When the House adjourned last night I was explaining that in order to operate to the best of its ability the Department of Agricultural Technical Services had divided its activities into three main sections, namely, agricultural field services, agricultural research and agricultural administration which, amongst others, was responsible for administering agricultural legislation.

Because of the accusation we have had from time to time from hon. members opposite, particularly from the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan), we on this side of the House are practically forced to talk about agricultural research because I think that is the only way in which to reply to hon. members opposite. I want to deal with and test the accusation against the results which have been achieved honestly and sincerely. Mr. Speaker, agricultural research always concentrates on that which is the most important in agriculture and consequently the most important to the country in general, in order to do justice to agriculture and every section of the agricultural community of South Africa the country has been divided into seven agro-ecological regions and the research is also undertaken on that same basis. That prevents overlapping and is conducive to every region being treated justly. Within such a region the most important agricultural crop or crops are selected for special research and all the special research work connected with it is then referred to specialist research institutes of which there are ten spread over the country. We have the following agricultural crops in connection with which special research is done, namely, citrus at Nelspruit, tobacco at Rustenburg, wine production, preparing of wine and fruit at Stellenbosch, soil and botany at Pretoria, horticulture at Roodeplaat, veterinary science at Onderstepoort, stock-breeding and dairy production at Irene, and plant protection at Pretoria. But over and above these specialist research institutes the Department has also made provision for main research centres throughout the length and breadth of the country where research is carried on in certain main production lines. The most important products are as follows: summer wheat of which maize is the most important with the main research station at Potchefstroom; winter wheat and vegetables with the main research centre at Stellenbosch and Nelspruit. At these three main research centres they concentrate on research as to how constant the production of the particular product is as well as how profitable it is to an agriculturist. Apart from that, of course, means to combat the diseases to which these products are subject are continually sought. That research is mainly conducted at Onderstepoort. If we do not do it on that basis I am sure we would not have been able in South Africa to have increased production the way we have because of all the problems, such as various diseases, for example, we have to contend with from time to time.

Before I deal with the various crops I want to go further. There are other research centres which do research work in connection with the breeding of small stock and meat production. The main research centre in that connection is at Grootfontein. The same applies in the case of the breeding or large stock, citrus and meat technology at Irene. The research is more or less concentrated on quality, quantity and productivity, and the promotion of fertility amongst the animals so that the animal stock will increase at a sufficiently high rate. I shall return to that in a moment and show to what extent success has been achieved in that regard. Coupled with all the research work that is done in connection with domestic animals, agricultural crops and horticulture is the research work in connection with the use of water, the use of veld and of the soil. As far as the use of water is concerned the object is to obtain the optimum production from a certain quantity of water without wastage seeing that water remains a limiting factor in South Africa. The same applies in the case of the use of the veld. Large amounts of money are spent on tests to ascertain what the lowest number of stock is that can be allowed to graze on a certain type of veld in a certain part of the country without ruining the veld so that the veld can be conserved and passed on to posterity as an asset. We then come to the use of the land. One can hardly discuss this without discussing the question of the cultivation of agricultural crops, horticulture or the breeding of stock. They are all intertwined. In that regard the main object is to make use of the land in such a way that the fertility of the soil is maintained, and not only maintained but that its potential is continually increased without in the least disturbing its physical composition.

But the Department has not only made provision for that. It has also made provision for the publication of highly technical journals. We have The S.A. Journal of Agricultural Science, the Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research, Flowering Plants of South Africa, and Landboukundige Navorsing, the latter contains reports on the various research projects throughout the length and breadth of the country. At one stage last year, Sir, they were busy with no fewer than 1,506 research projects throughout the country, all of which were under the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and all of which were handled by a limited staff. Provision is also made to impart the results of such research to the farmer and for that purpose the Department uses Farming in South Africa, departmental reports and so forth. There is also liaison between scientific research and agricultural guidance. By means of the information service contact is made with individual farmers and they are also contacted by means of “farmers’ days”. There are also talks over the radio. When we came into power in 1948 there were only two radio talks per week. That number gradually increased to the nine per week we have to-day. In those days 500 farmers at the most attended farmers’ days but last year we reached a stage where 12,200 farmers had attended farmers’ days in one year. It is not a phenomenal attendance but the Department cannot drag the people to the meetings. All they can do is to advertise the meetings and invite the people to attend. For the rest the attendance depends on how anxious the people are to attend. I have covered the field very quickly because my time is very limited. Hon. members opposite may ask me what all this proves; what have been the results in practice of all this research? I just want to deal with this in passing and I shall return to the whole question later on. When you consider agricultural crops, for example, you are immediately struck by the fact that you are dealing with two of the staple food products of the Republic of South Africa, namely, the summer grain products and winter grain products of which maize and wheat are the main products respectively. What would have happened to their production had we not continually had the support and assistance of Agricultural Technical Services which has from time to time succeeded in making available to us new varieties which are more resistant to disease and which are capable of a higher yield per unit? What quantity would we have produced had we not received guidance in regard to weed eradication and the combating of pests and plagues? The success obtained must be measured against that. To-day we have pushed up the production, as far as maize is concerned, to 67,000,000 bags and but for the drought and climatic conditions the production would perhaps have been even higher. In the case of wheat we have also been very successful, so much so, that the production has already reached the 10,000,000 bag notch. That has been achieved, in spite of the adverse conditions agriculture has had to contend with. Seldom if ever in the history of South Africa, has the country been so stricken by pests, plagues and unforeseen circumstances, apart from the droughts, as to-day.

As far as horticulture is concerned I just want to deal briefly with a product like the potato. Only recently the Department made no fewer than 11 new varieties available, varieties which make the country practically independent of imported seed potatoes from overseas. In the past we imported most of our seed potatoes from overseas. These varieties are resistant to most of the virus diseases, they are to a large extent resistant to black rust, do not go bad so easily and the yield is practically double per unit. This break-through on the part of our scientists must of necessity result in a complete revolution in the production of potatoes and the marketing of the product. In passing I want to deal with one other horticultural product namely citrus. We know that during all the years the citrus farmers have been faced with the circular purple scale disease in citrus orchards. We know how concerned the citrus farmers were about that. But in or about 1956 our scientists also succeeded in effecting a break-through there and they discovered that it was caused by nothing more than the grey mite which could easily be combated by means of a reasonably cheap spray.

That helped a great deal but apart from that comparatively recently the old trouble of greening in citrus which has always been prevalent in the orchards started to become more or less endemic and scientists not only here in South Africa but also overseas did not know what to do. A very important research break-through was effected by South African scientists when they discovered that that was also caused by a virus. The virus was isolated and further research is being done to-day in order to discover how to combat it.

I hasten to come to the protection of our animals. We all know what an important role the Department of Technical Services plays in the combating of those diseases which are continually threatening to cross our borders from our neighbouring states. We know what demands that makes on our manpower and on the funds available to Agricultural Technical Services. We must always be on our guard. At the moment we are conducting a campaign against foot-and-mouth disease. Research is also continually conducted to discover other means of combating internal parasites. We stock farmers know what great developments have taken place in the field of combating internal parasites. Research is continually carried on to find means of combating new diseases and to diagnose new types of virus or to isolate them. When we took over in 1948 we made 14 different kinds of vaccine available but only 13,000,000 doses were manufactured per year. But in 1964 26 different kinds of vaccine were available and no fewer than83,000,000 doses were prepared in one year. I want to mention a few of the successes which have been achieved over the past 17 years by the scientists of the Department of Agricultural Technical Science. Think of “ngana”. In 1948 there was an outbreak throughout Zululand but no outbreak in 1964. In 1948 there were seven outbreaks of east-coast fever but none in 1964. In the case of blue-tongue vaccine was available against four types of virus and against 14 types in 1964. In 1948 there was no vaccine to combat polpy kidney but in 1964 29,141,000 doses of vaccine were prepared to combat this disease. I can give many more examples but my time is limited.

Tested against these results we must admit that the increased agricultural production is directly attributable to the research in the agricultural field. What would have happened to our agricultural production had we allowed the red beaked finch to multiply freely; what would have happened had we not overcome foot-and-mouth disease? What would have happened to our production had the locust plague been given free rein or the Gerbille plague in the Western Cape? What would have happened to the health of the nation in South Africa had we allowed rabies to get out of hand? On each occasion, without failing once, the same group of people have come forward with some means or other to overcome and combat these problems and pests and plagues before much damage could be done to the food resources of South Africa. No, Mr. Speaker, the accusation we get from that side of the house vis-à-vis the hon. member for Gardens that there is lack of planning and ministerial inefficiency is devoid of all truth. What they have said here in support of their amendment amounts to nothing but abuse, is without merit, and we deplore it.

The results achieved must be attributed to the work done by a certain group of people. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bennett) made an appeal to the Minister yesterday but I want to advise the hon. member rather to appeal to the Leader of the United Party in the Cape Province, namely, the hon. member for Gardens not to make such irresponsible statements. I want to ask the hon. member for Gardens to remember that the officials who assist the Minister are not officials of the Nationalist Party, or officials of the United Party but officials in the service of the Republic of South Africa and he would assist more to keep those officials in the service if he were more grateful and less ungrateful to them. Many are tempted by offers of higher salaries both in South Africa and overseas but, inspired by their feeling of loyalty, they have stood by us. Therefore, no matter what hon. members opposite may say as Opposition, on behalf of this side of the House and on behalf of the people of the Republic of South Africa I want to say that we highly appreciate the loyal and successful way in which they have served the country in order to protect the food and food resources of South Africa.

Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) dwelt at some length on the difficulties that we are faced with on the question of soil erosion in many parts of South Africa. He dealt principally with the White farming areas of the country and he developed his theme on a survey which has recently been done of those areas by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. But, of course, it is not only in the White farming areas that we have to deal with this question of soil erosion, and I think it is readily agreed that the problem is at its worst in the most acute form in the Native reserves of South Africa. Soil erosion in the Native reserves is not something which affects only the Natives who live in those areas, because it is generally accepted also that the future industrial and agricultural development in South Africa will take place to a great extent in those well-watered areas of the eastern sea board where the large rivers of South Africa flow, as yet untapped so far as industrial and agricultural water-drawing is concerned.

As a matter of historical accident the Native reserves in those parts lie astride to a large extent the central catchment areas of the large rivers of the eastern sea board, and anyone who knows those parts and who has an eye to the future development, either agriculturally or industrially of those areas, will appreciate the tremendous denuding and erosion of the large Native reserves lying astride those rivers from which the water is drawn which flows in those rivers, and they will appreciate the danger to the future development of those areas as a result of that state of affairs. Mr. Speaker, if one looks at these rivers and the description of them over the last 20 years, we find that whereas in the past, and at the present time too, you have a fertile farming strip along the coast with no erosion and a fertile midlands of Natal with no erosion, both being White farming areas, you have in between this greatly denuded area able decreasingly to support its Native population, and having a direct effect on the farming areas which lie below those water-sheds, in this sense that the greater the erosion in those Native areas, the worse the droughts and floods which occur as a result of that. And of course the farming areas and industrial areas below these water-sheds which rely on these rivers as a source of water, in times of drought like the present, are in a precarious position, and we find that the present drought has a greater incidence than ever before, and you have major rivers in that catchment which at the present time are wholly dry, with no flow whatever. And, of course, when rains do come, it is the occasion not of merely a swelling of those rivers, but of a major flood.

The hon. Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, yesterday, had a smooth passage through this debate, and I would like to say immediately that in so far as my speech is concerned, he is going to continue to have a smooth passage.

Why?

The sting is coming. In the two instances, Sir, in which I have invoked his aid for a major survey to be undertaken in regard to the catchment areas of two of the major rivers on the eastern seaboard, he has been good enough to see that the survey was done. We have a report in respect of one and I believe we can expect the report on the other at any time from now. But for every good work that this hon. Minister does in the way of surveys and in the way of listening attentively to proposals for the building of a series of dams in the lower regions of these rivers, he is stabbed in the back by the colleague who sits next to him, the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, because from the reports of this Minister’s Department one thing stands out clearly, and that is that in none of the major catchments, certainly not the Umhlatuzi, which is perhaps the most important of them all, in none of the catchments has one sq. inch of reclamation or rehabilitation of the land been done by the Department of Bantu Administration, and the hon. Minister who has been co-operative in these matters can work as hard as he likes, but all his efforts are put to naught, until he can persuade the hon. Minister who sits next to him to do something about the reclamation and the rehabilitation of the large Native reserves in South Africa. And this is a problem …

Have you ever been to one of those reserves to see what reclamation has taken place?

The hon. member asks whether I have ever been to one of these reserves. Perhaps I should read to him the report of the hon. the Minister’s department itself in regard to a major reserve lying astride a major river on the eastern seabord, as follows—

Just that area?

That is one of the major catchments of one of the three major rivers in the eastern seaboard of Natal.

Mr. Speaker, it is not only in the physical sense of land that we have in the recent past had erosion taking place. The interesting thing during the last few weeks has been that we have had also a major erosion taking place in the enunciation of Government Native policy. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that at least one person in this House, has taken a consistent stand on this issue, and I think one must begin at the beginning, and one must refer again in so far as the Native policy of this Government is concerned, to the kernel of it all, the basic philosophical basis of it, as expressed in the Tomlinson Report, and under the heading “Why the Consolidation of the Native Reserves is Necessary,” on page 180, the Tomlinson Report says this—

What was the recommendation?

The recommendation is to be found in the map at page 63 of the Tomlinson Report, which advocates for Natal wholesale consolidation into two blocs, the whole of the north and the east of Natal into the Zulu bloc and virtually the whole of southern Natal into the Transkei bloc, with very little left. That is the report and the philosophy of the hon. gentleman sitting opposite. The hon. the Prime Minister virtually throughout, with one lapse only, has adhered to that philosophy: Consolidation, without which you cannot have independent Bantu states. He stated it quite clearly in Durban in a speech which I have referred to before, when he said: History has decided this for us, history has done it for us. There must be given back to the Bantu those lands which are historically theirs. And that of course is consistent with the Tomlinson Commission’s Report, which was signed by the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. And then of course we have the hon. the Prime Minister, again consistent with this policy, shortly before the election, saying at Germiston …

We have accepted the verdict of history that there will be a separate Transkei and a separate Zululand, just as the United Nations have accepted the fact that there was a separate Swaziland and a separate Bechuanaland.

And for those, Sir, who do not like the reports of the Natal Mercury, precisely the same was said in the Vaderland on the same date—

So we had the hon. the Prime Minister two years ago in Natal and again shortly before the recent election accepting the basic philosophy of the Tomlinson Commission Report which is consolidation and partition.

Read the Prime Minister’s speech in 1962, here in this House.

I am referring to his most recent speech in Germiston. It is quite clear that the Prime Minister from the beginning until now has advocated consolidation. But what do we find? What has taken place recently? A wholesale retreat, erosion of that approach, led by the hon. Minister of Bantu Education, the leader of the Nationalist Party in Natal. What did he say? In his speech made shortly before the election at Utrecht he said—

It is true that a consolidated homeland for the Zulus would have been more ideal, and therefore the Government will work towards that end …

I pause to say that that is the let-out for the future. But let us go on—

That was said by the hon. the Prime Minister in 1962.

I hope the hon. Minister will listen carefully—

But the story does not end there. I believe that Zululand was one of the most popular vacation spots for hon. members during the election: The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller), the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) amongst others—they took the retreat and erosion a stage further, and of course the National Party candidate took it to its ultimate degree. But what did all these gentlemen say, with one notable exception, the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, what did they say throughout Zululand—

I pause to say that there is not enough Crown Land to do that. And the final hammer blow was this, Mr. Speaker—

That was the theme of the hon. member for Ceres and the hon. member for Vereeniging. Now the interesting thing about this erosion, is the complete repudiation of the standpoint of the hon. the Prime Minister, a complete retreat from the whole basic philosophy of the Government’s policy in this regard, and it is no use the hon. Minister saying that consolidation was never their plan, because if it was never their plan why was a committee set up to see how the land in Zululand could be consolidated, and why has the report of that committee not been disclosed to us, and why have some of the important institutions for the development of the Bantu states been put in some of the most fragmentary areas, the University College for the Zulus, e.g? These things hang together. But there is yet another interesting point in all this, and it is not merely the fact that this retreat has been taking place, but it is the direction in which the retreat has taken place. What did we get from the speakers who held meetings in Natal? “The reserves will stay as they are. Crown Land will be added in terms of the 1936 legislation. They will be given local self-government in respect of those areas.” Independence, Sir, is pushed so far ahead that it will never happen, and you will have something almost identical with the communal council approach which is the cardinal point of the United Party’s race federation idea. [Laughter.] That is the extent to which this retreat has taken place. Let us face the facts, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members laugh, but what is the cardinal basis of our approach to these problems? Leave the Native areas geographically as they are, let us put a communal council, let us create a communal council for the Bantu people, so that they can have as much local administration as they can in the areas where they are, without consolidation and without wholesale movement of people. That is the direction and the position to which the Government has moved in this election.

What about your new policy?

Sir, in fact the retreat of the Government in this regard has been to such an extent that one might almost say that the result of the election in Zululand was a triumph for the principle of race federation.

There is one other point that emerges from this, and that is that the credit for this retreat, led by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education, towards the policy of the United Party, lies in the debates that we have had in this House where we have pointed out the difficulties and the dangers right from the beginning of the application of this policy in Natal, and when faced with the crucial test, what does the hon. Minister, the leader of the Nationalist Party in Natal do? He does not stand up for a policy, as laid down as recently as 23 March by the Prime Minister. No, he runs like a rabbit, followed even further by every member of this House who held a public meeting in Zululand and the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) is one of them too. Now, Sir, if this were a permanent retreat by the Nationalist Party towards the policy of the United Party, we could derive a great deal of satisfaction from it. But I fear it is merely a tactical retreat because there is an election in the offing, and I fear that we will have the same thing again as we had with the Transkei. The junior spokesmen, and I hope the hon. the Minister for Bantu Education will not take that amiss—are allowed to go out and put across a policy wholly different from that of the Prime Minister until an election takes place, and then you will find, Sir—such is the docility of hon. members opposite—that the whip will crack from the Treasury benches and the policy will be as enunciated by the Prime Minister, and the process of consolidation, however difficult and impracticable, to use the word of the leader of the National Party in Natal, will go on. That is the difficulty. You know, Sir, one hears the phrase that all men are equal, but some men are more equal than others. When one has to face at the time of an election the expounding of Government policy so divergent from the policy laid down by the Prime Minister, one feels tempted to say in a whimsical way, of course, that whereas all members of this House are honourable members, some are more honourable than others.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) has made the old attack on the Government about the borders of the Bantu homelands and suggested that the Minister of Bantu Administration was sabotaging the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services in the Native reserves. I do not know anything about Zululand—I have only been there once—but I am in a position to talk about the Transkei where they are engaged on a rehabilitation scheme and where the carrying capacity of the land has improved fantastically. In the constituency of Aliwal the United Party again raised the question of the so-called borders which were not supposed to be in the right place and they tried to create disunity amongst the people but what a defeat they suffered there! The same applies to the hon. member for Zululand. Yesterday the United Party tried to scare the public with our agricultural policy and to-day they are trying to run away from it. The agricultural policy of the Government is attacked from year to year. It has actually developed into a personal attack by hon. members opposite against our Ministers. Is it not a fact that the platteland has for the first time passed a motion of no confidence in the United Party? In 1948 they lost a large number of constituencies on the platteland but in spite of that they continually attack this side of the House. It is because the policy of the United Party has never been sympathetic towards the farmers. They are only paying lip service; they are not sincere with the farmers. They criticize us in this House but are they really sorry for the farmers because of the position in which they find themselves to-day?

