased productivity could combat inflation and that it was almost an economic commonplace. I have no hesitation in saying that I feel that it is not only an economic commonplace but that it is also a basic truth, a corner-stone of the country’s economy. Yet the Minister’s Budget shows little provision for this, and it almost seems as if this supposedly common knowledge is uncommon as far as the hon. the Minister and his Department are concerned. Sir, in support of my warning and request for a long-range plan, I would like to quote among others. Dr. P. J. Riekert. Dr. Riekert is the deputy economic adviser to the Prime Minister and he is also the deputy secretary for Planning and he was speaking in Johannesburg at the launching of a national seminar on production management arranged by the Institute of Professional Management, and his subject was the shortage of executive and managerial manpower in South Africa. Dr. Riekert is reported to have said that the South African boom will not last indefinitely and also that unless the productivity of South Africa continues to increase, there can be no real rise in the standard of living of the population. Sir, I could quote almost every economist who has reviewed the Minister’s present Budget speech, and each one of these has criticized that there is very little inducement to increase productivity. They all ask where is the incentive to increase productivity. I have no doubt that the hon. Minister has also read these statements and is fully aware of them. But, Sir, as the hon. Minister knows I have particular interest in advocating the mobilization of the talented youth, the students of South Africa through university training in science and technology, and I feel that this is again one facet of long-range planning affecting South Africa’s economy, and here again we are dealing with the common knowledge that without highly trained scientists, without highly trained technologists and managerial staff, competitive modern industrialization is virtually impossible. Here again we have this common knowledge ignored at the expense of the country’s future. In the 1963 Budget debate I pointed out these facts and I advocated free university education and complete financial support for talented youth whouse parents are unable to carry the burden of university education; and I made out a case and asked the Minister in 1963 for a vote of R3,000,000 to increase the aid in order to get all talented youth to the universities and thus to alleviate the present shortage of skilled manpower in South Africa. I feel that the investment of this sum of R3,000,000 is one of the most important and most urgent requirements in the planning of the long-range progress of South Africa. I advocated that such financial support should be coupled with effective measures for the elimination of the wastage of money and effort through the successive failures of first and second-year students at all our universities, especially in the subjects of science and technology. Before going into details of such a scheme, I should like to mention that in the 1964 Budget debate the Minister sidestepped this issue by giving financial support to such students by way of bursaries through the national Loan and Study Fund, through a Bill, which is now an Act, by which companies could deduct from their taxable income up to a maximum of 1 per cent in respect of donations made to that fund to enable students in need of assistance to complete their education at the universities or university colleges or technical colleges, and the cost to the Exchequer last year was estimated at R500,000. I pointed out last year that R3,000,000 was the required sum and that even this paltry sum of R500,000 should have been provided from the then surplus of R88,000,000 and should not be left to the benevolence of the companies. Since then I inquired on 19 February and later from the Minister and the Department of Education, Arts and Science as to what were the accruements from the tax allowances to the National Loan and Bursary Fund, and I was not very astonished to receive the answer that up to 19 February no amount had been paid into this fund. In view of this I want to ask the Minister again seriously to consider taking the necessary steps to allocate at leasr R3,000,000 from this year’s Budget surplus of R110,000,000 in order to ensure the technical and scientific development of South Africa, this amount to be granted to all the universities and to assist all talented students whose parents are unable to cover the costs of their university education in science and technology. In order to contrast the close-fistedness of the Government in this respect, I should like to point out to the Minister that while in South Africa students’ fees comprise 30 per cent of the recurrent university expenditure, the same figure is only 11 per cent in the U.K. and 14 per cent in Australia. All universities to-day, owing to the economic pressure on them, are being forced to raise their fees, and this is a further imposition on certain classes of parents. Therefore it is more necessary than ever before for the Government to step up the bursaries and loans available to the talent of South Africa, to invest in the talented students who could help to solve our manpower crisis. The control of the expenditure for higher education is in the hands of the Minister of Finance. Increasing funds for further scientific and technological training will increase productivity, and surely the Minister will agree with this. Our modern age to-day demands new education at all levels, and one of the most pressing problems is the dovetailing of secondary and higher education, because we all know that there is a heavy wastage in the first and second years at the university. Between 40 per cent and 50 per cent failed and they are lost to South Africa, and it is obvious that better preparation for university studies is needed. It is needed both in the secondary schools, and different methods of teaching are also needed during the first year at the university, with increased tutorials. South Africa spends only about half on university education for students compared with what the U.S.A. and other countries spend, and our tuition and training are of a lower standard, and there is a need to improve the standard of university teachers. More and better qualified university staff are needed. Both Dr. Malherbe and Professor Cilliers emphasized that the handling of first-year students en masse in large first-year classes must be replaced by tutorials. We have to give incentives for this through increased bursaries and loans and also through a reassessment of the first year at university, so that it will include far more tutorials, smaller classes and the use of close circuit television and two-way telecommunication so that one top-grade teacher can address 20 to 30 classes at the same time, thereby obviating the 300 or so who are in one classroom. All these things I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister because it is felt very strongly that the Government must meet the urgent need for more scientists and technologists by the training of talented youths through systematic selection for bursaries and by the provision of more adequate teaching staff, and by reducing the first-year wastage in the universities, because that is one of the things which is increasing the manpower shortage.

Once again, I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that a large percentage of these needy students come from families who are supporters of the party opposite, and a stage will be reached when this neglected sector of the supporters of the Government will become conscious of this cold blooded and cynical treatment of their justifiable claims. This is only one example in the education policy of this Government, because a similar attitude is also displayed towards salaried Government employees in the Post Office and the Railways and other State Departments. I feel that it is time now that people should realize that the Government and the representatives for whom they vote are neglecting and ignoring their interests in this respect. That is another matter of common knowledge which is escaping recognition by this Government, namely that an efficient and trained labour force cannot be achieved without adequate wages and salaries, both in the private and the public sectors. The private sector is aware of this truth and pays its employees accordingly, but the lower ranks of employees in the Railways and the Post Office and the Police Force and also of the Civil Service are so badly paid to-day that they cannot meet the cost of living for themselves and their families and they are leaving the Government employment by the tens of thousands, with the result that our public services are grinding to a halt. The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) mentioned the Prime Minister’s statement. I should like to say that according to a Press report the Prime Minister said in Germiston on 22 March that those who asked why their salaries had not been increased by the Government must remember that there are other things which must be thought of, and an increase of R5 a month for everyone in the service of the State would mean little to the individual but it would cost more than R 100,000,000, thus soaking up any surplus. I feel that if this report is correct, it surely ranks as one of the worst political sophistries loaded with red herrings thrown out as a bait to the poor underpaid Government employees in the lower ranks, because obviously the increase in wages and salaries is not equally urgent among all members of the Public Service. One can assume, from the figures of registrations from the ranks of the lower-paid Government employees, that they number in the region of 100,000 and a rise of R5 per month such as mentioned by the Prime Minister would require only R6,000,000 per annum and not R 100,000,000, for the rise is needed for people whose wages are below the breadline, and these are the people whose demands are being artfully avoided by the Government in this Budget. That is why I wish finally to emphasize that once again the Government is playing with a short-term policy which in the long range could destroy our public services.

Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that I rise to speak in this House this afternoon. On the one hand it is a wonderful privilege for me to have been elected to this House as the representative for Smithfield and on the other hand I am deeply under the impression of the responsibility which rests on my shoulders.

This constituency was represented for 33 years in this House by the late General Hertzog who for 15 of those years served this country as its Prime Minister. His contribution is history. He was followed by Minister Fouche, a man who has also made his mark in the annals of our nation, a man who was a revered and very successful Administrator of the Free State, a man who is to-day an outstanding Minister of Defence. He was succeeded by my friend, a man who for ten years was a team-mate of mine in public life, Dr. Buks Fouché, a man who has also gone a long way and we have further high hopes for him. In the light of these things you will realize, Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, that I as the fourth representative of this constituency appreciate the important and heavy responsibilities which rest upon my shoulders. All I ask is that I be given the opportunity to draw upon that source of all power. If I can do this, I shall be able to face the future confidently.

One stands amazed at the great changes taking place and the tempo at which these changes are taking place in every sphere. Great and swift changes are practically the order of the day in our country at present. These occurrences require an increasingly better insight into things and the ability to tackle matters timeously and with as little disruption as possible. If under these circumstances we were to neglect to appreciate the facts and neglect to put our shoulder to the wheel, we would be left behind. Although the changes in the larger urban areas particularly have been spectacular and obvious, we in the platteland areas have not remained untouched by all this. Indeed, the rural communities are experiencing changes which affect the basis of their economic existence. In the light of this fact I should like this afternoon to identify some of these problems and ask for assistance in our efforts to find a solution to these problems. Some of the problems to which I am going to refer are of a regional nature which may possibly affect my constituency particularly, but the solution thereto is of national importance.

The economic development problems of the southern Free State, that is to say, that region in which the ten towns forming my constituency are situated, are problems which I should like to set out against the broad background of the development of the country as a whole. The phenomenal growth and development of the country is, inter alia, reflected in the real national income which over the past 50 years has increased by 450 per cent. During this period the population as a whole has increased at the rate of 2 per cent per annum. Accordingly, the real income per capita of the population has increased by 1.5 per cent per annum. This means simply that over the past 50 years the real income per head of a family has doubled. Besides this, important changes have also taken place in the relative contributions of the various branches of production towards our national income. For example, the share of the factories in this regard rose from slightly less than 4 per cent to a full 25 per cent. The share of agriculture, forestry and fisheries, as could be expected in a swiftly developing country, decreased from 20 per cent to 10 per cent. These figures show a clear movement of the mutual ratio of primary to secondary and tertiary branches of production and is a clear indication of the extent to which our country has progressed towards economic maturity. The economic growth to which I have referred has, however—and this is very important—not been distributed evenly throughout the whole country. In other words, not all areas in the country have participated in this economic development to the same extent. Just as changes have taken place in the relative contributions of the various branches of production, so changes have also been apparent in the relative contributions of the various regions.

In order to illustrate this, I want to refer to the position in the southern Free State. The index of the total income of this particular district decreased from 100 to 90 during the period 1954-5 to 1960, taking 1954 as equal to 100. This means that during this period this region showed a drop in income of no less than R 1,600,000. Besides this there has also been marked fluctuations from year to year. The highest and lowest income levels differed by as much as 32 per cent over this period of six years. The most important branch of production in the southern Free State is agriculture which during the period 1954 to 1960 contributed more than half of the share of that region to the total income. Viewed against the background of the total agricultural income of the country, we find that it produced only about one-eighth of the total national income, or 121 per cent. The major role played by agriculture in the economy of that region is apparent from the fact that 44 per cent of the economically active people in that region make their living from agriculture. We must also bear in mind the fact that this figure is 10.3 per cent for the entire country. These facts are merely intended to prove that agriculture is the mother industry in the region which I represent. The income of the agricultural industry in that region fell considerably during the period 1954 to 1960. The index of agricultural income dropped from 100 to 69 during this six year period, taking 1954 as equal to 100, a decrease in the income of the agricultural industry of R3,000,000. There was a difference of 58 per cent between the income from agriculture in the best year and that in the worst year during this period. We must bear in mind the fact that the non-agricultural income of this area has increased but this fact has not been able to compensate for the marked drop in the income from agriculture. There was therefore a decrease in general income of R 1,600,000, as I have already said.

Great changes have also come about as far as the population is concerned. The total population of that region rose by 26 per cent from 1936 to 1960, but the White population dropped by 29.6 per cent during the same period while the non-White population increased by 50.6 per cent. I mention these figures because I should like eventually to suggest certain solutions in this connection. These are normal occurrences in my part of the world and in other provinces and in other rural areas throughout the world, but that is not the point that I am making. What I want to say is that we must correct the balance in this regard.

As I said at the start, we must look the facts in the face and see them in their correct perspective. Because agriculture is still the main source of income in the southern Free State and because almost all the other activities are dependent upon it, it is necessary that the agricultural industry be placed upon the soundest footing possible. That we have certainly tried to do. Our farming methods have improved; heavy capital expenditure has been incurred; stock has been improved and we have gone over to mechanization, with all its ramifications. These improvements have, however, resulted in an unexpectedly large increase in production costs. During the period 1954 to 1960 our agricultural expenditure increased by an amount of R2,200,000 which is equal to 56 per cent. This occurrence is not only due to the fact that improved farming methods and mechanization of themselves resulted in increased expenditure but also because during this period there was a constant increase in the price of all agricultural requirements. But when we look at the income the picture is less favourable than that in regard to expenditure because during the period 1954 to 1960 the gross income decreased by 7 per cent, and also fluctuated considerably. This state of affairs created a cost pincer which, inter alia, was responsible for the decrease in the contribution of agriculture towards the total income of the southern Free State. That is why I am making use of this opportunity to-day to say that it is clear that further steps will have to be taken in order to make better and more efficient use of the agricultural potential of that region. Only 70 years ago the old Republican Government of the Free State made land available to farmers free of charge or sold it to them at a very low price. There was a great deal of land and not many people. Because of the settling of a large number of people on the platteland, the available ground became inadequate and continued to become more and more difficult to obtain and provision had to be made to assist new farmers by the application of a quitrent tenure system by means of which the available ground was even further subdivided, a system to which we have clung for far too long. The result was that the average size of the farming units in that region decreased considerably over the course of a number of years. Improved production methods and better markets made it possible initially for even small farming units to be managed profitably. The cost pincer, however, with the resultant smaller profit margins, has made larger farming units necessary in order to enable the farmer to make a reasonable living. The swift expansion of our industries does, however, to a certain extent require manpower to be made available from the agricultural industry for use by those industries. Workers in industry to-day make a particularly good living. It is therefore no longer necessary to absorb these additional people in agriculture at all costs and thereby to create uneconomic units. This process of removal can already be seen in our region but an analysis of the size of farms indicates that a great deal of adjustment is still necessary. This removal of our White farmers to the industries is an economic law which we do not want to fight but I want to issue the warning that this flow of manpower from agriculture is something which we will have to curb in time.