Where are your Ministers?

The Ministers of Agriculture know very well what is happening. The Deputy Minister is present and he is quite capable of dealing with you. During the régime of the United Party agriculture suffered such a shock, because of the low prices paid for its products, that it found it difficult to recover. To-day they blame us because so many farmers have left their farms but that is due to industrial development and the good salaries paid by industry. During that time industrial development was limited the salaries were not high and yet a number of farmers left their farms to go and work in the cities. To-day a sum of R5,000,000,000 has been in vested in land, in stock and in improvements. That is a greater amount than the amount invested in all our industries together. Climatic conditions have played an important part and have influenced agriculture. In many parts of the country people are suffering from the worst drought in memory. In addition of course there are other acts of God. We think of the hailstorm which hit the farmers in Langkloof and the heavy snowfall in my constituency last winter. Those are all things which have an adverse effect on agriculture and for which the Government is not responsible. In spite of the fact that some of our best grazing land has been placed under agriculture our animal population has remained constant. Our agricultural production has increased but the point I want to make is this: Have we not reached the stage where a halt should be called to the ploughing up of our land? Should we not rather consolidate the arable land which we have to-day instead of ploughing up more land? If we carry on the way we have been doing we shall be ploughing up the best grazing land we have in South Africa without getting much in return because even under the most favourable conditions you only get a good crop once every three years at the expense of our meat, wool and dairy production.

I want to deal for a moment with agricultural education. We know what the position is to-day. We have reduced the diploma course from two to one year, with which I agree. The practical side of farming can always be learnt on the farm but not the theoretical side. It saves time and it can only have a beneficial effect. However, I want to go further and plead for a two-year diploma course or a three-year university course for students for the simple reason that there are first-class and second-class matriculants. The first-class matriculants go to university and take a B.Sc. degree and they ultimately obtain a M.Sc. degree. They eventually join the Department of Agricultural Technical Services where they do not remain for long either. But the second-class matriculant is the practical person who will never make a great success of a university career. I think these boys should be assisted. Many of them are boys from the farm and can become good farmers. That is why I plead for a three-year diploma course at university so that they can develop and eventually be of valuable service to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services.

But I go further. Many of those boys, once they have finished their studies, lack the money to start farming on their own and they have to go in other directions. I want to suggest that once they have finished their course they should be assisted by appointing them as supervisors on Government farms. The Government can then always assist the deserving ones to acquire land. The Land Board allocates land to-day but very few qualified boys get any because most of them lack the necessary capital. I think this is a very important matter and we should give assistance in that direction because those will be the deserving cases. Many of our people who left the platteland without capital to go and work eventually returned to the farm. They were middle-aged but they made a great success of their farming operations in spite of the fact that they had been away from the farm for years. That is why I think the Government should assist our boys not only in regard to training courses but also in regard to acquiring land. There is hardly any unoccupied land today. It is practically humanly impossible for any farmer to start right from the bottom today. That can simply not be done. That is why we should help. There are many young students, capable youngsters, who will eventually be useful to the Department of Technical Services. Those boys can be absorbed into our soil conservation committees as extension officers. The Department of Technical Services will benefit by that because we lack the necessary staff to keep pace with the demand for extension officers. Those boys can be of assistance in that direction and they can render the State valuable service in future.

I was sorry to hear the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. H. J. Botha) talking and the two Ministers of Agriculture were not here.

I was here.

No, the hon. the Minister has only just entered. Somebody went to call him, and I know why. I am sorry that the hon. member for Aliwal said by implication that the Deputy Minister was here and that he was worth both the other two Ministers together. I hear the hon. member for Aliwal was good at mathematics in his schooldays, but all he said was that “nothing” is equal to “nothing” plus “nothing”. Because these two Ministers of Agriculture have done very little for the farmers in all the years they have occupied those posts.

What is the position of the farmer in the Western Province to-day? [Interjection.] The Minister knows that I am a farmer just as he is. I want to ask him whether he thinks that we in the Western Province can continue as things are going with us to-day? In the first place I want to talk to the Minister about the labour position in the Western Province. Is the Minister satisfied with it? Now he keeps quiet, nor will he reply.

Am I perhaps the Minister of Labour?

That is just the trouble. The Minister is now annoyed with the Minister of Labour, but I am annoyed with all the Ministers. Is the Minister, or any of the Ministers, satisfied with the labour position in the Western Province? I am waiting for a reply, but not a word. Not even the Minister of Pensions says anything. He just smiles. Why do they keep quiet? Because last year, when I said that the labour position was so drastic that farmers from other districts came and fetched one’s labourers on one’s farm in the middle of the night, they said that was untrue, and their daily organ, their political pamphlet, made it front-page news. But what happened? The reaction on the part of the Nationalists was so tremendous that not a single member of the Government can get up to-day and say that what I said is not true. Let one of those Ministers now tell me it was not the truth. Now they keep quiet again. Now they look at me with disconcerted faces, because they know it is the truth. But worse still, what about the hon. members for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) and Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden), the representatives of Western Province farmers, who advocated here that the Bantu should be removed from the Western Province? Now I want to ask all those Ministers: Are you still going to remove a single Bantu from the Western Province?

All. as far as I am concerned.

The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. G. P. Kotze) wants to remove them all, but he does not live in the Western Province. He hopes they will go to Gordonia. I am not talking about tortoise farmers now.

I farm in Piketberg.

I do not talk to tortoise farmers.

Order! The hon. member should moderate his language.

I should like to see the Minister who still advocates that the Bantu should be removed here. Now they keep quiet. Why? They have become so frightened of their own policy, and they know they have not vet removed a single Bantu here, and quietly, secretly, they now import Bantu to the Western Province. I want to ask the hon. member for Moorreesburg, who has now also entered the fishing industry, how many applications did you make last year for Bantu to come and catch fish in the Western Province, and how many came? [Interjections.] I am pleading that the Minister should ensure that we have more labourers on our farms so that we can continue farming and pay the taxes, and that they should not leave the farms. We are not all Cabinet Ministers who can sell our farms. [Interjections.]

*Mr. SPEAKER Order!

The hon. the Minister has allowed increased wine quotas to be granted in the Western Province last year, which means that within the next five years an extra 2,000 to 3,000 additional Coloured families will have to be found to cultivate those vineyards and to press the grapes. What are they doing? We have heard about their wonderful planning in agriculture. What planning are they doing to provide for labour on the farms to cultivate those vineyards? The Minister of Economic Affairs should not look at the ceiling now. He should look at me. [Interjections.] I want to ask the Minister of Water Affairs what he intends doing in regard to the Berg River scheme; is he still going to build it? Where will be find the people to cultivate that area when he has completed the scheme?

How can I build it? You say there is no labour.

The Minister now admits it: he says he cannot build it because we do not have the labour. How can the Minister of Water Affairs make such an admission? What is the plan of the Minister of Economic Affairs? Is the development in the Western Province to continue? Where will the labour come from? The Minister of Transport at least is here. He is now recruiting farm labourers to work on the Railways for R2 per day. I want to ask the Minister of Agricultural Economics: How can we farmers pay the Coloureds on the farms R2 per day and allow them to work for eight hours a day only? Now he keeps quiet and gives an embarrassed little cough. He should not cough now; he should tell us: Can he as a farmer pay a Coloured labourer R2 per day and make him work eight hours a day?

Yes, I pay my labourers more than R2 per day.

No, I do not believe the Minister, nor does he expect me to believe him. The Minister knows a farmer cannot do that. We shall inquire in his constituency whether his farmers are willing to pay R2 a day and let them work eight hours a day, which is what the Minister of Transport is offering them to-day. [Interjection.]

I want to come to another aspect of the matter. Seeing that the Minister of Agricultural Economics is so free with his money. I want to ask the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services why he does not pay his technical officers enough to keep them in his service? I will tell him what the position is to-day. What does the Minister nay a technical officer to-day? I want to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that a university professor, a senior lecturer, should receive only R2,250 as an initial salary?

What do you pay Bill Horak?

I have no objection to what is paid to Bantu or Coloured teachers. Even if they are paid more, I will have no objection. But now I want to ask the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services: Do you know that an inspectress in a special subject like needlework is paid R3,120 per annum by this Government, even though her qualification may be only Std. 8, plus three years’ training, and that you pay a senior lecturer at the university less than that? If these figures are correct, are you satisfied?

You are talking nonsense.

I repeat that a Coloured inspectress—and I have not the least objection to the salary; pay her more if you like—gets R3,120 per annum, and a lecturer at the university, if he is connected with the Minister’s Department, receives R2,250. A senior lecturer receives R3,450 and an assistant technical officer, who is also a person with high qualifications, much higher than those of an inspectress of needlework, commences at R1,410, which is a scandal. At the moment the Minister pays a technical officer R2,280 and a senior technical officer gets R2,830, and only when one comes to the first technical officer is the salary greater. Is the Minister satisfied with that state of affairs? Let the Ministers now tell us. Why do I not hear a word from them? The poor Minister of Pensions is beginning to look quite discouraged. Why? That is going on while we need technical men to teach us to farm more economically. These people resign from the Minister’s service and take other jobs, and the Government cannot find the money to pay them decent salaries. Why does the Minister not pay his officials more so that they can assist us? Does the Minister know that one cannot find labourers to-day to keep one’s vineyards and orchards free of weeds? In America, in regard to loss of soil, the annual damage is estimated to be R 1,080,000,000, or 13.6 per cent of the total agricultural losses. Plant insect diseases are responsible for R7,614,000,000 and plant diseases for R2,080,000,000. But when it comes to the damage caused by weeds, the amount in America is R2,676,000,000, or 33.8 per cent of the total losses. And I say that the position here is not much different. [Interjection.]

There are no United Party supporters there.

That is the tragedy of South African politics. There we have an hon. member who is flippant, and he has been flippant ever since his university days when I knew him. He is not interested in the farmers. To him, as to so many hon. members opposite, the farmers are the dregs of the country who serve only one purpose, and that is to vote the Nationalists into power after their scaremongering politics, their Native politics. Jn South Africa the position is not much different. Over a period of three years we spent R1,250,000 on eradicating jointed cactus, and it is still busy spreading. Prickly pear is still spreading also. There is a chemical which is used in America for weed control, for quick grass and other things, which works excellently between the vines, but for some inexplicable reason it kills the vines in South Africa. I ask the Minister what research he is doing in regard to weed control. We no longer have the labour to hoe out the quick grass. We no longer have the labour to hoe between the rows The onion farmers at Caledon no longer have the labour to weed their onion-beds in order to keep them clean. The rest of the world is making progress, but we are lagging behind in South Africa. What does the Minister intend doing? In America cotton, e.g. was one of the labour-intensive types of agriculture. As the result of chemical weed control, it has to-day become a labour extensive form of farming. In South Africa we can also do that, but I ascertained from experts that as the result of soil conditions and climatic conditions, rainfall, temperatures, humidity and various other factors, the position is that what is good for the one is perhaps bad for the other. In view of the fact that the Minister wants to do nothing in regard to our labour position, may I appeal to him to do something to ensure that our technical officers do not leave the service and accept better-paid posts in other countries.

It is you who criticize them so much.

No, we do not criticize them. The best officials in this country are still the United Party supporters; why should we therefore criticize them? That may perhaps be the reason why the hon. the Minister does not want to pay these people decent salaries, because he knows that they support the United Party. But if that is the reason then I ask the Minister please to be big-hearted. It will give the Minister greater satisfaction if we have a flourishing farming community, if perhaps he again wants to win a political election.

Mr. Speaker, just recently politics in the Free State have not been interesting, but I feel it is my duty to bring the meaning of the election results in the Kroonstad (West) constituency to the notice of hon. members. Kroonstad (West) is situated in the North-Western Free State crop farming areas where the farmers are experiencing particular problems. The fact that the Government is not unsympathetic towards those problems is proved by the fact that the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing last year paid a special visit at short notice to those areas and investigated these problems. But the United Party particularly selected the Kroonstad (West) constituency to prove that the farmers of the North-Western Free State are not satisfied with Government policy. The election campaign there was introduced with a great flourish by no less a person than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

The result of the matter was that the United Party candidate there lost his deposit, and that is my reply to the harlequin speech we have just heard and to all the derogatory stories we have heard from the Opposition in regard to agricultural matters. The greatest tragedy is that the United Party candidate shortly before the election was too ashamed to admit that he belonged to the United Party, and kept silent in his pamphlets and advertisements about the fact that he was the official United Party candidate. The point is that the crop farmers of the North-Western Free State, in spite of their problems, stood solidly behind the Government and are grateful for the measures effected to alleviate their problems.

Are they satisfied?

The reply to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is that just as little as he realizes the problems of Durban (Umlazi) at the moment, just as little does he realize the problems of the maize farmers, and therefore he should rather keep quiet.

I just want to refer briefly to the serious problem of monoculture. We are facing at the moment in the maize-growing areas, and particularly in the so-called mealie triangle of the country. In order to realize the scope of this problem I must point out that at the moment there are almost 5,000,000 morgen on which mealies are being planted, whereas in the case of the crop approaching nearest to it, viz. wheat, the figure is only 1,500,000 morgen. Our most important crops take up approximately 9,000,000 morgen at the moment, of which maize takes up more than half. The average farmer in my vicinity, who owns between 300 and 400 morgen, ploughs everything and plants practically only maize; for various important reasons he does not see his way open to switch over to other crops. In the first place it has been proved over and over again that cash crops are the most remunerative; secondly, it is difficult to switch over to alternative crops like nitrogenous crops because of labour problems, if one tackles those crops on a large scale; and thirdly, it is difficult to switch over to planting grass on a large scale and to go in wholly for stock-farming on such small units because there is such a long interim period during which the farmer does not have a cash income. In other words, the hard facts are that after two years of struggling in those areas, the farmers still maintain that they get the fastest cash turnover by planting maize. This position requires serious attention and planning on various levels, in my humble opinion. In the first place, I am asking for research on an emergency basis in regard to all the various root rot and other diseases which at the moment constitute a very serious threat in those areas, much more so than drought.

It has also spread to the United Party.

Secondly, I am pleading that serious attention should be devoted to the development of disease-resistant varieties. In the third place, I plead for urgent measures to protect soil fertility. In this regard I wish to refer the House to an article in “Boerdery in Suid-Afrika” of August 1964 by Professor E. R. Orchard, in which he proves that we do not replace in the form of fertilizers what we take out of the soil. He points out, e.g., that recently the winner of a maize-growing competition, who had a yield of 50 bags per morgen, spent R17 per morgen on fertilizers, but that in fact he deprived his soil of its fertility to the extent of R18 per morgen; in other words, he should have put back R18 more in the way of fertilizers if he did not want to impoverish his soil. Professor Orchard makes the following important statement—

But there is no Minister of Agriculture present now. You are wasting your breath.

If I am wasting my breath, that is my affair and not the hon. member’s.

He at least still has breath to waste; you have none.

My plea is that serious attention should be devoted to this statement made by Professor Orchard in regard to the policy of fixing prices in future; that what is actually being taken out of the soil should also be taken into consideration when prices are fixed in future. Further, and finally, I plead that serious attention be devoted to rotational crops for the Northern Free State areas. We know that a few years ago in the winter rainfall area, in the grain areas here, the position was very critical, and the position was saved by the discovery of a crop like lupins, and it is urgently necessary that through the joint efforts of our farmers and the Agricultural Department we should obtain such rotational crops to save the position in our part of the country also.

I do not want to follow the previous speaker because I am not a farmer. All I can say is that it is quite obvious to me that the case made out by this side that the Government has messed up the farming industry has been proved up to the hilt.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance to clarify one or two things. In his Budget speech he said in dealing with the savings levy—

Then in reply to the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) and the hon. member for Pipetown (Mr. Hopewelll, who queried the wisdom of this loan levy having no fixed repayment date, the Minister said across the floor that the Income Tax Act would fix the date of repayment. Of course, we do not get the Act until June and I do think the Minister should tell us clearly whether a date for the repayment of this levy is going to be fixed or not; whether his Budget statement is correct or whether his statement across the floor is correct.

Then I want to turn to one other matter relating to the Budget speech before starting on my speech proper. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) and others gave the Minister a tremendous boost for the concession he made to married couples as far as income-tax is concerned. I want to refresh the memory of hon. members as to what the hon. the Minister said in his Budget speech. He said—

Sir, some confusion seems to have arisen as to the Minister’s intention, some people even in the Press contending that tax in this instance would be charged on R4,000 only whereas, of course, the Minister quite definitely said that tax would be calculated on R5,000 at the rate applicable to R4,000. I went through the Schedule which we were given and I worked out a number of cases, with most extraordinary results. In the one instance which the Minister gave there is a difference of only a few rand if you work out the tax payable in terms of the statement contained in this printed document of 25 March 1965. When you consider that the Minister has a budget surplus of R110,000,000, the other examples are even more extraordinary. Where the husband earns R2,500 and the wife R1,500, in other words, where the joint income is R4,000, the rate applicable is the rate relating to R3,250, i.e. the husband’s income of R2,500 and one-half of the wife’s income, which is R750. Sir, if we follow the schedule you find that the tax payable is exactly the same in each case. In all the cases set out in the Schedule where the joint income is anything up to R5,000, the tax payable is practically the same.

You must go back to school again.

The hon. member who has just interjected is one of those who were so pleased with the Minister about this so-called concession. I will now give official figures from the Revenue Office and this is the sum total of the concession given to married couples where the wife is working. We know of course that the reason why wives work is because they are simply forced to under present conditions. Where the joint income is R1,200 there is no saving; where the joint income is R 1,600 there is no saving; where the joint income is R2,000 there is a saving of R3; on a joint income of R2,500 the saving is R4; on a joint income of R3,000 the saving is R3; on a joint income of R4,000 the saving is R8 and on a joint income of R5,000 the saving is R16. But when we come to the higher income we find a different position. The hon. the Minister specially mentioned in his Budget speech that he would have to make some changes in respect of incomes just over R8,000 in view of possible anomalies. On a joint income of R6,000 the saving would be R130; on R8,000 the saving would be R240: on R8,500 the saving would be R46 and on R9,000 the saving would be R9. Now, Sir, if you go to the annual report of the Secretary for Inland Revenue and you take the trouble of investigating the figures you find that 90 per cent of our married taxpayers do not have an income above R4,000. The bulk of the people making up this 90 per cent have working wives because in the case of people in those particular income groups the wives simply have to work. In other words, as far as 90 per cent of the joint taxpayers are concerned, there is going to be no relief whatsoever. Sir, it was rather extraordinary that so many hours before the polling booths closed, this announcement was made by the Minister. On the face of it it looked as though the Minister was making a very great concession to working wives. I am perfectly sure that the Minister’s statement had quite a considerable effect on the results of the election, and all the tough and nasty things that might be said about the Minister now with regard to this matter will be perfectly correct. Sir, I concede that the Revenue Department has worked out these figures in a slightly different way from the way in which I worked them out, and I have taken legal opinion on the matter. In any event, there is very little difference between our figures. There is so little at stake that obviously nobody will test the matter in the courts. I do suggest that the Minister’s generosity to working wives is exceeded only by his ability and skill as a tailor, and his estimated surplus of R110,000,000 will now increase by the major portion of the R 1,400,000 which he estimates this concession will cost.