The idea that our agricultural land may be undermined is disturbing because the future of our national existence depends upon this agricultural land. We must regard it as the most important duty and task of all of us never to close our eyes to this important aspect of agriculture because it would certainly be an evil day if we as a nation could be accused of the wasteful exploitation of our national assets.

Another important question is whether the farmer is always equipped to enable him to adapt himself to the swiftly changing circumstances affecting his profession. Because of the increased commercialization of farming the entire farming organization has to be adapted to a new set of circumstances which differ radically from those of a few decades ago. By means of our extension services we shall have to equip our farmers better in order to enable them to adapt themselves to these new circumstances. With this in mind careful attention will have to be given to the further expansion of our extension services so that attention can be given not only to the technical aspects but also the socio-economic aspects of farming. Practical adaptation in the true sense of the word has appeared to be something which is extra-ordinarily complicated but particularly with a view to the fact that it involves so many different aspects.

Scientific investigation confirms that this necessary adjustment will also demand an increasingly higher standard of training on the part of our farmers. Therefore more and more training facilities will have to be made available to farmers and they will have to be given every incentive to make use of those facilities. As far as agriculture is concerned I want in conclusion to state that the better utilization of the region’s agricultural potential also depends upon a wider knowledge in regard to the factors which are peculiar in that area. That is why I want to make an earnest plea that more research be done in and for our region. Moreover, because this region makes up an important part of the catchment area of the Orange River, it is of all the more urgent importance that every possible means be used to promote the careful use of the soil.

The regional problems to which I have referred are already receiving the serious attention of that community, so much so that some time ago a very active regional development association was established in co-operation with the north-eastern Cape. The first matter to which this association applied itself was to find out the position of this region in regard to our swiftly changing economy and how its development potential could be further increased. I want to say here that this association is so much in earnest in this regard that it has contributed a large amount out of its own pocket in order to achieve these aims.

We fully realize that the responsibility to develop our region rests in the first place upon ourselves. Our inquiries have already brought to light the fact that our region has other development potentialities besides agriculture, the most important of which is its potential as a border industry and tourist area. As far as the first mentioned is concerned I want to point out that this area is one of the best endowed parts of our country as far as water is concerned. Furthermore, it must be realized that the economic and social welfare of the Herschell Bantu area which borders on this region is going to depend largly upon the mobilization of its surplus labour potential. This could be done effectively by the establishment of border industries in that region. This then will also result in the removal of one of the most important stumbling-blocks standing in the way of the agricultural resources of the Herschell Bantu area, particularly too in view of the fact that this Bantu area is an important catchment area for the Orange River.

It is for various reasons which are also of cardinal importance that practical steps be taken as quickly as possible to bring about a more balanced proportion numerically between the various population groups. The use of the potential for the establishment of border industries would be a very practical step in this direction.

As far as the tourist potential of this region is concerned I want to point out that this region has all the potentialities to enable it to be transformed into one of the country’s most pleasant playgrounds in the interior. From the picturesque Drakensberg escarpment in the east the view changes in less than 100 miles into a restful tableau landscape in which will be situated the inland lake of the Orange River. This region can in the future be developed into a freshwater angling paradise to which our urbanized friends from the concrete jungles can escape to relax. The full development of the tourist potential of this region does however require a greater recognition of this fact on the part of the authorities, and I must make an earnest plea in this regard.

In conclusion I should just like to make the pertinent statement that it is in our national interests that the development potential of our rural areas should be uilized as effectively as possible. That is why it is necessary that we do not concentrate all our attention only upon the vigorous economic points of growth which exist in the larger industrial complexes of our country.

In accordance with the time-honoured tradition of this House, it affords me very much pleasure to congratulate the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Pansegrouw) on his maiden speech here to-day. In the course of a very interesting contribution the hon. member reminded us of the illustrious men who have over the years represented the constituency of Smithfield. I am sure that it is the sincere wish of every member of this House, on both sides that our new colleague will attain the same distinction as that achieved by his predecessors in this House and in the service of our country.

Before dealing with certain aspects of the Budget, I think it is necessary for me to avail myself of this the first opportunity which I have had of dealing with the position of the Coloured people of South Africa since the Provincial elections in which the majority of the Coloured voters returned as their representatives to the Provincial Council of the Cape, candidates of the Progressive Party. Sir, in the interests of the vast majority of the Coloured people, as distinct from the Coloured voters who registered their votes in favour of the Progressive Party, I do hope that the Government will not misconstrue the unfortunate decision of these Coloured voters. I think it is necessary for us briefly to consider the circumstances which motivated the Coloured voters in making their choice. It must be realized that in these Coloured elections we were dealing with a frustrated people, indeed the most frustrated part of the entire South African population. These people have had imposed upon them one indignity after another, despite the earnest appeals which my colleagues and I have made over the years in this House and despite the appeals that we made to the Government not to proceed with these petty pin-pricks against the Coloured people. Sir, the House will recall how session after session I have pleaded with the Government not to proceed with these humiliating apartheid measures. I warned the Government that a continuance of this policy was alienating our Coloured people from us. It is a thousand pities that these warnings were not heeded. On the contrary, we found that session after session additional discriminatory laws were inflicted upon the Coloured people which have had the effect of widening the gulf between them and the White people of South Africa. As though these were not sufficient, we find one blunder after another committed by certain of the Ministers, blunders which aggravated the situation tremendously. Therefore when these people were confronted with the choice of returning to the Provincial Council men who had loyally pleaded their cause or persons who were holding out to them Utopian promises which they would never be called upon to fulfil, in sheer desperation, I suggest, the majority of the Coloured voters leaned towards those who were holding out these Utopian promises. I believe, as I am sure many members of this House believe, on both sides of the House, that the Progressive Party with its concentration on coloured politics is doing a disservice to the Coloured people. The recent elections have shown that the Progressive Party has made no headway whatsoever amongst the White electorate. In fact, I suggest that they have been totally rejected by the White electorate and have suffered even worse defeats than in previous elections. In their last endeavours therefore to survive as a political party, the Progressive Party has made a concentrated effort to win these Coloured seats. Sir, the results of the elections in the White constituencies have shown how the Progressives have been ignominiously rejected by the White electors of South Africa. What earthly hope therefore has the Progressive Party of implementing the glowing promises which they made to these unfortunate Coloured people? I suggest none whatsoever. They have been rejected by the White electorate and are now using the Coloured electorate as their last hope of maintaining a public platform in this country. I repeat that to my mind the Progressive Party is doing a great disservice to the unfortunate Coloured people and I am certain that upon calmer reflection the Coloured people, in the light of what has happened in the White constituencies, will not allow themselves to be misled any further by Progressive Party policy.

You are a bad loser.

No, it does not affect me at all. I am sorry the hon. member has not been here.

You should have warned me.

I repeat that in my view and, I am certain in the view of the vast majority of the White people of this country, the Progressive Party is doing a disservice to our Coloured friends.

Your party gave birth to it.

At the same time, having dealt with the Progressive Party, I feel it is necessary for me once again to urge upon the Government not to continue with these petty pin-pricks which have largely been responsible for this change in the attitude of the Coloureds. I regard the unfortunate decision of the Coloured electorate in the last elections as a demonstration against the Government with regard to the petty apartheid laws which have been inflicted on the Coloured people throughout the years and particularly in recent months. I refer particularly, for instance, to the Government’s latest decision to break the old Cape tradition with regard to mixed audiences. I refer to incidents like the Luxurama theatre incident; I refer to what happened unfortunately at the Green Point Track where nearly 2,000 Coloured men were prevented from attending a performance because of Government policy. All these actions were responsible for aggravating Coloured opinion against the Government and indeed against the White people, and in sheer desperation the Coloureds voted for the Progressive Party candidates in order to demonstrate their complete rejection of the petty apartheid laws which have been inflicted upon them. Sir, I agree with the viewpoint which was put forward very forcibly in the leader of the Burger on 15 March …

Why read the Burger now?

I am quoting it because it will do the hon. member a lot of good if he follows the advice of the Burger. Sir, I am quoting from the translation of this article which appeared in the Cape Times on Tuesday, 16 March. This leader writer deals with the way in which the Progressive Party has won over the Coloured people’s traditional preference for the United Party and he then goes on to say this—

I should like hon. members to listen carefully to the next sentence—

Sir, it is important to emphasize this. Whether we like it or not the White electorate has given its decision in regard to these issues. We will have the ridiculous position that Coloured representation will be out to destroy the policies which are being supported by the White electorate. The leader writer goes on to say—

[Inaudible.]

My hon. friend must not get hot under the collar. The leader writer goes on to say—

This is something for my hon. friends on the Government side to consider—

This includes members on the Government side—

Sir, I agree with the sentiments expressed here. I say that the Progressive Party has done and is doing a tremendous disservice to the Coloured people.

By offering a just policy?

At the same time I agree with the leader writer when he says that the time has come for us to control our disappointment and to seek more fruitful approaches than those of the recent past.

Do you suggest we drop our policy?

No, what I suggest is this: I am quite certain that even at this late stage, if the Government was prepared to put a stop to all these petty apartheid measures which are mere pin-pricks and which do not carry their policy any further, the vast majority of the Coloured voters would still unhesitatingly reject the Progressive Party and vote for those friends who have loyally stood by them.

You have lost touch with your constituents.

I want to deal specifically with one aspect of the Progressive Party policy in order to show how the Coloureds have been misled. I want to deal with the party’s franchise proposals Under the present law, as we all know, a Coloured man qualifies as a voter if he earns not less than R100 per annum or lives in a house worth R150 and if, in addition, he is able to write his name and address and occupation without his hand being guided. That is the present law of this country. Sir, I now want to quote from the Progressive Party’s proposals dealing with franchise qualifications. To. enable this same Coloured man who has the qualifications to which I have referred to qualify as a voter under the policy of the Progressive Party, for the ordinary parliamentary roll—and I am referring now to the ordinary parliamentary roll, not to the secondary roll where the Coloureds will be on a mixed roll together with the Bantu; I am referring to the first-class roll of this country for which the Coloured man qualifies at the present time if he has the qualifications I have mentioned— he would have to have the following qualifications: He would have to pass Standard VI or its equivalent and in addition to that he would have had to prove that he has an income, for at least two consecutive years, of at least R600 a year, as against R150 at the present time, or that he has occupied, for at least two consecutive years, fixed property or the value of at least R 1,000. Sir, a comparison of these qualifications leads one to the conclusion that it is far easier for the Coloured people to attain the present qualifications than those suggested by the Progressive Party.

But ours are for the Common Roll.

I would go so far as to say that if the Progressive Party’s proposals had applied to the last elections, the vast majority of the Coloured voters whom they enrolled, at tremendous cost to themselves, would not have qualified as voters. Sir, I mention this as one of the misleading promises made by the Progressive Party to the Coloured people.

Sir, if we can only get the Government to toe the line as far as the Coloured people are concerned there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the vast majority of the Coloured voters would realize that they are being led up the garden path by the Progressive Party.

I feel that having regard to the limited time at my disposal I have said sufficient to urge the Government to accept the excellent advice offered in this leader of the Burger and to seek more fruitful approaches than those of the recent past.

I now propose to deal with some of the aspects directly concerned with the Budget. Sir, it is a great pity that our party-political system in South Africa obligates the Minister of Finance to present a Budget which must reflect the demands of the political party to which he belongs. This system, to my mind, deprives the Minister of Finance of the opportunity of formulating a Budget which would lead to greater efficiency, greater productivity and a greater expansion of our export market. I am sure that if the hon. the Minister of Finance were able to do so he would agree that if his hands were not tied by the policy of his party, he would far rather have presented a Budget which, although curbing the inflationary trend, would at the same time have provided for greater productivity and for greater export. As it is, the present Budget is hamstrung by the ideological demands of the Government Party, and to that extent the Minister’s hands are tied. The Minister has not been left with much choice in framing his Budget as far as economic considerations are concerned.

Having made those general remarks, I want to deal with one or two aspects which struck me as I listened to the Budget speech and when I read it afterwards. In the first place I would like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the step that he has taken to introduce a new series of tax-free Treasury Bonds. This decision has been welcomed throughout the country and will to my mind help a great deal to encourage savings. I would like also to express a word of appreciation on behalf of the low income groups to the Minister for having raised the rate of interests paid by the Post Office Savings Bank. Although the Minister has not been able to raise the Post Office Savings Bank rate to a competitive level, that is to say, competitive with other financial institutions, he has at least taken a step in the right direction, and I am certain that this increased rate of interest will help to encourage savings. On the other hand, I am not sure that the Minister has done the best thing in the interests of the country in freezing the interest rate payable by banks and other financial institutions at this stage.

The Minister’s laudable object, as I see it, was to increase saving in this country as much as possible and to decrease unnecessary spending. It appears to me that the higher interest rates offered by financial institutions generally was an inducement to citizens to save their surplus funds. The freezing of these interest rates might very well counteract that objective, and I think already the financial institutions are viewing this decision by the Minister in that light. It might very well have the effect of decreasing savings and of increasing spending. One realizes that the increasing interest rates offered by financial institutions had to be curbed at some time or another, but I think it would have been far better if some steps had been taken originally to curb those increased rates rather than now when the Government is exploring every avenue to increase savings and decrease spending.

I would also like to say that in my view the Minister might have given more favourable consideration to our industrialists with a view to stimulating exports from this country. The Government must surely realize that South African industry has had a very hard task in competing with other countries in the outside world in the sale of its products. To me it has been a source of amazement that we have been able to maintain a fairly substantial volume of exports in the face of the worldwide opposition to South Africa. I think our South African businessmen should be complimented on the wonderful way in which they have striven to overcome this tremendous world opposition, and it is for this reason that I think that the hon. the Minister might have done more to stimulate South African exports.