Sir, having said those few words in approbation and acclamation in that connection in regard to the Minister of Finance, I want to turn to the subject that I really want to speak about and that is the question of the so-called industries on the borders of the reserves, and then to the question of the town native and his not being detribalized but being merely a migrant labourer or a temporary sojourner. Sir, we can go through the so-called border areas one by one to see how far the scheme has proceeded since the scheme was announced by the hon. the Prime Minister, with starry eyes some years ago, and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs told us that when the safety of a nation was at stake economic laws must be broken.

Mr. Speaker, the Government has conceded that in the East London area the nearest factory to the border of the native areas is 35 miles away. The Africans must apparently go home to sleep every night and return in the morning—70 miles by bicycle, I presume. I do not know what sort of roads there are but I understand that they are not too good and I want to ask what sort of border industry this is. Sir, I took the trouble to drive from Church Square, Pretoria, to Rosslyn, checking the distance on my speedometer. The municipal boundary is approximately six miles from Church Square and Rosslyn is just under six miles from this boundary. A new native town is being built a few miles away, and according to the Minister, the Rosslyn area can draw on the whole of the North and Eastern Transvaal for labour. In fact, at one factory —the one which was induced to move to Rosslyn from Roodepoort because they could not get Native labour at Roodepoort—I talked to some of the African workers there and found that some came from the Rand, some from Louis Trichardt, some from Pietersburg and in fact from the whole of Pretoria’s hinterland. This township of Rosslyn, if successful, is obviously going to create for Pretoria the same difficulties as the industries brought to Johannesburg during the war. In those days there was no housing for the Africans. They came into work in industries, and we had to win a war against considerable opposition in our own ranks. Sir, we needed the Black labour then but we did not have the manpower to pursue the war and at the same time tackle this question of the provision of housing. But now, Sir, the same conditions as existed in Johannesburg, are being brought into being in all the other big centres. Those same conditions are being brought into being by an unpractical vision on the part of the Prime Minister, and this matter is now being handled by his lackeys, handled under the fear that they will lose their jobs if they do not make a semblance of carrying out his instructions. The same position that applies to East London and Rosslyn applies to all the other so-called border areas.

I want to turn now to the question of the cost of this scheme. When this scheme was first mooted we told the Government that the United Kingdom, for instance, had spent £500,000,000 on new towns for the dispersal of industries and that this sum had provided 40,000 jobs at a cost of £2,250, i.e. R2,500 per job. These figures were jeered at and Government members were even ruder to us then than they normally are. But what is the position to-day? Dr. Rautenbach, Director of the Natural Resources Development Council and Chairman of the Committee in charge of Border Development, stated in Johannesburg recently that R80,000,000 had been invested by the Government in these schemes and had provided jobs for 16,000 workers, 12,000 of whom were Africans. This works out at R5,000 per head, double what it cost in Britain. This matter goes further, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Rautenbach stated that this figure of R80,000,000 did not include investment by the authorities in such services as water, power, transport and schools. Then in December 1964 Dr. Quass, then Industrial Adviser to the Natural Resources Development Council wrote an a tide for Commerce and Industries, a Government publication. In this article he estimated an expenditure of R320,000,000 for the development of industry to carry 36,000 employees. This included R40,000,000 for roads. Roads, water and power would cost another 25 per cent, bringing the cost to R400,000,000 for 36,000 jobs, a cost of over R11,000 per job. Dr. Quass also stated that an expenditure of R 10,000,000 a year would give employment to 75 Africans in industry, a cost of R13,000 per African employed. Sir, these figures have not been plucked from the blue sky. Another official report says that to make Bantustan border industries work, jobs must be found outside agriculture for 50,000 Africans per year. Sir, I would be entitled to take a cost of R13,000 per employee, but even taking a cost of R 10,000 per job, the cost would be R500,000,000 per annum. Do hon. members on the Government side consider that this is a practical proposition? Of course they do not, and that is why they are not trying to carry out the Prime Minister’s original idea. I want to remind you, Sir, that this grandiose scheme was based on the premise that the factories and industries would be in White areas on or near the borders of the reserves and that the African workers would have to go back to sleep daily in their own homelands. This was the essence of the Prime Minister’s thinking. This is what happens, of course, in Johannesburg and the other large towns, but there we are told that the Africans are temporary sojourners or migrant labourers. If hon. members on that side still think that they are temporary sojourners I am sure they will not think so for long. I am quite prepared to lay considerable odds that these areas will be made so-called Bantu homelands in due course, and that “due course” will not be in the very distant future. The residential areas outside the big towns will very soon become homelands for the Blacks; make no mistake about that. When hon. members opposite realized how ridiculous all this nonsense was they brought out the word “decentralization”; they said that we had to decentralize industry. Subsequently they said, “Now we are going to take industries to areas where there is a lot of unemployment.” Sir, where is the unemployment in this country to-day? I do not know and they do not know either. New factories are now to be encouraged to go to country towns too. The hon. the Minister admitted this in reply to a question which I put to him recently. The hon. member for Jeppes, has on several occasions completely debunked the suggestion that industry in this country is over-centralized, but this decentralization call had to be brought into existence in order to distract attention from industries on the borders of the reserves, the slogan of which was to save the nation. Sir, you will remember that the Minister of Economic Affairs said, “When the safety of a nation is at stake economic laws must be broken.” This whole policy has become a farce. I want to remind you too, Sir, that when the Government was assiduously spreading the rumour that the Vaal basin was already short of water, we pricked that bubble by referring them to the report of the Natural Resources Development Council in 1953. Care had to be taken in regard to this water question, of course, but there were no grounds to discourage ordinary industries from starting on the Reef as was done and as is being done to a large, extent at present. The Minister then said that he was appointing a new committee to investigate the water resources of the Vaal basin, and he told me in reply to a question this Session that the report was not expected before the end of this year. This water question was important enough for the Minister to appoint a commission to go into this question, but what did I find a few months ago to my astonishment—and this was confirmed by the hon. the Minister in replying to a question of mine" The Vaal River water is used by Pretoria and, in addition to that—I am sure, Sir, you will not believe me when I tell you this—it is used for industries in Rosslyn. This border area township is using water of which we are short on the Reef. [Interjection.] The hon. the Minister told me that in reply to a question. Do you know, Sir, that if an industrialist on the Reef to-day wants additional labour, he has only to apply to the local authority’s non-European Affairs Department or to the Department of Bantu Administration and he can import as many additional African labourers as he wants, at great trouble and expense, of course. I must admit, Sir, that factories and industries have opened on the Reef, but not nearly enough, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs will give me some sort of answer to the following questions: (I) Does he not agree that the hon. the Prime Minister’s original plan has broken down? (2) In view of the fact that Africans can be imported for industry in any numbers is it not time for him to prevail on the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration to make the Reef one influx control area? (3) Does he not agree that far more industry is required on the Reef to replace the dying mines? (4) Does he not agree that the hon. the Prime Minister’s original plan is beyond the country’s economic resources and in fact always was completely impossible of fulfillment from any angle? (5) Does he not agree that this breaking of economic laws is the real reason for our failure to increase our manufactured exports. Raw materials, of course, can always be exported if in short world supply. Then I think I have time for one more question: (7) Will the Minister please tell us how far he has got in his preparations for the Kennedy Round Conferences, which I understand are being held in May, and whether he is using the services of organized industry in this connection.

I still have time to ask another question: Does he not agree that the border industry competition is unfair competition with other industries and that it constitutes a stumbling block to expansion in existing industries? I realize the hon. the Minister will not answer all those questions. If he were to answer them all, he would embarrass his party. They are all serious questions. I hope he will choose those to which he can reply without embarrassing his party, and if he replies to them, I know I will get an honest reply.

The hon. member who has just sat down spoke in a way which has been characteristic of the United Party’s criticism of this Budget thus far. The United Party have taken extracts from the Budget, discussed them and criticized them. I want to refer immediately to one point raised by the hon. member who has just sat down. I shall be pleased if he will give me his attention. He discussed the concession made by the hon. the Minister to married working women. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) is not here now but when he spoke the other afternoon he said that this was not a taxation measure at all but a measure which must encourage married women to work. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) adopts the attitude that we are dealing here with an out and out tax measure. The two hon. members differ in that respect.

The hon. member for Benoni has the taxation tables on his desk. If he has worked things out correctly, then we have done the wrong thing in making this concession The hon. member said that the saving on a joint income would be R3. Where a man and his wife both work and they earn jointly, for the sake of argument, R2,000—the man earns R 1,200 and his wife R800—the tax is R144. If we take R 1,200 plus R400 and we work out the tax according to the relevant scale, it works out at R112, which means a saving of R32. Let me give another example. Where a husband earns R2,000 and his wife R 1,000— that is to say R3,000 jointly—the tax is R224.

Ask the income-tax office.