Another thing which strikes me as being contradictory is the fact that the Minister has not done anything to uplift the undistributed profits tax on private companies. This tax was originally introduced, as the hon. the Minister knows, with a view to encouraging, indeed compelling, private companies to make a distribution of their profits by way of dividends. The surcharge which the Minister now seeks to impose on company tax must tend towards curtailing dividend distribution. To my mind therefore if the Minister proceeds with his proposal to impose a surcharge on company tax, he should eliminate the undistributed profits tax. These two taxes standing side by side, to my mind, are contradictory, and I would urge the hon. the Minister to consider the advisability of eliminating the undistributed profits tax.

Sir, I would like on behalf of the social and other pensioners to express our appreciation of the concessions which have been made to them, including the raising of the means test and the increase of the basic pension. This is certainly a step in the right direction and will, I am sure, receive the support of every well-disposed citizen. At the same time, however, I feel that it is necessary for me once again to register my protest against the unjustified discrimination between pensions paid to our White pensioners and to those paid to our Coloured pensioners. There is really no justification on moral or other grounds for this differentiation. The Coloured pensioner is entitled to the same consideration as the White pensioner; he is just as hard-hit by the ever-increasing cost of living and has infinitely great difficulty in making ends meet. To my mind all social and other pensioners. White and Coloured, should receive the same consideration. This should apply not only to the basic pensions but also to the means test. I do hope that the time is not far distant when the hon. the Minister, of his own volition, will introduce a modification to the present system.

I want to pass on now to deal very briefly with two matters to which I would urge the hon. the Minister to give his very careful consideration. I refer to the question of estate duty and donations tax. These two duties are very closely interwoven. I know that these matters have been raised in previous years, but in view of our country’s economic buoyancy I think the time is appropriate for us to raise it again in the hope that the Minister will see his way clear to eliminate both these taxes. I know that the Government has increased the basic amount of exemptions over the last ten years as far as estate duty is concerned, but my complaint is not in respect of the basic exemptions; my complaint is in regard to the general principle of levying estate duty. This question, as I say, has already been raised in this House on many occasions, but one of the most outstanding cases for the abolition of estate duty was made by the present Minister of Labour in March 1956, and I would commend to the hon. the Minister of Finance the speech that was then made, by his colleage the present Minister of Labour. In the course of a lengthy and learned analysis, Mr. Trollip, proved that estate duty was having a most deleterious effect on the economy of the country. He showed that since money started depreciating from 1939 onwards there had been a gradual scaling down of estate duty throughout the world. Estate duty, to my mind, is an unnecessary duty which becomes very irksome and which bears very heavily on the surviving members of the taxpayer’s family. As far as the Government is concerned, estate duty can only be regarded as a fortuitous factor. The Minister will agree with me that no Minister of Finance can predict with any certainty how much he will receive next year from estate duty. That is the reason why this form of taxation does not fall within the category of stable sources of revenue. It is one of the reasons why the largest portion of the proceeds from estate duty are invariably paid into Loan Account. Sir, the average income from this form of taxation is in the vicinity of some R8,000,000, and the biggest proportion of that is invariably transferred to the Loan Account. In a Budget which shows a surplus of over R110,000,000, how can this comparatively small amount of estate duty make any difference?

What about the contribution to the Loan Account?

I say that the whole amount of the Estate Duty is invariably transferred to the Loan Account.

Not all of it.

Well, the major portion of it. As I say, the amount averages about R8,000,000 per annum.

In his present Budget the hon. the Minister urges our citizens to save and not to spend heavily. I want to ask the Minister in all seriousness what incentive is there to our citizens to save money if, on their death, their estates or their heirs have to pay substantial estate duty? We have been told by the hon. the Minister that spending causes inflation. What incentive is there to our citizens to save if the Government is going to take away their savings when they die?

There is another important reason why I think the hon. the Minister should give consideration to the abolition of estate duty and that reason is the hardship that that duty is causing to many of our citizens. There have been many cases of farmers who, by dint of hard work and saving, have amassed groups of farms. These farms or portions of them have had to be sold or heavily mortgaged in order to raise the necessary cash to meet the Treasury’s claim for estate duty. I want to concede immediately that it does not only apply to farmers. It applies to businessmen, professional men and every citizen of the country. I have known of estates which have had to realize landed property often when the market was bad in order to raise the necessary cash to pay estate duty. The Minister will appreciate that this is no new question. The matter has been raised time and again at his own party congresses and at farmers’ conferences. I feel that because of the hardship that is inflicted and because of the fact that the amount involved is comparatively small in our total economy the Minister might very well abolish the tax in its entirety.

I read in the newspaper the other day that this may be the last Parliament in which the hon. the Minister of Finance will serve. I sincerely hope that that is not so but if the hon. Minister really wants his name to go down to posterity he could do so quite simply by abolishing a tax which has caused a great deal of unnecessary hardship to all sections of our South African population. In the case of farms which have to be sold or mortgaged in order to raise the cash to pay this tax the hon. the Minister will remember that some of these farms have been in the family concerned for generations. The value of these farms has increased out of all proportion due to the hard work the farmers have put into them and above all due to the depreciated value of our currency. Money is becoming cheaper and less valuable as time goes on. Landed property is becoming more valuable. The result is that these farms have become much more valuable. When the unfortunate owner dies we find that the farm has either to be sold or mortgage bonds have to be raised against them in order to pay the estate duty. I repeat that our buoyant economy is such that South Africa can well afford to dispense with this form of capital taxation.

I am sure it would attract many people who, in the evening of their lives, wish to come here with their capital and settle permanently. They would do so if they knew their estates would not be liable for estate duty. I do urge the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to the question of abolishing this form of taxation.

I want to deal briefly with the gifts tax. This is, of course, to a very large extent bound up with the question of estate duty. It was originally introduced to prevent people from disposing of their estates during their lifetime. It will be remembered that previously if a person created a trust or disposed of a major portion of his estate to his wife or children and survived five years after that disposition his estate was not liable for taxation. But that is no longer the position. The person wishing to create a trust in favour of his wife or children is liable for the gifts tax which is a very heavy tax. This tax I suggest has been a tremendous failure because people have done all sorts of things to try to avoid making these dispositions. The Government has received very little income from this form of taxation. Here again I suggest that in view of the wonderful position in which South Africa finds itself to-day, in view of our thriving economy, the hon. the Minister might very well dispense with this gifts tax which is also causing a great deal of unnecessary hardship. There have been instances where executors who have waived debts because of the debtor’s inability to pay them found that their estates have had to pay this gifts tax because it was a disposition in terms of the Act. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to give consideration to the abolition of this gifts tax. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, on this the first opportunity I have had to make my rather nerve-racking maiden speech, I want to thank you for having given me the opportunity to do so. I want to assure the House that I shall be very brief and that I shall confine myself to the question before the House—the Budget.

In the first instance I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance on this very good Budget which he has submitted to us and to the country. I say this because I represent a constituency which I am sure can be described as one of the poorest in the country. Because this Budget makes provision for a very large section of our less privileged people I am in the fortunate position of having obtained a considerable amount from this Budget for my constituency. That is why I am very grateful to the hon. the Minister for this Budget.

In discussing the few matters I wish to raise I want to say immediately that it is not my intention to ask for additional expenditure but rather, for a transfer of expenditure, expenditure which is already known to the House. I want to assure you Sir, that notwithstanding the fact that a considerable amount is being done in regard to housing, or rather, let me say, notwithstanding the fact that a considerable amount is being done to accommodate our people, there are certain sections of the people who are not so well provided for in this respect. It is for that small group of people that I want to take up the cudgels today. Although we are making housing available for White and non-White in almost every group by way of sub-economic and other schemes and even for out of the ordinary groups—I would almost say, even for criminals—there is one group of people who I really feel are being neglected and for whom provision must be made. The position in regard to housing and the effort that is being made in this regard is praiseworthy. I am sure that the State is doing what it can and that is why I said at the outset that I was going to ask for the transfer of certain expenditure. I feel that these people on whose behalf I am speaking, the people of 60 years of age and older, are those who come from the platteland, the people who are being forced out of the platteland because of prolonged droughts such as that which we are again experiencing. I am also referring to the people who go and work in our cities and towns and who have over the years been living below the breadline in order to try to save something for their old age. Those people do not qualify for a pension.

The first group do not qualify because they own farm property. The second group do not qualify because they have a few rand in the bank which puts them above the means test. Although there have been given concessions as far as these people are concerned, I feel that we should do more for this particular group. People who have been moved from the platteland because drought has broken them financially, has broken their spirit and courage, people who have the tendency in most cases to leave their farms to their children, are not eligible for a pension. These old people are to-day dependent upon what their children give them. Let me say immediately, Mr. Speaker, that one father can look after six children but six children cannot look after one parent or both parents. Things go well during the first year or three; during this period the children do look after their parents. But then their own difficulties begin; they have their own troubles; their own families come along and they are no longer able to care for their parents as they have done previously. The parents are then dependent upon the charity of the church and other bodies. Because they still own their farm they are not eligible for a pension.

The second group of people to whom I have referred are those people who have lived frugally over the years and who have taken out insurance polices which, at the age of 60 years, have amounted to R1,000 or R2,000. These people are not entitled to a pension because they own small houses. I ask that the hon. the Minister should make more concessions in regard to those people. I do not ask that the means test be raised. I ask that something be done for this group of people, in the first place, by way of a contribution towards their upkeep apart from the property which they own. Secondly, I ask that accommodation be provided for these people. The reason why I mention this question of accommodation, Sir, is because those people who for half a century have been the backbone of the country have had of necessity to move to a city or a town and cannot adapt themselves to urban life there. Because their income is very small they usually have to be satisfied with sub-economic housing. In the first place these people have to swallow their pride and have to live in the poorer parts because their financial position will not permit otherwise. They are not always fortunate enough in obtaining these houses because our town councils are not particularly anxious to build these sub-economic schemes. Neither is it in the nature of these people to put their pride in their pockets and to go and live in the poorer parts of the town.

You will probably ask me what I can suggest in this regard, Mr. Speaker. Let me tell you what I suggest. We have a very fine scheme in my constituency. We have a social settlement there where houses are built for far less than they would cost in the city under sub-economic schemes; we accommodate our ailing people on this settlement. A certain number of those houses are let to old people. I want to say something now, Sir, which will probably make you laugh. Do you know the qualification with which those people have to comply in order to obtain a house? They must have children! Good heavens, Sir, I think that the days of Sarah of the Bible are past! How can a couple over the age of 60 years still expect to have children? They can only obtain a house if they have children. To my mind this is a ridiculous position. Those people have to have children who are dependent upon them if they want to obtain a house and there are just no such people.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance, the State and the Government to ensure that more houses are built on those schemes for these old people, particularly the old people who come from the platteland, people who would still like to live in a rural atmosphere, people who can live there and feel that they are living amongst their equals. We have a wonderful scheme in which everyone is on a par with everyone else. They have their own minister and they support him themselves. They have their own schools and have everything that they need. I suggest that instead of making money available to unwilling city councils to build housing schemes, the State itself should build these schemes at places like Ganspan and others.

I ask now that this sort of settlement be built for our old people under the wonderful Orange River scheme upon which we are embarking. Houses must be built which they do not need to buy but which they can rent; they should also be provided with a small piece of land under irrigation.

I also want to break a third lance for those people. During the last few days letters have reached me from people who rent those houses and who have to pay about R7 per month out of their pension of R27, plus rates of R14 per annum. I feel that it is really an injustice that our old people who built up our country, who cleared it and kept it clear, who for half a century formed the backbone of the country, should have to pay for a house and should also have to pay rates on that house. I think that this is a matter to which the State should give its attention. The State must ensure that it is not necessary for those people to pay rates. That is why I ask that when these schemes are built, schemes which I hope will be built, they will be rate-free.

I should like to raise a second matter in regard to the question of housing. When we build housing schemes, we provide those schemes with electricity. I do not think you will believe me, Mr. Speaker, when I say that the scheme at Ganspan is not electrified, notwithstanding the fact that it abuts the street in which the Provincial Administration has already provided its schools and teachers’ houses with electricity. The electrical current cannot apparently be taken across the street to the Government buildings and the scheme because it will cost too much money! Can the comfort of our aged be measured in financial terms! That is the question that I should like to have answered. Can it be measured in terms of rands and cents? Every house has a morgen of land which is under irrigation. That is the rural spirit that is being created there. It is an agriculrutal idea that is being fostered there. This is being done so that these people can add something to their small incomes by way of farming. That area consists of a few square miles but I wonder whether hon. members realize that there is not one single street light in that entire area. Statistics will prove how many assaults and burglaries and theft there have been over the past years. There was a request for a police station which could not be granted. These old people have no telephones. There are two or three public telephones throughout the whole area. All those people are ill or old and when something happens at night they have to go to a public telephone in the dark in order to telephone the doctor or nurse or whatever the case may be. If the State cannot see its way clear to provide electrical power for these houses then I ask that it should at least provide electric light in the streets, although I want to make a special plea for the supply of electric power to the houses. Those old people, many of whom are ill, need the warmth and comfort of electricity far more than those of us in middle age. Coal and wood is supplied to those people but they have to fetch it themselves. I have seen old people of 60 and 70 years of age pushing a bag of coal to their homes on a wheelbarrow. I ask whether we cannot assist those people. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to transfer some of the money which he intends using for housing purposes and to spend it on that group of people who need it so badly—particularly on the scheme at Ganspan, but on other schemes in the country as well. I want to ask that the State establish more than one such scheme for our old people under this new Orange River project. I hope that it will soon be apparent that this plea of mine has not fallen on deaf ears.

I want to avail myself of the opportunity of extending my hearty congratulations to the hon. member who has just sat down on his maiden speech. Judging from the capable way in which he has delivered his speech and the clear exposition he has given us I believe he will be an asset to this House. I am also particularly pleased that he has practically sided with this side of the House in the plea he has made. It is refreshing to hear somebody get up and plead fearlessly for that section of the community for whom we on this side of the House are continually pleading. He made a strong plea for that section of the farming community on the platteland who are having a difficult time and who have to seek refuge in the cities. We on this side of the House are continually making the same plea. Once again I wish to congratulate him on his speech.

I wish to discuss a subject to-day in which I think all of us are interested and that is the question of soil conservation. We on this side of the House have for years been talking about the deterioration of our soil. It was in the ’thirties when we started with soil conservation works because we realized the difficulties we would be faced with. That gave rise to the Soil Conservation Act of 1947 the object of which was to avert the dangers which threatened us. Since the application of that Act some improvement has, of course, come about in certain respects but generally speaking I believe the position is still deteriorating. Generally speaking I believe that we are suffering greater losses than the actual progress we have made. It is of course the responsibility of the Government to apply the Act which is an excellent Act. The responsibility to apply it in such a way that it produces the necessary results rests on the shoulders of the Government, of course. We have already pointed out in this House how our soil has been washed away over a period of years to the extent of 300,000,000 ton. That soil is being washed down to the sea. That amounts to a total destruction annually of about 200,000 morgen of land. We said at the time that the tempo of these losses was increasing. Hon. members opposite did not want to believe us. They always said it was not so; they always said great progress was being made. They doubted the figure of 300,000,000 ton until the Chairman of the South African Agricultural Union said last year that it amounted to 400,000,000 ton per annum. It is soil which silts up our dams and for the rest gets washed down to the sea. Not only do we lose that soil but it also damages our dams, etc.

Progress has been made under the Soil Conservation Act. So far practically the whole of the Republic has been proclaimed. I think most of the farmers whose land has been proclaimed realize the value of that Act. I know of one hon. member opposite who speaks every year about the dangers of bush encroachment. As for the others I do not think many hon. members opposite realize the real danger of soil erosion in this country. Every year when this subject has been discussed it has been obvious from the speeches of the hon. Deputy Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing that he himself does not fully appreciate the extent to which soil erosion is taking place. Now that he occupies a more responsible position, however, it would appear that he does appreciate it. I want to read from a report which appeared in the Burger of 24 February 1965. This is what the Deputy Minister said to the Burger in that interview—

He says “is tackled”; in other words, it has not yet been tackled. He went on to say—

Mr. Martins said that in all the areas he visited he saw signs of the soil being exhausted due to the continual application of a monoculture which tends to exhaust the soil.

Are you pleased?

How can I be pleased when I know our soil is being exhausted. I said there were hon. members opposite who did not realize or refused to realize what the position was and I think the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) is one of them. He said further—

That proves that the hon. Deputy Minister fully realizes what the position is to-day. I believe that where farmers can apply the measures they will do so because it is in their own interests to protect their land. It seems, however, that the application of soil conservation has been somewhat relaxed. The Soil Conservation Board say the following in their report of June 1963—

Instead of increasing the tempo it would appear that there has been a decline and that should be prevented at all costs. I do believe that there are farmers who are not doing their duty. I do believe that there are farmers who receive subsidies but who do not do their duty as far as soil conservation is concerned. I do believe, however, that there are not many of them and that generally speaking every farmer will do everything he can to protect his farm. As far as those farmers are concerned who deliberately extract everything they can without putting anything back we naturally have no sympathy with them and steps will have to be taken against them. We are agreed on that. I repeat, however, that I do not think there are many of them. There is another section, of course, who, through ignorance, do not look properly after their farms. Those farmers do not receive the necessary guidance because we have not got the necessary extension officers and because the necessary research is not being done. Sir, it is of national importance that we ensure that we have the necessary extension officers to do this important work. Then you have the third section who for economic reasons do not look after their farms. One of the reasons, of course, is the droughts which we experience from time to time. While I am on the subject of droughts I want to say that we naturally often experience droughts and that we should plan in such a way as to make provision for an ordinary drought. I am not referring to an exceptional drought but we must make provision to withstand the ordinary drought which is experienced now and then. We should see to it that there are fodder banks, that the necessary dams are there, that proper grazing methods are applied, that proper research is carried out in regard to using prickly pear as fodder for instance, and above all how to feed sheep during a drought. Much more research can still be done in that direction. The present drought is an exceptional one, something which is probably experienced one in 30 years, and it is beginning to develop into a national catastrophe. As a result of this drought the farmers are marketing stock which they should never have marketed but they are doing so in order to save something from their farming operations because they are afraid they will lose everything. The market was recently heavily overstocked mostly with cattle of the wrong quality. The result was that prices dropped and the farmers got little out of it. The tragedy of the situation is, however, that they are marketing indiscriminately at this stage; they are marketing the breeding stock of our country. I want to say that this may easily result in a serious shortage of meat in future, one can even say that it will result in a serious shortage particularly if the farmers continue to market their breeding stock. There will be such a shortage that meat will become extremely scarce. It is not only in the interests of the farmer to save that stock and to ensure that the breeding stock is saved, but it is in the interests of the entire country and in the interests of the consumer otherwise the latter will eventually have to pay prices which he will not be able to afford. I believe it is the duty of the Government to take steps to save that breeding stock before they are all slaughtered or lost because of the drought. That stock must be saved in the interests of the entire country.

That will be done.

It should have been done long since because thousands and tens of thousands have already been slaughtered.

What has happened to your scheme?

The Government must not wait until it is too late. They should long since have taken the necessary steps, I have referred to the deterioration of the land and the reasons for it. There is another reason, of course, and that is an economic reason. The reason is that the price the farmers get for their products is too low and that their production costs are too high. I quote again from the report of the Soil Conservation Board—

The Board itself therefore says that because of decreased profits, because of production costs, it is impossible for the farmer to carry out the conservation works. They give another reason namely the “insufficient technical staff to do the necessary surveys and to draw up the necessary plans’*. The main reasons however are that the farmers are not economically in a position to carry out those works. That is why the farmer is obliged to exhaust his land and to overstock his farm. I repeat that the income of farmers has declined to such an extent that they are obliged temporarily to extract more than they ought to with the result that a form of farming is applied which can only lead to the deterioration of the soil. The hon. the Minister maintains that when the farmers experience temporary prosperity they extract everything they can as they did when the price of wool was high. I do not believe that. I do not believe that, when the price of wool is high and the farmer has a reasonable income, he will ruin his farm and allow his land to be destroyed just because he wants to extract more from it. I think there are farmers who are obliged to keep more stock and to extract more than they should in an attempt to augment their income in such a way that they can live decently.

I really do not believe that the Government has the interests of the farmers at heart. Because of the policy they follow posterity will suffer. I also believe the Government is sacrificing the farmer for industry. Take, for example, the production of bags and fertilizer in this country. These industries are protected. I do not object to their being protected but I see no reason why the farmer must pay those prices and why the farmer alone should carry those factories. It is the duty of the Government to subsidize such industries.

History teaches us that the nation which does not look after its agriculture will go under. This Government which is not looking after the farmers will cause the downfall of our nation.

In the first place I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance on the Budget he has submitted to us. I find it strange that the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) who represents an urban constituency has tried to state the case of the farmer.

I am a farmer.

Yes, the cities now have to be represented by farmers from the platteland. The United Party can obviously not find anybody in the cities to put up as candidates. It is obvious that the hon. member represents an urban constituency because the remarks he made in connection with farming matters sounded very much like the remarks an urban dweller who knew nothing about farming would make. Towards the end of his speech he said he was opposed to the increased price the farmer had to pay for bags. Sir, the farmer pays it when he buys the bag but the price is refunded to him in the price he obtains for his product. If the price of bags is increased that increase is added to the price the consumer has to pay.

Where do you get that from?

If the hon. member would just look at the figures published by the Maize Board she would see that that is the position.

What about wool packs?

Wool is a product which is sold on the overseas market. When wool was nearly £1 per lb. and 15s. in 1952 or thereabouts did the farmers plough the big profits they had made back into their land? Or did they acquire even more expensive land?

Did they plough it back?

They did not. It is not quite correct to say that when a farmer gets a high price for his product he will not extract everything he can from his land. It would be an excellent thing if excess profits were ploughed back into the land but if the machinery is not there to see to it that it does go back into the land how can it be said that had the farmer received a higher price he would not have exhausted his soil? In that case there might perhaps have been more speculators who hired land, extracted everything they could from it in order to derive that higher income and then said: “I have now done what I wanted to do with the land” and then left the land.

Bring the prices down therefore!

The hon. member must not be stupid. He says increased cost of production have been the reason why the farmer cannot make a living. In the case of those products which are controlled, such as wheat, maize, etc., those products in respect of which the Government has a say in their price, increased costs of production is taken into account; as production costs rise the price of that product is increased.

Where do you get that from?

If the hon. member would go into the matter more closely she would find that that is the position.

The hon. member for Gardens said that the price of products had been decreased in recent years and that production costs had gone up. We all know that production costs have gone up but as I have already said the increase in the cost of production is added to the price the consumer has to pay for that product. The only product of which the price has gone down in recent years, as far as I know, is wool. The price of wool has gone down, but, as I have said, wool is not a controlled product. The Government has no say in the price of wool. Most of our wool is sold overseas and if the Government should try to control the price of wool hon. members of the Opposition as well as the farmers would be the first to object. The position is simply this that the farmer must take into account the vicissitudes of the market overseas.

We are told that in the case of animals the market is being over-stocked and that breeding stock is being sold.

Is that not true?

Yes. But the surplus stock on the market is eventually sold at the floor price. We had the position in October, November, December and January before the drought was so general in the country, when we still thought we would have a bumper crop …

Northern Transvaal!

Northern Transvaal does not constitute the whole of the Republic. What was the price of stock at that time? It was as high as I have ever known it to be in this country. In December I sent sheep to the market of a vastly inferior quality to those I had sent in October, sheep which was of a lower grade and weighed less, and I received 160 cent per sheep more.

The position to-day is, Sir, that the United Party is trying to cash in on the drought and adverse conditions prevailing in the country. In the recent election, for example, they defended three constituencies in the Free State because they thought they would be able to cash in on the position there. Two of those constituencies are adjacent to the Basutoland border. Because the farmers were plagued by stock thefts last year they thought those farmers would be very dissatisfied. That is why they defended those two constituencies along the banks of the Caledon River. The other constituency was Kroonstad (West) where they thought the maize farmers in the Bothaville area were very annoyed with the National Party and would vote against them. That was the loot they had in mind. I want to tell the Opposition that the farmers do not like people who try to prey on their position because when droughts and other calamities hit the farmers the vultures circle in the sky and the moment a farmer sees a vulture he feels despondent because to him it is a sign of adversity brought about by a drought or other disaster. Then the vultures know there is food for them. When the United Party starts to prey they are in a bad position because the farmers do not like vultures.

Is the position of the farmer deteriorating?

When disaster strikes this Government will step in and help as it has again done in this Budget. The United Party expect to benefit if the drought continues. In fact the United Party want the Government to be ready at the very outset of a drought and say: “Here is money to see you through the drought.” We do not know which areas will still become drought-stricken, what proportion the drought will still assume, and consequently money will have to be made available according to the extent of the drought. The farmers know there salvation lies with the National Party Government because the National Party Government has so far always stepped into the breach for the farmers of South Africa.

That will be the day.

I just want to remind the hon. member that during the war years and shortly thereafter the previous Government claimed all the profits that were made on the export of maize. They said they were entitled to it.

And the National Party Government?

The National Party Government returned it to the farmers of South Africa and strengthened the Stabilization Fund of the Maize Board. Hon. members can say what they like but the farmers of South Africa know who is well disposed towards them in this country. We remember how people had to stand in a queue to buy food when the Opposition was in power and what was the price the farmer got for his product? While food was so scarce that people had to stand in queues (some of it was still exported) to buy it what did the farmer get? If food were to become so scarce to-day that people had to stand in queues to buy it the price would be much higher, five times as high as it was at the time the previous Government was in power.

To-day they cannot buy it.

Hon. members opposite try to make us believe that conditions are very bad in the country and that there is no prosperity. I want to say to the Opposition that when we look at the number of income-tax payers we find that there were only 189,000 White income-tax payers in this country in 1947, i.e. only 7 per cent of the White population and 1 per cent of the entire population. In 1954, after the National Party Government had been in power for a number of years there were 545,000 White income-tax payers, i.e. 20 per cent of the White population and 4 per cent of the entire population of the country. In 1962 there were 662,000 income-tax payers or 21 per cent of the White population and 4 per cent of the entire population.

You are taxing so many more …

Let me tell the hon. member that in 1947 a single person paid income-tax when he earned R500 and a married man when he earned R690. In 1954 a single man could earn R604 and a married man R962 before he was liable for income-tax and in 1962 a single man could earn R612 and a married man R972 without being liable for income-tax. If the income-tax scale has gone up like that then surely, expressed in a percentage, very fewer people should have been liable for income-tax. But it shows how the income of the South African nation has increased during the régime of the National Party. The United Party should rather think what is in the interests of the country and assist the National Party Government to the advantage of the whole country. Least of all should they always ask what will the world outside say. They should ask what will the voters of South Africa say. If they did that it would go much better with their party.

The hon. Minister of Finance is not in his seat at the moment. While the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) was talking, hon. members on the other side asked what he could suggest. First of all I would suggest that the hon. the Minister of Finance should try to be present so that he can deal with the points raised here.

First of all I want to raise the question of the people who are over 65 years of ago who will have to pay this special levy of 5 per cent which is being imposed by the present Budget. The hon. the Minister has said that it will not be payable by people in the lower and middle income groups. In other words, anybody who pays more than R95 in income-tax will become liable to that levy. I think that these people over 65 deserve special consideration. Anybody who is in the middle income group is very often a person without a pension who has had to work throughout his life in order to build up a little bit for his old age, and he has worked for a salary which bears no relation to the salaries paid to-day or the cost of living to-day.