No, I try to work these things out for myself. Where a husband earns R2,000 and we add half of his wife’s income, that is to say, R500, we find that the tax on R2,500 is R184. If we deduct R184 from R224, we find a saving of R40. Take the case where the husband and wife jointly earn R5,000—the man R3,000 and his wife R2,000. The tax on R4,000 is R408 and the tax on R3,000 plus R 1,000 is R314. This means a saving of R94.

Nonsense!

The hon. member says I am making a mistake. Their side of the House will have ample opportunity to stand up and point out to me where I am wrong. The hon. member has the tables before him; he can work out the figures for himself. The figure which he gave this House is totally wrong and misleading.

The people about whom the hon. member is so concerned—we are all concerned about them—are those having four children and who are only considered for normal tax when they earn R234 per month. The hon. member said that there was no concession to them. But in any case those people do not pay tax to the Central Government. Up to the present the United Party have been the only false note as far as this Budget is concerned, bearing in mind how it was received by the Press of South Africa, by the financial writers in our newspapers, by leading industrialists and also by organized commerce and industry. For example, Assacom says: “The Minister’s Budget is greeted with approval on most points.” The Federated Chamber of Industries says: “The Minister’s optimistic and realistic appraisal is shared,” “endorses the Minister’s views”, “note other steps with approval”. There was a particularly favourable article in the Cape Times just after the Budget: on 27 March there were headlines in the newspaper in regard to the reaction of the stock market: “Realizing that the Budget did not herald material changes for business in South Africa the share market resumed its quietly firm tendency.” Favourable comments have even come from London in regard to this Budget. The hope was expressed that the British Minister of Finance would follow the example of our Minister of Finance in certain respects, such as the loan levy.

I think that the Opposition make the mistake of not seeing the Budget as a whole. I do not think that one can look at this Budget without also looking at the monetary policy and monetary measures which have given rise to this Budget. One cannot look at the Budget without considering the measure of danger of inflation which exists in South Africa. I think that one must view this Budget against the background of the development which we have had in South Africa since 1952, the Budgets which we have had since that year, the growth which we have experienced and the position in which we find ourselves at present. I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that we have had a tremendous credit expansion in South Africa during these years. The old situation which we had in which money was formed in this country by the Reserve Bank and by the commercial banks, has disappeared. New deposit-receiving institutions, new money forming institutions have come into being and this has brought about a tremendous credit expansion in South Africa.

When one sees this Budget as a whole I think one is better able to decide whether this Budget is a success or not and whether it complies with the requirements of the times or not. Every Budget is to my mind a product of its time but it is also a creator of its time. South Africa, like any individual, has a certain ability to be successful in the economic sphere. A person has the means to do certain economic things, to undertake them, to digest them and to finance them. Our country has the same means. As long as our country is successful in the economic sphere within that means, so long will we be able to maintain this continued curve, so long will we be able to continue this process of growth which we have. We must also consider this Budget in the light of what we in South Africa can do and what we can achieve. If we progress too swiftly we must of necessity experience certain problems. But if we stay within our means to handle matters, to digest them and to finance them, we shall be successful. In that respect I cannot do otherwise than say that this Budget is a definite success.

The Opposition have come to light with loose points of criticism. They say, for example, that the Budget does not encourage productivity sufficiently. When we look at the Budget we see many things which encourage productivity. Very large amounts are going to be spent in order to train people, to train them technically. This in itself is already a positive effort to increase productivity. The complaint has been made that companies are not sufficiently encouraged to increase production. Mr. Speaker, to my mind that argument does not hold water because the companies in South Africa have held back 33 per cent and 39 per cent of their incomes for reserve purposes. Is it not possible for them to make investments from those reserves in new production factors? The hon. member for Kensington was very worried about the people who invest their money in shares. He was worried that the companies will now pay lower dividends. I repeat that if the companies want to do it. there is scope for them to increase their production. The percentage increase is not on small amounts. There are 133 companies which have on the average made an additional profit of nearly R 1,000,000 per company over the past year, and these in the commercial sector have made almost R750,000 per company more. My contention is that there is ample scope for these companies to expand and to tackle new economic undertaking.

Hon. members also complained about the 5 per cent surcharge. Five per cent sounds a lot but 5 per cent on 30 per cent is only 1½ per cent, and this in any case is not very much. This brings me to the question of exports. Hon. members have asked what the Government is doing in regard to exports.

On page 74 of this development programme hon. members will see what is being done in regard to exports. There is the establishment of an Export Credit Insurance Corporation, the provision of funds for the financing of the export of capital goods for medium and long terms, the appropriation of a certain amount for the establishment of a national export organization, the stimulation of the export trade by an income-tax rebate to exporters according to how successful they are in increasing their export trade in that particular year, the expansion of South Africa’s overseas’ trade representation and so forth. I think that it is a difficult matter to encourage exports from South Africa, no matter how important this may be to us from a long term point of view. It is absolutely necessary that we should do this from a long term point of view, but we also have a very large local market. We have an expanding local market. We have a non-White population whose purchasing power increases annually and who are consumers of all sorts of consumer goods. That is why it is difficult to promote this export programme. That does not mean to say that positive efforts are not being made to promote it, but it remains a long term project.

Hon. members have advanced the argument of overtaxation. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) spoke yesterday about “gross overtaxation”, if I understood her correctly. What is the position? If we say that the people of South Africa are being overtaxed, we must say so according to a particular yardstick. The yardstick by means in terms of which I can to some extent test that statement, is what other countries pay in taxation. In Great Britain, on an amount of R2,000, a man and wife with two children pay R73, in Australia, R146 and in South Africa, R48. On R3,000, the figures are R340, R374 and R150, and on R5,000 the figures are R952, R1,036 in Australia and R417 here. It appears to me that when we consider the position in other countries, we find that we are not overtaxed here. Why do we have a surplus this year? It is not because the hon. the Minister has overtaxed the people of South Africa but because the economy in terms of the Budget has not grown by 1½ per cent but by 11 per cent. That is the gross growth. That is the reason why we have this enormous surplus. Because this surplus is not the result of overtaxation it is not a sound argument to say that the money must be returned to the people. This is one of the things which falls within the fiscal policy.

In a year such as this year no people with any economic sense at all can advocate that the money should be given back to the taxpayers. If we had had a year of reasonable progress or even a year of recession, it would have been an excellent idea, it would have been a very sound fiscal policy to repay the money to the taxpayers in order by so doing to revitalize the economy. This was in the discretion of the hon. the Minister and he decided to transfer that money to Loan Account. For the edification of the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cron je) I want to ask whether it is actually a surplus as such. It is popularly called a surplus but if we lump together all the requirements of the State, if we put these two accounts together, we find that we do not have a surplus this year; we have a deficit. The fact that these accounts are separate results in the fact that we are not given a clear picture of our country’s fiscal or loan policy. But when we bring these two accounts together, we are more easily able to judge what the country’s fiscal requirements and its loan requirements are. We can then decide in this way whether we are going to keep all the money on capital account or whether we are going to give back a portion of it. The Opposition say that whether it is spent on Loan Account or on Revenue Account or is repaid to the taxpayer, the position still remains that we are placing the money in circulation once again. The point is this: If it is given back to the public, they spend it on consumer goods. It falls back into the consumer stream; it results in a demand inflation and it increases prices. If we use it on capital account, it means that there is at least that amount of money which is not put back into circulation, or, at least, is put into circulation by roundabout means; a portion of it is productive, particularly productive such as, for example, the money which is used for the Orange River scheme or for loans to universities or to students. One can actually say that part of it is not at all inflationary.

I shall be pleased if the hon. member who is to speak after me will tell me whether the amount of R4,000,000 is inflationary. I do not think so. I think that the hon. the Minister has followed an extremely sensible fiscal policy by transferring this money to Loan Account. Of course, the Opposition are traditionally in favour of a surplus on Revenue Account being returned, while the Nationalist Party Government prefers to transfer that money to Loan Account. That has always been the difference between us since 1948. I just want to say, Sir, that from 1948 up to last year, we spent R3,573,000 on Loan Account. During that period our national debt has increased by only R2,000,042; in other words, we have financed our Loan Account out of Revenue to an amount of only R 1,531,000. This has brought about a fantastic saving for us in the form of interest and in regard to our commitments in the form of redemption and so forth. I just want to tell you, Sir, that in 1948 nearly 10 per cent of our Revenue Account was intended to cover interest payments, while this year it is only 6 per cent. Hon. members now say that the hon. the Minister has said that people must not spend so much, and yet he continues to spend. They spoke about a “spending spree”. They say this simply because this year we are spending 12 per cent more on Loan Account than we did last year. Actually, it is not a “spending spree” because included in that amount of R446,000,000 there are certain transfer pay—merits—certain loans are being incurred and so forth. I think that one can say that the actual increased expenditure on capital account in comparison with last year is only 9 per cent or 10 per cent. When we look at the White Paper we see that this is in complete conformity with what we spent in past years. It is also in conformity with what is taking place in the private sector.

I want to say something else in regard to this question that people are being asked to save. Hon. members actually ridiculed the hon. the Minister to a certain extent because he said that people must save for prosperity. Hon. members say that the people are becoming confused because in earlier years we said “Spend for prosperity.” I want to point out to hon. members that it was not only this side of the House which said “Spend for prosperity” in 1962. That side of the House also said it. Hon. members opposite should read the speech of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) which was made during the Budget debate at the time. He complained vociferously about the R 1,600,000 which, so he said, “was lying idle in the country”. He said that we should encourage spending; we should encourage development. I just want to read what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) had to say on 26 March 1962. He said—

At that time hon. members of the Opposition. as well as the hon. the Minister, told the people to spend. Prosperity has two legs. It has the leg of spending and the leg of saving. When one emphasizes the one leg. one does not say that the other leg must come to a complete halt. This year all that we say is: “Save, but do not stop spending completely.”