I feel that that is something that the Minister could well consider. The hon. member for Gardens has touched on one aspect of the lack of long-term planning for agriculture by this Government, and I am going to deal with another aspect namely the lack of long-term planning which this Government has shown in its conduct of control over the beef industry in this country. It is a very important issue indeed. Hon. members know that at least 70 per cent of our meat supplies are in the form of beef, and it is very true to say that the long-term problem of the beef industry has not been solved. We have had 17 years of this Nationalist Government and despite all they say about being the friends of the farmer, they have not succeeded in solving the long-term problems of that industry to date and they show no signs of doing so now. Mr. Speaker, as soon as one talks about the difficulties of any particular sector of the agricultural industry, hon. members opposite start to talk about droughts. Now we all know that there is a bad drought in the country, and we realize that that must add to the difficulties of the farmers concerned. We know that and this Budget makes provision for certain relief measures, but whatever measures they are they can only be patchwork. What is needed is a long-term pricing policy for the industry as such.

The reason why the beef industry finds itself in this state where it is not able to plan for the future is because we have had 17 years of Nationalist Government in which the Ministers have been afraid to raise the price to the producer. This story goes back a long way. It goes back to the years after 1948 when we had fixed prices for our beef and the then Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Stephen le Roux, rigidly set his mind against noteworthy price increases. At agricultural congress after congress there were heated discussions and the Government was warned that the beef industry would lose ground, and lose ground it did. We know what happened. Over great tracts of the country the ground was ploughed up and cash crops like mealies and groundnuts were sown, and in certain of the grazing areas of the country which could not be ploughed a switch was made from beef to sheep farming, with the result that the beef producers continued to suffer because of the timid policies of the Government. [Interjection.] Has the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) forgotten that in 1955-6, eight years after this Government came into power, the fixed price for Grade 1 beef was only R8.60 per 100 lbs.? We know that in 1956 auctions were instituted and shortly after that the present Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing took over. I admit frankly that there has been an improvement because I think the hon. the Minister has shown himself to be slightly less rigid than his predecessor in respect of this matter. But despite that, despite the fact that the S.A. Agricultural Union pleaded for an increase in the floor price of Grade 1 beef from R8.60 to R11.50 per 100 lbs., it took them no less than eight years to achieve that under the pricing policy of this Minister. I think it is indicative of the overcautious policy that the Minister pursued to read the reports of the Meat Committee of the S.A. Agricultural Union year after year. I want to quote from the report of 1959—

The Committee will continue its efforts to get the floor prices raised to a level which will restore faith and stability in the beef industry.

Again in 1961, two years later, the report said—

Are you prepared to accept R11.50?

Certainly not. The whole position has changed since then. Again, in 1962, the report read—

Lastly, I want to quote from the Annual Report of 1963—

Very prophetic words indeed, and what is the result of this timid policy of the Minister? He seems to be afraid of the beef producers making adequate profits so that they can build up their breeding stock and their herds and provide the consumers with the meat they want. What has been the result? Since 1949 the physical volume of agricultural products was increased as follows: All products, 72 per cent; maize, 135 per cent; groundnuts, 156 per cent; dairy products, 98 per cent. But what has happened to our cattle population. To-day we have approximately 12,500,000 cattle, which is exactly the same number that we had in 1948. And during the same period the country’s population has increased by 46.1 per cent and the national income has more than trebled while, as I say, the cattle population has remained static. [Interjection.]

Order!

We have had years and years of uneconomic prices and the absence of a long-term policy. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Keyter) said that prices were very high last year. That is quite correct, but what the beef farmer of this country wants is not R20 per 100 lbs. one year and then down to R11.70 the next year, or R11.50. We want a reasonably stable average price which will give us confidence for the future and arrest this trend which is making beef production a relatively less important portion of our farming operations.

Do you want a fixed price?

No. The hon. member knows that when a man sends his cattle to a controlled market, he never knows whether the market will be overloaded, and the big thing in his mind is very often what the floor price is going to be. That is the price on which he must base his production estimates, and not on what he might get if the market is high.

I think we have been saved from a very serious shortage hitherto by two things only, one of which was mentioned by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan), namely that as the drought spread so people started to send off stock which was not fit for marketing, and they also sent off their breeding stock; and, secondly, we have also increased our turnover by slaughtering our cattle at a younger age. These two things have saved the position so far. But this country has really come to the position where we must plan ahead for a long-term period as regards our beef production. Last year I am very happy to say that the hon. the Minister seemed to have seen the light in this regard and when approaches were made to him by the S.A.A.U. and the Meat Board, which accepted their recommendation, he accepted those recommendations in full as regards the 60 cents increase per 100 lbs. I hope that the light that the Minister saw will be a green light for the beef industry and that he will not turn it into a red light again this year.

Do you think that is sufficient as a long-term price?

I do not know what recommendations the Board has made this year, but the recommendations of the Meat Committee of organized agriculture have been set out in the February issue of Georganiseerde Landbou, their particular journal, and read as follows—

Then what happens to the R11.50 long-term policy?

Let us hope for the sake of the beef industry that when the Minister makes his announcements for the present season, as presumably he will in the fairly near future, he will bear these considerations in mind and not adopt his timid and cautious policy as he has done in the past, because if he does that it will give new hope to the industry, and if he does not do it we will go on and on along the same old path that we trod since 1948, with the increases being too little and never enough to stimulate beef production so that the farmer can both be assured of a reasonable return on his investment, and also that the consumer will be assured of sufficient beef supplies at all times. I say this because one wonders whether the official organ of the National Party in the Cape, the Burger, had second sight when it stated in a report dated 19 March that—

Let us just bear in mind that the increase asked for by the Agricultural Union is something of the order of R3 or more. I have said that the farmers do not want to jump from R20 to R11.50 the next year. The hon. member for Ladybrand mentioned income tax as proof of how prosperous this country was. Again I say to him that it is very little use that in those odd good years which the farmer has he should get a big income and be taxed at a very high level while the next year he virtually makes nothing at all. It is the policy of this side of the House to equalize farming incomes for income-tax purposes over a period. It will contribute considerably towards easing the burden of the farmer from the income-tax point of view.

There is one other aspect I want to deal with, and that is that if the beef industry is to be efficient, then the Government must give us the tools to do the job. One of the chief causes of inefficiency at the moment is the fact that our animals remain sick for unnecessarily long periods of time, or die for lack of veterinary attention. I am sorry the Minister’s colleague, the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, is not here, because he keeps on saying that we have Onderstepoort now to the point where they can turn out 45 veterinarians a year. We have in this country something like 450 veterinarians in private practice and in the Government service, and there is a shortage over and above that of no less than 250. If one assumes that the wastage in the veterinary service is something like 10 per cent a year, that comes down to exactly 45, which is all that Onderstepoort can put out. In other words, the best we can do is to hold our own, and I think the time has come —and it is now urgently necessary—when the Minister should give up this stubborn attitude of his of saying that we cannot train any more men and that he should make a plan to train those people whom we need so urgently for the benefit of our livestock.

I should also like to associate myself with what has already been said by hon. members in congratulating the hon. the Minister of Finance on his Budget. We are grateful that our country is in such a position that the hon. the Minister has been able to present a Budget of this nature. We also appreciate the concessions which he has once again made and we hope that this will continue to be the position in our country for many years to come.

I should like to reply to the hon. member who has just sat down by saying that, listening to him, one could really conclude that he was speaking on behalf of a party which has never been in power in this country and which does not have a record. When one looks at the prices of beef and the prices generally which obtained during the period of office of his party, one realizes that they have no cause to point a finger at this side of the House. I am not one who is fond of pointing a finger at anyone but I want to tell them that they must think back first before they talk. We are far better off to-day as far as prices are concerned than we ever were during their period of office. But I also want to make a plea for the farmers. I want to assure hon. members that they do not have the franchise to plead the case of the farmers.

I want to start by raising a matter which is occupying the thoughts of the entire population in this country to-day and that is the drought which we are at present experiencing. Before I go any further I can say in this regard that we already have proof of the goodwill and a spirit of sacrifice on the part of the Government in its assistance in tackling this matter. I also want to express the thought that a more unorthodox approach and method should be used in order to try to protect the farmers from the greatest disaster which has ever faced them throughout our history. I had the opportunity recently to travel throughout large parts of our country and I was able to see something which I have never before seen in my life—that for hundreds of miles, the land was bleached white. When one travels further to the farming areas and to the sheep areas, one finds the countryside more barren and bare than has ever before been the experience of even the oldest inhabitants of those parts. Under those circumstances it behoves us to put our heads together and to see what can be done in order to assist those people. I want to raise one aspect of the matter here which is to my mind of vital importance in assisting the farmers and that is that notwithstanding all the assistance which the Government has already made available and which it will make available, we must find some means, and the Government must assist us, to support the credit of the farmer. Notwithstanding all the Government assistance that can be given, the most important factor as far as the continued existence of the farmer is concerned is his own solvency with his bank. I am pleased to know that this matter too is receiving the serious attention of the Government but I do not want to neglect to emphasize how urgently necessary it is that the credit of our farmers is not allowed to collapse. A farmer does not only need seed and artificial fertilizer and fuel in order to continue producing. The farmer is a businessman; he has a hundred and one commitments and if his bank manager tells him that he is no longer able to give that farmer any further credit, that he has to curtail his credit, that farmer’s courage will be broken and he will not be able to continue. And so it is one of the most encouraging signs to my mind that our country is so prosperous at this stage because this fact will enable us to bridge this gap. What will become of the prosperity of South Africa if we find ourselves with a poverty-stricken farming poulation? We in this House must declare war against the drought and we must say that every man must make his contribution to that struggle. We must all ensure that the farmer is not driven from his land. One can always find other men to work in other occupations but a man who loses his contact with the soil cannot again become a farmer. We must retain our farmers. We have the hardiest farmers in the world; I think that is why we must make the best use possible of this good material because we are living in a country where conditions are such that not every man can make a success of farming. A farmer in this country must be a man who can fight, otherwise he should not become a farmer. We have those people and we must carry them through. I am pleased that I have been able to stand up in this House to-day to tell the farmers who are in difficulty that they will obtain assistance from the Government whose heart bleeds for them because of the position in which they find themselves.

I wish to raise another important point. I think that the time has come when we should adjust our income tax system. We must try to design a system by means of which the farmer will not have to pay income tax next year for the stock which he buys now. This will be a concession. One can take either one year or the other; one can apply to have it transferred but in the second year a farmer may find himself worse off than was the position in the first year because he might find that he has been pushed up into a far higher tax bracket. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not give attention to this matter in order to make things easier for the farmers in this regard. We who are crop farmers may have two years of poor harvest and have a good harvest in the third year. The farmer has then to pay a large amount in income tax. What is the result? He has to pay so much tax that year that he still owes money on the debts which he incurred during the lean years. I think that these are adjustments which we can make in order to make things easier for the farmers. Because my time is limited I want to conclude by raising a further point which I think is of great importance. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether South Africa’s position is not such to-day that we can do away with estate duty completely. I should like to say that estate duty is a threat to the farming unit and the latter is something which we do not want to lose in this country. Large companies are not affected by this tax. A business-man may invest R100,000 in a business but when he dies his estate duty is so high that his family can no longer compete with large firms which consist of companies. In other words, our estate duty makes it impossible for a family unit to compete and to remain solvent. It is a very healthy thing that the farmer or the businessman should build up a business for his family which can be passed down from father to son. We must try to ensure that this practice does not die out. The result is that the farmers will also now have to establish companies which will mean that we will not have the stability which one has in the case of a family unit. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention to this matter. I have here a scale with details but I do not want to take up the time of the House in this regard. I just want to conclude by saying that it is not only in South Africa that the farmers are finding themselves in difficulty to-day but throughout the world. Since the Second World War technological developments have progressed so swiftly that agricultural production has increased more swiftly than the demand with the result that we have had to contend with a cost price pincer. Our farmers and all the farmers throughout the world are feeling the pinch to-day and we have from time to time to take the necessary steps in order to keep our farmers in production. I am grateful for what has been done. I want to ask the hon. member who complained so much about the price of beef whether he and his party will support the hon. the Minister if the hon. the Minister were to announce a price which is considerably higher than the present price? If so, he must not tell the consumers that they are now paying too much for the meat that they are eating. If we co-operate we will be able to obtain more for the farmer. But the hon. the Minister must continually bear in mind the purchasing power of the consumer so that we do not find ourselves in a position where we have a price level which the consumer cannot afford with the result that there is no market for the product. The farmer will then have no market and he will find himself in an even worse predicament than he was before prices were increased. These are all matters which must be considered gradually; as the purchasing power of the public increases, so the price of the product can be increased.

It is always difficult for me to follow on the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Labuschagne) and to criticize him, because when I listen to him it sounds to me as if he is sitting on this side of the House. He is one of the few farmer-members opposite for whom we have a high regard and who is prepared to regard agriculture objectively.

See whether you cannot do so also.

The hon. member said in the beginning of his speech that we should look at what the prices were under the United Party Government, and see what they are today. I just want to remind the hon. member that these price increases took place not only in this country but all over the world, and in many countries the price increases for agricultural products were much greater than in this country.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Keyter), who referred to city-dwellers who speak here on behalf of the farmers. I just want to tell the hon. member that I am convinced that a city-dweller in, say, Johannesburg, an advocate or an attorney, will represent the farmers better than hon. members opposite have done in recent years. Such a city-dweller will do it much better, because what was their standpoint when we warned them last year against the drought and said that plans would have to be made to cope with the drought conditions? All we had from hon. members opposite then was that things were going well with agriculture. According to them, things went so well with agriculture that they refused to assist us to devise means to enable us to cope with the drought. The hon. member for Ladybrand then spoke about wool. Well, I would rather not discuss the position of the maize farmers because perhaps I would then reveal the lack of knowledge he revealed in regard to wool. The hon. member then said that the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) had pleaded for increased prices for agricultural products and he made the statement that if produce prices rose the farmer would exploit his land even more because he would want to make bigger profits. Must I accept then that it is Government policy that if you keep prices low the farmer will exhaust his land less? For the rest, the hon. member for Ladybrand spoke about people who send so much of their stock to the markets. Sir, I wonder how long we will still have to continue pleading with the Minister of Agriculture for a change in the present meat marketing scheme in terms of which meat is sent to the controlled areas and the producer cannot compete with other buyers in order to obtain breeding-stock. The producer is completely excluded from that market.

Is it United Party policy that you are propounding now?

The hon. member will hear later what United Party policy is.

What does the Agricultural Union say about it?

The producer does not get the opportunity to compete on the markets in the controlled areas because the animal’s throat must first be cut before it can be sold. Just imagine, Sir, that the farmers are asked at a time like this to be satisfied with such a marketing system! That applies to any period, but particularly to the times in which we now live. When the farmer sends his livestock to the market, he loses control of it when that stock leaves his station. How long it will take to bring his stock to market depends on the Minister of Transport. When those animals can be marketed depends on the supplies reaching the market. If one sends an animal for a distance of 500 miles to the controlled market, it may take seven, eight or nine days before that animal is slaughtered, and when it is slaughtered the farmer must simply accept any price for it; he has no choice. He has completely lost control over his product.

He has a guaranteed price.

Do you want to send the animal back to the producer?

The day the producer sends that animal off from his station, he completely loses control over it. Sir, I was asked whether that animal should be sent back. Since when does the owner of a product not have the right to withhold that product if he is not prepared to sell it at a given price? What we want to recommend to the hon. the Minister for the umpteenth time is a scheme in terms of which people who need breeding-stock can compete with other buyers on the controlled market in order to buy breeding-stock if they need such stock. I strongly wish to recommend that we should have a system under which livestock is sold on the hoof. I strongly recommend that, irrespective of what the recommendation of the Meat Board may be. Only then will we have a scheme where the producer will be in a position to control his product and either to accept or to refuse the price offered.

Does the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bennett) agree with you?

I have not come to the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing yet. I was busy making recommendations to him. Irrespective of what this side of the House thinks of him as a Minister of Agriculture, we know that of all the members of the Cabinet he is the best maker of interjections when he is cornered. He will have the opportunity to speak.

I want to come back to the question of the drought to which the hon. member for Vryburg referred. May I just say this before I try to analyze what methods we may perhaps adopt to cope with these drought conditions better than we have hitherto been able to do? Last year we had a long discussion in this House on the same subject. Sir, in the civilized White world there has surely never before been a Government which treated its farmers so badly and which has caused such a great crisis as this Government.

Nonsense!

You know that is not true.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

See how proud that hon. member is.

Sir, I will amend the statement I have just made by saying that there is not a farming population in any civilized country which has been treated so scandalously by their Government as our farmers have been treated by this Government in this catastrophe which has struck them. The drought we have to-day is not comparable with the one of 1933; it is a drought which stretches far north of the Zambezi What we are experiencing to-day is a country-wide drought, except for the small area along the coast. Last year we recommended that the Government should establish an agricultural credit corporation or a similar body to finance the farmer at a lower rate of interest than the current rate, and what did we find? The hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech announced increased rates of interest, rates which the farmer as well as the business man will have to pay. The farmer will now have more difficulty in obtaining assistance from the financial institutions. That is what we got, Sir. Is that a sympathetic attitude towards the farmer?

There is so much talk about schemes which still have to be evolved and assistance the Government wants to offer the farmers in this catastrophe which has struck them. Does the Government want to put these schemes into operation only when it is already too late and when the farmers can no longer be assisted? Is this not the time to put such schemes into operation? We continually hear from hon. members opposite that agricultural production is increasing and that the prices are such as to encourage the farmers to produce more, but let us look at the agricultural statistics.

What is the position of dairy products, for example? In 1960, according to the statistics, the butter production was 114,000,000 lbs.; in 1961 it was 111,000,000, in 1962 103,000,000, and in 1963-4 97,000,000 lbs. Sir, you may guess what the production will be this year. The production has already fallen by more than 20,000,000 lbs. over the last five years. Have we had a continuous drought over the last five years? In certain areas, yes. Is it the price factor which has caused this decreased production, yes or no? I challenge any hon. member opposite to say that the price factor had nothing to do with this decreased production; that it had nothing to do with the fact that the farmers have sold their dairy cows; that farmers have sent dairy cows to the controlled areas where their throats were cut and the carcasses sold without the consumers ever knowing that they were eating the meat of cows. That is what happened to the dairy herds in this country. There are dozens of cases where producers advertised dairy cows in agricultural journals and sold them as slaughter cattle. Sir, is that not an indication that there is something wrong with the price? This decreasing dairy production surely proves incontrovertibly that there is something wrong with the price.

The same applies to cheese. The cheese production in 1960-1 was 38,000,000 lbs. In 4 it was 30,000,000 lbs., a reduction of8,000,000 lbs. What is the position in regard to the exports of butter? During the last year we exported 2,500,000 lbs. Let me rather start with the year 1962-3. In that year we exported 2,500,000 lbs. of butter at a loss of R35,000, and we imported 1,900,000 lbs. at a loss of R204,000. In 1963-4 we exported 2,490,000 lbs. of butter at a loss of R31,000, and we imported 17,000,000 lbs. at a loss of R141,000. Irrespective of what the hon. the Minister or hon. members may say about our attempts to try to find export markets for dairy products, is it wise to try to find export markets for a product whose production decreased by 5,000,000 lbs. during the past five years, particularly in view of the fact that our population has increased in the meantime? What sort of a policy is that? Is there any planning on the part of the Government? How can we try to find export markets for dairy products if the production decreases year after year? How can the Minister of Finance allow State subsidies to be used for the export of 2,400,000 lbs. of butter and for the importation of 17,000,000 lbs. during the same year?

We have heard here from the hon. member for Ladybrand what a wonderful year 1964 was for our producers, particularly the latter part of the year. It was so wonderful that the country looked like Canaan. In 1964 we had to import 17,000,000 lbs. of butter and millions of lbs. of cheese. Thus far I have not even dealt with cheese. There we find a peculiar position. In 1962-3 we exported 480,000 lbs. of cheese at a loss of R 11,000, and we imported 2,400,000 lbs. of cheese at a loss of R94,000. In 1963-4 the position was better; then we exported 466,000 lbs. of cheese at a loss of R4,000, and we imported 3,000,000 lbs. at a loss of R69,000. I do not know how a farmer on the opposite side of the House can get up and argue away these figures. There are produce prices which are remunerative, but there are also prices which are so low that it does not pay the farmer to produce. That is proved by the fact that the production decreases year by year.

May I put a question to the hon. member? Is it true that in 1947-8 the price of butter was 24.2 cents, whereas in 1964-5 it is 37 cents?

There we have another hon. member who compares prices in 1947-8 with those of 1964-5. My reply to that is that if this party had been in power, the price would have been double the present price.

What was P. M. K. le Roux’s salary then, and what is it today?

Sir, I come to a proposal we made last year and which the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing almost treated with contempt when we made a plea for the people in the drought-stricken areas who could no longer buy fodder for their animals. We then made a plea that farmers who have grazing should be financed so as to enable them to go and buy stock in the drought-stricken areas and to remove them from those areas in order to save the lives of those animals. I still remember very well what the Minister’s reply was. He said (translation)—

I wonder whether the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing will still say the same to-day. Sir, if the industrialists were to experience a catastrophe like the one which has now struck the farmers, by this time ten conferences of all interested parties would have been convened to see what could be done to help them. Winter is facing us, when rain will hardly assist many of the grazing areas. Thank goodness, as far as the Karoo is concerned, rain will still be able to save the position, but in many of the grazing areas rain will hardly be of any assistance. We are faced with the position where our stock is threatened as never before in this country. We are faced with the position where farmers have withered crops which they cannot reap, and if they were still able to take those crops off the land and to bale them, then one of two things would happen. [Interjection.]

The hon. member for Cradock should not interject so continuously.

Two things could have happened. We could have financed them to buy stock under a scheme in terms of which they would then later send that stock back to the controlled area through the Meat Board or another board, which would first deduct the purchase price plus interest and pay out the balance to them, a scheme in terms of which they could make use of crops which had dried out—their maize or kaffircorn, etc.—by having it grazed off, or they could have cut it and baled it and used it in that manner, or they could have sold the bales to those people who had no fodder and so utilized it in that way. But what do we find? In my opinion it is a scandal that the Transvaal Agricultural Union should ask whether the Army cannot help us to cut the grass along the railway lines and on the aerodromes to serve as fodder for animals who are dying as the result of the drought. Are we not all ashamed of that? Are we not ashamed that an agricultural union should suggest that troops should be called in to cut grass to save animals which are starving? Do we not have a Government which has had large surpluses every year? We do not want anything for nothing. Nor do we want subsidies and loans if we can help it. We want the farmer to be enabled to help himself.

How?

I am busy explaining what can be done, and if the hon. the Deputy Minister does not understand me that is not my fault. I say very clearly that we should evolve a scheme according to which the man who has dry fodder but no money should be enabled to buy stock and to use the fodder in that way, because he has already received six or seven loans; the Farmers’ Assistance Board has already helped him so many times that the Government cannot assist him any longer unless it wants to give him the money gratis. We should assist that man to buy stock in drought-stricken areas, stock which would die in any case; he can then take the stock to his farm and keep it until prices rise or until they are in better condition, and then he can market them. If in addition we introduce a scheme whereby the farmer who needs breeding-stock can buy those animals on the controlled market, then we at least have two ways in which to help the farmers. I just recently returned from the Northern Transvaal …

A speculation scheme.

Is it a speculation scheme when we finance a man who has fodder to buy stock from the man who cannot feed those animals because he cannot buy fodder, because he has no more money, and then later to bring that stock back to the market to be sold to the farmer who needs breeding stock? Even though there should be an element of speculation in such a scheme, it is still a method of preventing the animals from dying of hunger or being taken to the abattoirs in a poor condition. Who wants such an animal, which is in poor condition, in the abattoirs? Who wants to let it die of hunger? Sir, when will the time arrive when the farmers opposite will get up and plead with us for the preservation of the stock in this country? When will the time arrive when they will get up and tell the Minister of Finance, after having thanked him, as the hon. member for Vryburg said: “We should like to see the system of taxation of farmers being reviewed and that this or that thing should be remedied, Mr. Minister of Finance”. If we have more pleas of that nature from that side of the House, we will achieve much more in the interests of the farmers. But I want to agree with the hon. member for Vryburg when he says that this drought crisis should never have been raised in this House; it should have been discussed outside the House long before this debate by everybody interested in agriculture and those who are prepared to make plans to save the stock of the country and to succour those people whose crops have died in the drought, who have no money to buy fodder and who can no longer obtain a loan to buy seed. The plea of this side of the House is that real assistance should be given to agriculture on, a basis where we do not feel that we are being subsidized, and that money is being lent to us which we cannot repay. We want to feel that we jointly tried to evolve a scheme by which the man who has lost his crops can be assisted to feed his stock, without troops being called in to cut dry grass along the railway lines. We want a Government which plans properly and has a policy which does not just rest on a loose footing; we want a Government which does not allow the situation to develop to a stage where the farmers are faced with ruin as the result of a drought.

The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) devoted a very large part of his speech to the drought. He said that this Government ought to be ashamed of itself. If there is something of which one ought to be ashamed, then it is the fact that a member tries to make political capital out of the conditions in the agricultural industry. The hon. member ought to know that no government in any country in the world has done as much during a period of drought to help livestock to survive and to save people from ruin as this Government has done. I want to mention a few examples. In an attempt to save the cattle in the Northern Transvaal, which the hon. member wants to have sold, this Government goes so far as to grant those farmers a 50 per cent subsidy in respect of fodder purchased by them to keep these animals alive. In addition the Government grants them a rebate of 75 per cent on the costs of transporting fodder to these animals and of conveying these animals to areas in which grazing is available.

He is not aware of that.

No, he is not aware of that at all. He wants these cattle in the Western Transvaal, which are immune to East Coast fever and heart water, to be sold, as a result of which they will lose their immunity and can never again be taken back to the Northern Transvaal, or will be of no value to the Northern Transvaal.

That is Greek to him.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks so incoherently; in the first instance he says that they warned us last year about the drought; he says that the drought extends from the Zambezi right down into the Republic, and just a little while later he comes along and says that the drought is confined to certain areas and that there should therefore be sufficient supplies of butter and meat and cheese. He contradicts himself in the course of the same speech. This is one example, but I want to mention a second example. The hon. member says that they pleaded for a finance corporation to render the necessary financial assistance to the farmers in these circumstances. Is the hon. member not aware of the fact that all the financial assistance required is being rendered to the farmers by the various departments, whether by way of mortgage loans, by way of loans granted to save the farmer from ruin when he has come to the end of his tether financially and is no longer in good credit, or by way of advance loans on crops? This assistance is being granted. Mr. Speaker, I watched the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bennett) while the hon. member for East London (City) was speaking. The hon. member for Albany kept smiling while the hon. member for East London (City), uninformed as he is, was making incorrect statements here. I want to mention an example of this. The hon. member objected to the present system ot selling on the hook by auction; he wants cattle to be supplied to the abattoirs, to the markets, on the hoof. While he was pleading for this to be done, the hon. member for Albany, who has just come from the Agricultural Union organization, shook his head, because he knows that this scheme has been requested by and is supported by the S.A. Agricultural Union, the commodity sections of the S.A. Agricultural Union. I am just mentioning this as an example to illustrate how members differ among one another on that side.