In discussing these matters and looking at the Budget, I have only two things to say before I resume my seat. The one is that we in this House and the public of South Africa must once again be reminded that the old adages are still true in the financial sphere as well. One cannot reap unless one has sown. A person, like a nation, must live within his means. What all of us together in South Africa are doing is the sum total of what we are producing, and, according to economic principles, it is divided up among us. The harder we work and the more we produce, the more we earn and the higher becomes the standard of living of each one of us. I just want to point out that the standard of living of the ordinary man in South Africa has risen annually over the past 10 years by 2.5 per cent. Over the past five years it has risen by 4.7 per cent per annum. This is the real income, that is to say, the increase in his standard of living.

We must work hard, we must live within our means and we must save. Not even under the most wonderful credit schemes which this country has imported from the U.S.A. or anywhere else, has a method ever been discovered in terms of which a person can in the long run spend more than he earns or produces. We must increase our productivity and then our economy will remain sound. The public of South Africa must bear these basic principles in mind. We have experienced a period in which we have lived in the future in which we lived ahead of time. We must return to the present and then we shall be able to maintain the constant growth of South Africa. There is nothing to prevent our doing this. It is a growth which will take account of our manpower, of our balance of payments position and so forth.

Before I resume my seat, I should like to put one question to the hon. the Minister. When we consider the position in the world to-day it appears to me that the world of international finance is uncertain. Financial matters are uncertain in Britain; matters are. to a certain extent, uncertain in America in regard to the dollar. We see the action of France on the international money market. I should like to put this question to the hon. the Minister: If something drastic were to happen in the sphere of international finance; if, for example, Britain were to devalue; if, for example, the price of gold were to be raised or doubled, do the hon. the Minister and the Government have the necessary powers to overcome a crisis in the financial position of South Africa until the dust has cleared and until a decision has been arrived at in regard to the position? Do they have the powers to handle the tremendous speculation which we can foresee may take place in certain instances in South Africa on the stock market, or in connection with any other matter, until they have decided how further to act?

The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots) has made an interesting speech on the speeches made from this side of the House. To deal with his last question to the hon. the Minister of Finance first I think that is a question the Minister of Finance must answer when the time comes. The question of the international monetary systems and the position of sterling and the dollar is one which every country must answer itself. We are in the fortunate position that we produce gold. No body wants to see devaluation of any currency. The effect would be very deleterious to the economy of the country concerned. But that is a decision that must be made when the question arises.

The hon. member for Queenstown replied to the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) on the question of the joint taxation of the incomes of ‘he husband and wife. I would like to ask the hon. member for Queenstown whether he agrees with the system under which the combined incomes of the husband and wife is taxed? After all to-day, with the emancipation of our womenfolk, when a wife goes out to work she stands on her own feet. Their combined income should not be taxed. They should be taxed individually. It does create a terrific hardship. The hon. member went on to say that the only false note struck in the whole of this country in regard to the Budget by the hon. the Minister was struck by the United Party. He quoted from newspaper cuttings to prove his point. He also said that the share market went quietly on his way on a firm note. Well, Sir, that is just the thing. That was the impact of the Budget. It was not startling. It really had no impact as far as industry and the share market were concerned. We in South Africa since this Government came into power have got used to the hon. the Minister of Finance coming to this House and declaring a surplus and then transferring the surplus to Revenue Account and Loan Account, and forgetting about the people who helped him to get that surplus. This year he has come with the colossal surplus of R110,000,000 and again the taxpayer has been forgotten. He has offered them nothing in the way of return for their loyalty to this country of ours. After all if we are gong to go on in this manner, the taxpayer will say: Well, what difference does it make, my taxes will never come down. That is one of the items that the Nationalist Party and this Government have got to live down, that while they have been in power they have never been able to reduce the taxation to the man in the street, notwithstanding the enormous surpluses that they have declared from time to time.

The Government feels that they can get away with this year after year, and specially under the P.A.Y.E. system where they feel that the taxpayer by paying his taxation in this way, will not notice any increase, and therefore there will be no trouble. But I would like to remind this House of what is happening to-day with the high cost of labour. You find that there is a tendency to-day, in order to attract labour, for the employer to pay this tax on behalf of his employees. That is the way it is. But there is no doubt about it that the taxpayer has not benefited to any extent in this Budget that has been presented to us, and as I say there is nothing to thank the Nationalist Party for since they have been in power because no relief has been given as far as taxes are concerned.

The Government admittedly, as the result of continued prodding from this side of the House have increased pensions and have granted relief in various ways, and this year they have also relaxed the means test. Again I want to say with the enormous surplus that the Minister has, he could have gone very much further, but other speakers on this side of the House will deal with that aspect. Suffice it to say that when you look at the White Paper on page 22 at the indices of retail prices, you will find that with the retail price 100 in 1953, for foodstuffs the index has risen to 124.8 to date, and all items, including clothing, have risen to 125.5. These figures must be taken into account when dealing with the question of pensions and the rising cost-of-living.

Mr. Speaker, with the rising cost of production and the real purchasing power of the R receding daily, the man in the street finds it getting more difficult to balance his Budget on his fixed salary. During the war time when the United Party was in power we were faced with that position, and as you know, Mr. Speaker, we introduced cost-of-living allowances to help the workers, but these allowances to-day have been consolidated in the salaries and wages. Mr. Speaker, the scheme had its merits, and the hon. the Minister, if he is not able to control inflation, may have to reconsider introducing a measure similar to this in order to help out our civil servants who are experiencing difficulties as a result of rising costs.

Mr. Speaker, the standard of living of the average White South African has risen, but it has risen in this way that both husband and wife work, and that is the standard on which they live to-day. It has had its effects on family life, but it is a system we have got to face up to and it will be with us for a long time. The Government should take note of that. In the Budget the hon. the Minister has made no mention of increased family allowances to encourage larger families. The Government’s efforts to discipline the taxpayer to save by introducing a loan levy will prove of little value, unless the wage-earner and the salaried man have the necessary funds to save. The average working man to-day, in the vast majority of cases, cannot save and lives from hand to mouth and exists on extensive credit granted to him when buying clothing and household goods. I think we must get away from the idea that everybody in this country is prosperous, because that is not so. There are some very poor people in this country. Where the wife cannot work, the husband struggles on to keep a large family going, and he finds it very difficult with the rising cost-of-living. The hon. the Minister and that side of the House probably do not know of these people, but there are many of them, very, very poor people in our community. The hon. Minister’s hint to introduce a measure of price control in the form of a purchase tax, I think, is one that should be taken note of, because one must realize what happened overseas when the British Government placed a purchase tax on commodities, such as household goods, motor cars, etc. It caused a considerable recession in those industries, to such an extent that they had to grant relief to the taxpayers as far as this purchase tax was concerned. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots) spoke of productivity, but this particular Government of ours has since it has been in power, failed to make full economical use of the manpower available in this country. The Government is in a cleft stick of political ideology as far as labour is concerned. The ideological legislation in relation to labour over the years, has been pressed on with regardless of economic consequences, and like the lady’s slip is beginning to show. The desperate attempts of the Government to recruit skilled labour overseas have had very little success, notwithstanding the attractive terms that have been offered to would be immigrants. I do not know whether hon. members know—those who have been overseas will know—that there is a world shortage of skilled labour and the very attractive conditions under which workers live overseas, make them reluctant to leave home. They have a high-wage-scale. The hon. member for Queenstown was quoting scales of taxation overseas, but I would like to remind him that they have a high wage-scale over there, plus family allowances and other fringe benefits that we do not have in this country, such as a national pension scheme, a national health scheme, and they also have television. These are very big factors, to take into consideration when you want to induce immigrants coming to this country; we have none these benefits in our country. The main reason why they come here is our sunshine and nothing else.

The lack of a positive policy in the field of industrial training is of course well known. You have a divided control as far as training is concerned. The Labour Department controls the body, the technical colleges, universities and vocational schools control the teaching. There is no combination at all, and the result is that we are turning out very few trained executives and artisans through this source. Industry itself recognizes this fact and most of our big industrial units, such as the mines, have set up schools for training and have done everything possible to recruit would-be workers and technicians and they do a lot of the training themselves. They do not say it, but it is an admission of the fact that the Government is not doing its duty in that respect. But they cannot cater for the whole of the industrial market of this country and there is a short-fall. I think the Government must wake up to the fact that they are not going to get skilled technicians from overseas unless they follow the policy that is followed in Germany and other countries, where they import migrant labour, migrant artisans; in other words, the artisans will come here and return home when they feel like it. We might be faced by that alternative. The migrant Bantu policy of this Government on the other hand is creating a completely unsettled Bantu population round our cities, with the net result that Bantu who are recruited for factories are trained and reach the semi-skilled stage, and then before you can say Jack Robinson, they are either endorsed out or they go home, and the possibility of them coming back is very remote. Then the factory has to start training the next batch, and the result is a very low productive ratio. That is basically unsound and that is one of the things the Government should take note of, and it should revise its policy as far as Bantu labour is concerned. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) has pointed out the difficulties they have on the East Rand and the West Rand in regard to labour, but I can assure him that these difficulties are also experienced in other areas. The Government fondly imagines that the creation of border industries is going to solve their problem. Of course it solves nothing really. It is a running away from the whole issue as far as the labour requirements of this country are concerned. We have heard a lot about crash programmes in regard to training in the various sections of our economy. Hon. members will remember that during the war when this country was faced with a very, very serious manpower shortage, the fit individuals went to the front and the semi-fit stayed here.

Not all of them.