But I first want to deal with the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan). This hon. member tried to make out a case in connection with soil conservation and he quoted what Die Burger reported me as having said. I want to tell the hon. member for Gardens that I stand by every word I said, because the conservation of our soil is a national problem, and I shall not flinch for one moment, even though the United Party wants to make a political football of this issue. If it wants to make a political football of the issue of the conservation of our soil for posterity, then it will be destroyed, just as it was destroyed in the recent elections, and then it will be totally rejected in South Africa.

The hon. member went further and said that the Government was doing nothing. But let me tell him what has been done. A total of 827 soil conservation districts has already been proclaimed. More than 112,500,000 morgen have already been proclaimed. But let us examine what work has been done. There are 34,145 works, comprising an area of 64,500,000 morgen, which have already been mapped out and scheduled, plus an additional 13,000 which have been filmed. In respect of 7,120, i.e. 13,380,000 morgen, the physical planning has already been put into practice. As far as farming works are concerned, 389,062 have been approved, with a value of R55,990,000. Completed works total 180,227, with a value of R29,831,000. But the hon. member says that nothing has been done in connection with soil conservation. Hon. members must not think they can come along here and make political capital out of that statement. I myself have taken more than 220 photographs of soil conservation works. In that statement I declared specifically that I had come across numerous examples of successful soil conservation works, not only by the State, but also by the farmers. Furthermore it is interesting to note that such works are also being undertaken by small farmers. It is not only the large moneyed farmers that undertake soil conservation works, farmers possessing 10,000 or more morgen of land. I said that a time would come when the people of South Africa would expect these farmers, operating under the discipline of and in collaboration with the Department of Soil Conservation and the Soil Conservation Board, to do the right thing for the sake of posterity.

Hon. members are trying to make out a case that there is no planning in the agricultural field.

None at all.

In my opinion there are certain basic facts in agriculture which govern planning. I am not going to compare the position with 1948 and the period prior to 1948, because what the United Party did in South Africa cannot be compared with what this Government has done. It is not comparable. What they did was a mere trifle, something transitory, when we compare it with what this Government has done. The basic facts that I see in this country are, firstly, knowledge, that is, research and guidance; secondly, ways and means, that is, loans, services for which payment is made and free grants such as subsidies and rebates; and, thirdly, marketing, that is, research, publicity and control. I am now going to quote figures to prove that, if due allowance is made for the various hazards and the vicissitudes of nature, no Government, not even in the rest of the world, has to the same extent satisfied these basic requirements by providing services to the farmer as this Government has done. From 1 April 1959 to 31 March 1963—this i; the period I want to take— an amount of R60,594,000 was made available to agriculture in the form of research and guidance by the Departments of Agricultural Technical Services, Agricultural Economics, and Lands. As far as means are concerned— and it is in this regard that the hon. member for East London (City) creates such a fuss and says that financing is not done according to any definite method—an amount of R 167,077,000 was made available in the form of recoverable loans to farmers by the Land Bank, the Department of Lands, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, the State Advances Recoveries Office, and the Department of Water Affairs. These loans have to be repaid by the farmers; the South African farmer does not want to be a beggar. In this short period of four years a non-recoverable amount of R160,078,000 was made available by the same Departments. In other words, over a period of four years an amount of R327,156,000, of which, as I have said, only a portion is recoverable was made available to agriculture in this respect alone.

As far as marketing is concerned—hon. members are deeply concerned about marketing—we made available an amount of R3,302,000 in the form of research and publicity and investigation over this period of four years. This amount was non-recoverable. Up to 1963 we enabled the marketing boards, the 18 control boards, to accumulate an amount of more than R110,000,000 in the Stabilization Fund of the farmers.

That came out of their own pockets.

The hon. member is a stranger in Jerusalem. Is the hon. member not aware of the fact that the Government contributes a certain amount as far as the levy on maize is concerned? Is the hon. member not aware of the fact that as far as butter, cheese and dairy products are concerned, the Government contributes a large amount in order to subsidize the consumers? The point I want to make is that this amount was made available to provide security for the farmer in case he should get into difficulties with his product in the future.

Hon. members on the other side are hawking about the Presidential Address of the South African Agricultural Union now, as they have done in two previous debates as well. They are using this Address as the norm. The hon. member for East London (City) said that capital investment in agriculture was on an economic basis. Let us analyse this statement of his. In the Report of the South African Agricultural Union it is stated that up to 1963 R4,819,000,000 had been invested in agriculture in South Africa. The Report also states that the farmers’ total debts represent approximately 16 per cent of this amount of R4,819,000,000. In other words, 84 per cent of this amount of nearly R5,000,000,000 is not loan capital. If we compare this with other economic institutions in South Africa, in the field of industry or with commerce or industrial development, then I challenge any person to prove to me that there is any other financial institution that manages with such a small amount in loan capital. On the contrary, if one looks at the balance sheet of General Motors, Mr. Speaker, one finds that only 20 per cent of their capital investment is unencumbered; that 80 per cent consists ot loan capital. In the case of commerce and industry nearly 54 per cent is loan capital. Do these hon. members want to tell me that farming is uneconomic? How has it been built up in this way? Agriculture has been built up over the years because, seen as a whole, agriculture is an economic undertaking for the farmer in the long run.

I want to mention a further example in connection with capital investment. In 1948 the capital investment was R2,107,000,000 and in 1964 it was R4,889,000,000. It more than doubled over a period of 16 years. Although it more than doubled, loan capital represented only 16 per cent thereof. In other words, the remaining 84 per cent was unencumbered. As far as capital formation is concerned, the position is the same.

Hon. members should not try to make out a case on the basis of capital investment. It merely serves to disprove their story that matters are taking the wrong course in agriculture as such. What does the Land Bank say in regard to this investment in their Report? This Report of the Land Bank shows how sound the position is. According to the latest report the arrears, expressed as percentages of interest and capital due, were as follows: In 1963 arrear interest amounted to 2.407 per cent, and in 1964 2.468 per cent. Arrear capital was 1.25 per cent and 1.27 per cent. Taken as a whole, arrear debts with the Land Bank amounted to only 3.74 per cent. In the rest of our economy in South Africa we find that arrear installments, whether in the housing or in the industrial sector, amount to approximately 10 per cent to 12 per cent, and in agriculture the figure is only 3.74 per cent.

I resent it that the hon. member for East London (City) should say, because we are stricken by drought, that agriculture as a whole is experiencing bad times. What does the Land Bank say? The Land Bank says that if it had not been for this serious drought in the Northern Transvaal the amount in arrears would only have been 1.6 per cent or .834 per cent. Surely the Land Bank’s capital investment in agriculture should be taken as the norm for measuring the economic soundness of the farmer in South Africa? I say that the hon. member for East London (City) ought to be ashamed of himself in using the drought as a political football in order to gain some advantage with a view to an election that may possibly be at hand.

The hon. member made another statement as well. Almost the same statement was made by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan). They claimed that the Minister had said that the high prices resulted in more overcropping and overstocking, which led to soil erosion. On two previous occasions these hon. members also tried to quote the President of the South African Agricultural Union on the subject of land prices in order to show that we cannot take land prices into account when trying to assess the profitability of agriculture, because these prices were not comparable. What are the true facts? What is the price of land? I just want to mention the prices of land in a few areas. From 1948 to 1963-4 the price of land per morgen in the maize area increased, on an index basis, from 97 to 282; in the maize region, therefore, the index figure trebled itself. I can go on in this way and take the wheat area. In the case of the wheat area the figure rose from 89 to 269. In the sheep-farming areas it rose from 96 to 327. If there has been such an enormous increase in the index figure in respect of these land prices it is due to the fact that the people who have invested their money in land considered it to be an economic investment and because they wanted to redeem their capital and to earn interest by this means. Do not come and tell me that land prices have no connection whatsoever with the profitability of the industry.

What does the Land Bank say in this connection? They say the following—

For the purpose of the Bank?

Yes. What is the increase in the loans granted by the Land Bank for the purchasing of land? I am only taking the year 1963-4. This is the year in which things were supposed to have gone so terribly badly. I want to quote the land prices in a number of districts, and hon. members must bear in mind that this is land that was bought not by the Government, but by farmers who raised loans to buy land from other farmers. The increase per morgen in Bethulie was 97.4 per cent; in Rouxville it was 22.7 per cent; in Aliwal North 54.7 per cent in Venterstad 194 per cent and in Albert 111.3 per cent. These are the increases per morgen in this one year only, and the Land Bank’s loans to these farmers are based on the productive capacity of the land, not on a long-term investment. The Land Bank will not advance the money for a loan if it is a long-term investment. Sir, hon. members should therefore not just go ahead and try to advance the Presidential address by the President of the Agricultural Union as an argument in support of their case because they have no argument of their own to advance. If they want to advance an argument they must see to it that it is an argument worth advancing. I want to analyse these land prices a little further. In America a thorough investigation was instituted into land prices, and they say the following—

These are the findings in the investigation that was instituted in America when they were also faced with these increased prices of land. They continue as follows—

The United Party says now, as it does so frequently, that we should not take land prices as a norm. But the hon. members on the other side have to tell us now whether it is their policy that land prices should simply be allowed to shoot up and that the Minister of Agricultural economics and Marketing should then guarantee prices to the farmer on the basis of these uncontrolled prices of land? Is that their policy?

May I ask a question? Is it the policy of the hon. the Deputy Minister to force down land prices?

I shall reply to that immediately. It is the policy of the Government to take into account the Marketing Act with its control boards when determining prices and then to see to it that the prices are adjusted to the purchasing power of the public and to the productive capacity of the farmer, but it can never be the policy of any Government simply to allow interest on investment capital to be guaranteed. If that were so, the hon. the Minister said in the Other Place the other day, we should, if Senator Berman bought a piece of land on the foreshore, in the expectation that a township would be laid out there in ten years’ time, allow him to earn interest on that capital investment from the first year. Is that the policy of the United Party? When people pay large amounts for agricultural land as an investment, do hon. members want this Government to give them a guarantee in respect of their interest and redemption in the first year?

I shall carry on dealing with land prices now. If one buys 30 morgen in Pongola to which a sugar quota is attached, and it is good A land, but next to this piece of land there are an additional 30 morgen to which no sugar quota is attached but which is better land, one will pay ten times as much for the land to which there is a sugar quota attached as one will pay for the land to which there is no sugar quota attached. The same applies in the Western Province. Land to which a wine quota is attached is worth ten times more than land to which there is no wine quota attached. In other words, no matter how the United Party wants to argue as far as this matter is concerned, the production potential of land is the norm by which land prices must be measured for agricultural purposes.

The hon. members for East London (City), Gardens and Albany said that the cost structure has risen, that prices have decreased and that agriculture is not sharing in the economic boom in South Africa. Let us examine the index. Let us examine the price index in respect of agricultural products and the price index in respect of production costs. Mr. Speaker, if you look at the statistics report, and you take the index as being 100 for 1947-50, you will see that in the case of agronomy it was 110 in 1947-8, in the case of horticulture 96 and in the case of animal husbandry 96. This gives us an average total of 102. In 1963-4 agronomy rose to 176, horticulture to 210 and animal husbandry to 147. The average total rose from 102 to 167. These are the index figures in respect of prices of agricultural products in South Africa. (Time limit.)

It was interesting to listen to the hon. the Deputy Minister speaking in his new capacity, but I am afraid that I have often heard that speech in this House. He quoted the same figures which he always quotes from some or other booklet although he never tells us from where he obtains those figures. The hon. the Deputy Minister did say something new; he said that he was the new State photographer. He has been travelling around by helicopter taking photographs.

I would never photograph you; the camera would break.

Let me tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that I would not be available to be photographed by him! He boasted about the fact that he travelled 2,500 miles by helicopter. He is trying to tell the farmers how to run their farms. This is the closest he will get to a farm because since he disposed of his farm I think that he knows as little about soil conservation as my foot. It is surprising to see how swiftly he has learnt the story of the hon. the Ministers of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and Agricultural Technical Services. This young Deputy Minister who has only just been appointed is already talking about disciplining the farmers. I ask you, Mr. Speaker! I want to know how it was that he could not discipline himself to remain on the land of his fathers. He makes wild allegations. He says that a 50 per cent subsidy has been given to the farmers in the drought-stricken areas in the Transvaal, that a 75 per cent rebate has been given on railage and from this he comes to the conclusion that no other Government in the world has done as much for the farming population as this Government has done. But the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that that is incorrect.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I said it was incorrect.

That makes no difference; the hon. member must withdraw that word.

Mr. Speaker, may I say …

Order! The hon. member must first withdraw that word before continuing with her speech.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. Let me put it in this way. This matter is incorrect. Hon. members know that far more has been done for the farmers in other countries than in South Africa. If hon. members had read their newspapers they would perhaps have noticed that even communist Russia has done twice as much for her farmers than was previously the case.

And if Russia had done nothing previously?

Hon. members know what the position is. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to make her speech.

Hon. members ought to remember that we have pleaded for the farmers year after year in this House. Year after year we predicted that the time would come when disaster would befall South Africa, a disaster which has now befallen her. The hon, the Deputy Minister quoted Land Bank figures and said that the Land Bank valuation of these farms was about R5,000,000,000. He also said that only a certain percentage of them were encumbered. He advanced this as proof that things were going well with the farmers. But what do hon. members opposite want? They want the farmers to be driven to their knees before assistance is given to them. Do they not know the history of the farmers in South Africa? Do they not know that most of the farmers who are on the platteland to-day are not people who have just started farming. The third and fourth generation of their families are now on the farms; they are people who inherited their farms from their parents, farms which were unencumbered, but these people are to-day being forced to mortgage those farms because of the difficult circumstances they are experiencing. They do not always obtain their loans from the Land Bank; they also obtain loans from commercial banks. Then the hon. the Deputy Minister talks about a doubling of the land price and says that in 1948 the land was valued at R2,400,000,000, and that this year it is almost R5,000,000,000. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister not know that it is not only the farmers’ land prices that have doubled, but that the value of fixed property throughout South Africa has increased, and, in many cases, has more than doubled? Does the hon. the Deputy Minister not know that he could have bought a house in Cape Town at the time for £1,200, a house which he could not buy to-day for R 12,000 or even R 18,000? Is there any clearer proof of the increase than the fact that we have an amount of R63,000 in the Estimates to purchase a ministerial house, and an amount of R720,000 to purchase a house for an ambassador in Tokyo? The hon. the Deputy Minister is so fond of quoting figures to us, but he has apparently not read the White Paper which the hon. the Minister of Finance published last year, because the index is given very clearly there. The hon. the Deputy Minister had a few loose pieces of paper with him, and I asked him where he had obtained his figures. I have here the document which was published by the Department of the hon. the Minister of Finance just a week ago, and this White Paper proves clearly that producer prices remained far lower than production costs; that the increase in the producer price did not keep pace with the increase in production costs, and that production costs have increased more and more; that farmers suffered a loss up to the end of 1964. The hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing sniggers about this, but he should snigger at his own Deputy Minister. This is what the hon. the Minister of Finance has to say in the White Paper [translation)—

These figures are only given up to the end of 1964. Of course, we had the spectacle here of the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Keyter) who is chairman of the Maize Board, saying that every increase in price is added to the price which the farmer receives for his product. That is of course not at all correct. But towards the end of 1964 there was an increase, according to the index. Why? Because at that time everything was so scarce and the farmers had nothing to sell. But, Mr. Speaker, the greatest economic instability in any sector of our national life is to be found amongst our farmers in South Africa. There is no doubt about that. Take the case of any product. Consider the price of milk. Milk prices were reduced in 1960-1 …

Milk?

Yes, that hon. member had only one old cow and now he has sold her too. The hon. member sold his farms and all that he now has to milk is an old she-goat. The price of milk was reduced. It rose again at a later stage. But even then it was still below what it was before it was reduced in 1961. But the best proof of all is that 9,500 tons of butter have had to be imported into South Africa. The prices for pork were reasonable but the fluctuation in prices was such that pork had also to be imported. We stated over and over again in regard to maize that prices were such that if the farmers had a poor crop in one year it would take them years and years to make good the losses which they had suffered in that one year.

What price do you suggest for maize?

If the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing would resign I would know what prices to fix. The hon. member represents an agricultural sector. I do not know how much maize has been planted there but I do know that what they do plant there on a large scale is tobacco. Let me tell the hon. member …

What? Tobacco?

I withdraw that remark if it was not the Chief Whip who is a representative of a tobacco-growing district who interpreted. But what is very clear from the latest issue of Agricon of January, 1964, is that (translation)—

But there we have the hon. the Deputy Minister who says that the farmers have no debts. This quarterly paper which is issued by his own Department states (translation)—

How does this sound to the hon. the Deputy Minister, who says that the farmers are so well off? For how many years now have we not said this to hon. members opposite? The hon. the Deputy Minister was always the one with most to say in regard to how well off the maize farmers were. How many years now have we not told them that the farmers would be forced to their knees, and that this Government was only prepared to assist the farmer when he had already been driven to his knees. For how many years have we said that the farmers should be assisted before they are driven to their knees? I can go on in this way in regard to all branches of farming. Take dried beans. Permission was granted for beans to be imported this year while we still had 90,000 bags of beans unsold in South Africa. Notwithstanding this position, permits for the importation of 85,000 bags were granted with the result that local prices were forced down, to the detriment of our local farmers. This is how well this Government treats the farmers!

I come now to meat prices. We know, of course, that the producers of beef are in a very critical position. We have already been told how agricultural products have risen. They have risen by 72 per cent, but during the same time products such as maize and sunflower seed and so forth have risen by 92 per cent, and citrus fruit and deciduous fruit by 107 per cent. The hon. the Deputy Minister gave us incorrect figures in this regard. He took the same figures as I have done, but he told us that livestock rose by 147 per cent. The actual figure is 47 per cent; he added the 100 himself. [Interjections.]

Order!

The index is not half as old as the old cow, Mathilda, of the hon. the Deputy Minister. [Laughter.] When marketing control was instituted, the floor prices were too low. It is estimated that the capital investment per cow is R200 per day, while the price of beef remained virtually the same from 1948 to 1962. Then hon. members talk about high land prices. The land prices were not increased because of the higher beef price; they were raised because of short-term products such as cheese, butter and milk, which resulted in land prices increasing to a considerable extent. What is the position of lucerne? It is absolutely unobtainable this year, and lucerne seed is unobtainable. What is the position of the farmer generally speaking today, in spite of what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said? The position of most farmers is that they no longer know who is the master on their farms. They do not know whether the owner of their farm is the Land Bank, a commercial bank, the Farmers’ Assistance Board or the co-operative society which has loaned them money. When one listens to the threats of the hon. the Deputy Minister, one starts to wonder whether the Government will not become one of the masters of those farms.

Unfortunately, my time is limited, but I want to say that there is so much that can be done for the farmer, as has already been said. I was travelling on an aeroplane the other day with one of the persons who came down here to discuss matters with the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. I asked him what sort of assistance they wanted, and he said he did not know. He said: “We have already had so many loans that we do not want any more; we cannot repay what we have already borrowed.” I asked whether they wanted subsidies, and he said: “Subsidies on what? We have nothing to sell.” I asked whether they wanted assistance fram the Farmers’ Assistance Board, and he said that they already owed so much money there that they would never be able to repay it. I then said: “You have come down here to ask the Minister for assistance, but what assistance do you want?” To which he replied: “I do not know what to ask for; farming is in such a state that we no longer know what assistance to ask for.”

That is the absolute truth. The position of most farmers—and it this drought continues it will hold good for the whole of South Africa— is that they no longer know for what assistance they should ask. It is like a wheel which has started moving. The more our farmers try to climb over that wheel the swifter it rolls and the greater becomes the misery of the farmer, and the deeper he finds himself in trouble. [Laughter.] In spite of these facts, we have this laughter from hon. members on that side, and we still have to hear these nonsensical remarks uttered by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker).

Order!

Mr. Speaker, if only you could have heard half the interjections made by the hon. member for Cradock, you would have called him to order a long time ago.

What are you asking for now?

The first thing I want to ask that hon. Minister is to assist the farmers of Lichtenburg, who said to me: “Tell Dr. Verwoerd to dismiss Dirkie Uys and P. K. le Roux from the Cabinet and give us Mr. De Wet Nel as Minister of Agriculture.” That is the first thing that the hon. the Prime Minister ought to do; he should get rid of the two Ministers of Agriculture we have to-day.

Another matter which I mentioned in the past, and which I want to mention again today, is the question of insurance. In the past I spoke about hail insurance, which is extremely high. I want once again to advocate a general insurance scheme for farmers. We find that there is a comprehensive crop insurance scheme in existence in America. If we had such a scheme in South Africa we would not find ourselves in the position in which we are to-day. The farmers complain about increased production costs. The farmers asked the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs to have half-yearly statistics published of all the important requirements which the farmers have to buy, indicating the comparative prices which the farmers have to pay and the landed costs or the local cost of manufacture of an article. What was the hon. the Minister’s reply? The hon. the Minister’s reply was that if these things were brought to his attention he would have them investigated. The farmers asked that this list of goods should, inter alia, include the following: Implements, engines and spares, tractors and spares, types, batteries, fencing material and so forth. His reply to this was: “Let me know what your complaints are, and I shall have them investigated.” Mr. Speaker, my time is almost up. I want to repeat what I have said here in the past: What sort of nation are we that we can permit our farming population to be destroyed in this way? What sort of people are we to forget what we owe to the farming population who have made this country of ours habitable? I want to make no predictions, but I say, heaven preserve us if we continue in the direction in which we are going to-day. Our farmers are going to be the poorest and the worst off section of the people unless the Government takes positive steps to assist them. If we continue in this way, the future will be a sad one for us.

I want in the first place to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister of Finance for the continued capital outlay in the lower Orange River irrigation valley, and also express my appreciation for the further capital outlay in this region during this period of protracted drought. This action has contributed greatly towards the economy of this region. I also want to express my appreciation for the increased amount which has been made available in these Estimates to Agricultural Technical Services and Agricultural Economics and Marketing. I trust that the Government will continue to make ample provision for assistance to the farming community.

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) must not resent the fact if I do not devote much of my time to her; I do not want to be discourteous but my time is extremely limited. I want to express my appreciation for the appeals which have been made in this House on the part of those who are sympathetic towards the farmers of South Africa. Indeed, I think that everyone is sympathetically disposed towards the farmers in South Africa and the hon. member for Drakensberg should not try to use an extraordinary position which has arisen in the country in order to accuse this Government of allowing the farmers to be ruined.

I should like to put this question to the hon. member: Would the hon. member be prepared to pay more than 79c per 1001b for lucerne?

I pay more every year.

The price which the hon. member pays includes the 10c in regard to the commercial undertaking as well as the storage costs, insurance costs, handling costs and transport. When everything is included, the price amounts to from 125c to 150c, but is the hon. member prepared to recommend a higher price for the producer and to pay an even higher price for lucerne?

As far as beans are concerned, the position is that in 1964 the hon. the Minister issued permits for the import of beans. But is the hon. member aware of the fact that this was in respect only of the ordinary white bean, the bean which we along the Orange River call the “tweemaal-dik”? At that stage there was still a small quantity of kaffir beans and a small quantity of salad beans such as the Port Natal beans and so forth available in this country. If the hon. member were a housewife, would she be satisfied if she were offered kaffir beans over the counter?

Bantu beans!

I do not want to bring politics into this matter. We call this bean the kaffir bean, and that will remain its name. Will the housewife of South Africa be satisfied when she asks for “Painted lady” over the counter, to be offered “tweemaal-dik”? Is the hon. member aware of the fact that there are contractors who have to supply large undertakings with beans, and that those orders have to be placed overseas a month before the time, and even earlier, so that those beans can be delivered in time? The hon. member should not blame the hon. the Minister for this. I, myself, am opposed to the import of beans, but one must look the facts in the face. If a housewife asks for salad beans, one cannot offer her “tweemaal-dik” and kaffir beans.

The hon. member mentioned a number of other matters here. She spoke about the price of maize, and she said that if a farmer has one poor crop he is ruined. The hon. member quoted from Agricon, to the effect that a poor crop of this nature would cause the ruin of a farmer. But we cannot determine prices on this basis, because then we will be making the farmer pay so much more for his bag of maize. That is a completely wrong approach.

In the very limited time at my disposal I want to come back to a matter which has been raised year after year for the past four years in this House—the question of a fodder bank for the farmer in order to see him through a period of drought, a fodder bank which, according to hon. members opposite, embraces the idea of a national fodder bank. I just want to say that a national fodder bank is a wonderful idea, but, as fine an idea as it is, so it is an impracticable idea for the farmer. If ever an ill-considered idea was given prominence throughout the agricultural world in 1947-8 by the commission dealing with drought matters—on which the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) also served—it was this idea of a national fodder bank. It channelled the train of thought of the farmer in such a way, into such a groove, that he was not able to think originally after that.

I am in favour of the building up of a fodder bank, but then it must be a fodder bank on each economic unit. It must form part of each individual farm. It must form part of that particular farming unit. Such a fodder bank must comply with two requirements in order to succeed in this country. The first requirement is that the farmer must, under drought conditions, be able to keep a record of his stocks from month to month. He must keep a record of his available grazing, of his animals, of his financial reserves and of the quantity of fodder on his farm. This is necessary, because those stocks of fodder take the place of a reserve camp or, as the farmers call it, a spare camp. A record of this nature is absolutely essential for success to be achieved. In order to make a success of a fodder bank, it must form an integral part of the farm unit. If it does not form an integral part of that farm unit, it will fail, because it does not appeal to the spirit of enterprise, the resourcefulness and the feeling of independence of the farmer. In short, it does not give the farmer sufficient latitude to give expression to his personality on his own unit. And subjected to those requirements the fodder bank, as proposed by hon. members of the Opposition, fails. In order to form an integral part of a farming unit, it must be on a farm, because the farmer has to make a stock survey from month to month. Any scheme which hon. members opposite suggest which does not comply with this requirement is a scheme which I must describe as defective.

I want now to start my speech. The accusation is made against this Government from time to time in this House that, as a result of a lack of planning, as a result of ministerial inefficiency, farmers in South Africa are facing ruin. A motion was moved in this connection, but I regard that motion simply as an abusive motion; it was only an abusive motion because it was devoid of any merit, tested against the results achieved by agriculture in South Africa. Because under no circumstances do I want to attribute anything untrue to hon. members opposite, I want to try to prove every word I am saying. Let us test the accusation which was forthcoming from the Opposition through the medium of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan), against the results achieved by agriculture in South Africa.

Under conservation farming, agriculture in South Africa is aimed at using the potential of the soil and developing it; using it in such a way that its potential is always being increased. In this way we will always ensure that a soil with an increased potential is available for future generations. The method we use in order to achieve that end is not a method by means of which we undermine the self-respect of the farmer in a democratic country like South Africa. We do not want to undermine his spirit of enterprise; we do not want to frustrate his resourcefulness; nor do we want to undermine his feeling of independence. Our agricultural expedients are used in such a way, in order to achieve that elevated ideal, as will stimulate those retentive characteristics of the farming population. In order to promote efficiency in agriculture, the Department has in its wisdom decided to divide it up into three chief sections—agricultural field services, which embrace agricultural training, soil conservation, and the use of the soil and inspection services.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.