I am told that not all of them went. I thought everybody went. But maybe most of the people on this side of the House went. But it was a critical period and the Government of the day recognized this fact. It could not import skilled artisans, but we had to get on with the job, and the basis of the industrial expansion in our country today comes from this: The Government set up the C.O.T.T. training scheme where labour was given intensive training, and they were drafted either into the army or into the private sector, and that is how this country carried on during the war years. It is something that I can commend to the Government to-day, to get on with the job and to re-introduce such a scheme, and let us train these skilled technicians that we require in the country, but you won’t get these people if you sit back and expect them to come automatically overnight out of the blue.

The hon. member who has just sat down must pardon me if I do not follow up what he said because I do not have much time at my disposal. I just want to say that during this Budget debate the Opposition have made no constructive suggestions whatsoever. They have tried to criticize every item but they have neglected to give planned advice and to suggest solutions in connection with any matter whatsoever. Their actions have been completely negative. Therefore, I want to leave the Opposition there except to add that when hon. members of the Opposition participated in the debate on agriculture it was quite noticeable that they as a party were completely out of touch with what is happening in the agricultural sphere. The figures which were mentioned, the price structures which were given, did not correctly reflect the position as it obtains at present.

I want to make use of this opportunity to take up the cudgels for agriculture and, in particular, the sector producing maize and similar crops. This Budget shows a few wonderful increases in regard to Departments exercising control over agricultural matters. As far as Lands and Settlement are concerned there is an increase of R4,310,000, as far as Water Affairs is concerned there is an increase of R6,572,000 and the State Advances Recoveries Office is to receive an additional amount of R2,000,000. But although these amounts convince us that the Nationalist Government and, in particular, the Ministers who are at the head of these Departments, does not hesitate to make more capital available in order to supply the requirements of agriculture, I do want to say a few words in regard to a particular aspect of the matter—a State-aided production costs insurance scheme. You see, as far as State Advances are concerned there has been a considerable increase of R1,500,000 for production cost purposes. As far as the Land Bank is concerned there are also large amounts made available for fertilizers—R10,300,000; an amount of R3,125,000 is also being made available by the Land Bank to agricultural cooperatives. These are large amounts which are intended to assist agriculture to plant its product, to cultivate and scientifically fertilize the soil and to make use of weed-killers and pollination. I mention these figures because in the light of these facts I have come to the conclusion that positive action must be taken in order to protect the farmer, particularly in connection with the spending of these large amounts of money. Therefore, I am suggesting a State-aided production costs insurant e scheme. I want to call it a State guaranteed scheme to start with because premiums will have to be paid by the farmers who wish to be covered by such a scheme although it will be the task of the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing to work out the scheme. When one considers the amounts which are made available in this regard, the amount of Loan capital, all of which is risk capital it is very clear that there is a great risk factor as far as agriculture is concerned in regard to the cultivation of those products which the country cannot do without. We have a variety of insurances in various spheres for agriculture. We already have hail insurance and there are numbers of insurances in other spheres which protect the individual against some or other contingency, even in regard to claims which can be made against him. In order to prove that the farmer is ready for an insurance scheme I want to say that in regard to hail damage insurance alone, the Land Bank gives advances to the co-operatives resulting in an amount of R537,217 in premiums. as appears from the report of the Land Bank. I want to point out further that no production costs insurance scheme is applied in other countries. More comprehensive schemes are applied—schemes covering full crop insurance. I shall indicate later why at this stage I am not advocating full crop insurance. We have here a report regarding a comprehensive crop insurance scheme by an expert in the Division of Agricultural Economic Research. In his introductory remarks he has, inter alia, this to say—(translation)

That a comprehensive “all risk” insurance follows logically upon specialized insurance in agriculture, such as fire and hail insurance. Even a moment of thought makes one realize that it is virtually useless to insure, for example, against hail alone while the farmer’s crop is also threatened by, inter alia, drought, floods, hot weather, insects, diseases and pests. No effective defence is available against most of these dangers and risks, that is to say, dangers or risks which are beyond the control of the farmer.

If in the light of the facts stated here by this Chief Professional Officer one considers the position in our country, it is clear immediately that when the farmer has used these large amounts in order to try to obtain a crop, he must involuntarily live in a state of tension. I have further proof here that a very large amount of risk capital is spent in this particular sphere and I have made an estimate in regard to maize production only. I have taken these figures from a report by the Maize Board itself. In the cultivation of maize the basic production costs—and this of course excludes interest adjustments, bags and cordage, contingencies and so forth including the entrepreneur’s wage because we are dealing here with the basic production costs of maize only. If we take this basis of the Maize Board in which it fixes the basic production costs at 183.90 cents per bag, we come to the conclusion that in order to obtain an estimated crop of 70,000,000 bags, a tremendous amount of risk capital is required to be invested by the maize farmers. If then, because of climatic conditions to which I referred just now and as summed up in this report given in Agricon by Mr. O. E. Burger the Chief Professional Officer, the capital of the farmer is to a very large extent exposed to loss by certain factors completely beyond his control, it will be realized how important this matter is to the farmers. I contend that this is one of the important reasons, as has been experienced over the past two years during which period the country has been subjected to prolonged droughts (which is still the position at present in the Northern Transvaal, the Northern Free State, the South-Western Free State and in many other parts of our country, why the risk capital which is used by the farmers in order to harvest a crop is exposed to greater risks than is the capital in other industries. And, Mr. Speaker, the farmer tries to harvest a crop not only on his own behalf and that of his family in order to obtain the necessary funds to look after his family and to feed his children, but also in order to feed the nation and add to our national economy as a whole because without the products of the farmer there can be no progress in our country at all. None of the mining industries or other secondary industries can survive and prosper without having the fruit of the farmers’ labour at their disposal. When one takes these figures and analyses them further in regard to the figures which are mentioned by the Maize Board, it is very clear that there are fantastic amounts invested in risk capital. There is a comprehensive crop insurance scheme in the United States of America. I said just now that I would return to the question of why I was not advocating a comprehensive crop insurance scheme at this stage. The reason is as follows: If one considers the capital amount which is made available by the Land Bank by way of the products which are marked according to their value—and we shall have to take the market value as a basis in the application of crop insurance—no insurance company would undertake it even though the premiums were to be set considerably higher than those which have normally to be paid in connection with insurance. I doubt too whether the State would be willing to insure a colossal amount like the total value of agricultural products. If it were possible I should certainly say that such a scheme should be implemented in order to assist the farmer. The result of the introduction of a production costs insurance scheme will then be that when a farmer suffers certain losses, he will be covered by that scheme and he will then immediately be sufficiently solvent to obtain production capital for the planting of his next crop. The doubt and the sorrow which the farmer has experienced over the past few years as the result of climatic conditions is so heart-rending that one can really not do otherwise than seriously consider some or other scheme of assistance, apart from what I have already mentioned. I have already said that the Land Bank made an amount of R8,900,000 available to agricultural co-operatives in 1963 for fertilizers, and an amount of R3,300,000 for seed. In 1964 these amounts were even larger, namely, R10,300,000 for fertilizers and R3,150,000 for seed. Apart from this fact a large amount of capital is provided by our commercial banks and other bodies which have carried the farmer and enabled him to obtain the necessary means of production. Climatic conditions which have also to be considered in America and the crop insurance system there is on a broader scale than the one I am advocating. As I have said, I believe that the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing should consider this system of production costs insurance. There is a problem in connection with crop insurance because as a result of other related factors one will not always be able to obtain an accurate determination or estimate of what the actual loss of the farmer is. When I speak of production costs we do at least have all the statements at our disposal, particularly as far as fuel, fertilizers, sprays, spare parts and everything else that the farmer needs is concerned. Invoices have to be issued for all these things and so one is able to arrive at an amount which is accurate. But I also want to say that I do not advocate the introduction of a scheme which should be made compulsory for the farmer. This sort of scheme must be introduced in such a way that those who feel that they want to protect the capital which they have invested in their lands can do so on a voluntary basis. We know that under hail insurance, which is only a small fact of insurance and to which I referred just now, as a result of the amounts which are made available by the Land Bank, the farmers are proving more and more clearly every year that they require a scheme to cover and pio-tect them. There is no business man who invests as much risk capital in an industry who does not protect himself by means of insurance.

If the hon. the Minister cannot introduce a scheme of this nature immediately because he wants to consider it further, I should like to suggest that a committee or commission be appointed to give immediate attention to this question of production costs insurance. Amounts are made available for the farmers in these Estimates. We who represent agricultural constituencies feel particularly pleased in the knowledge that we have a Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and a Minister of Agricultural Technical Services who are sympathetic and we are grateful for the attitude which the hon. the Prime Minister has adopted in this state of emergency. That is why I find it particularly misplaced that the Opposition should try to make political capital out of this state of emergency. If only they were in contact with the farmers they would not do this sort of thing because the Government has proved over and over again by putting numbers of schemes into operation in the Northern Transvaal that it is sympathetic towards the farmers. This sympathy is extended to every farmer in South Africa. We have the assurance that they will do these things for the farmers in this state of emergency and that further rebuilding work will also be done at a later stage. Why should hon. members like the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) try to make use of this position in order to make a little political capital out of it? Why can the Opposition not suggest a practical plan if our plans are inadequate? No, I say that I deprecate the actions of the Opposition. In conclusion, I want to make a very earnest plea to the hon. the Minister of Finance and the other hon. Ministers to introduce this scheme which I have mentioned, the establishment of a State-aided production costs insurance scheme, as soon as possible.

If those large amounts are to be lost for a further number of years, the other assistance which the Government so readily gives agriculture will not have the desired results. If the farmer loses his risk capital it will take him at least four years under favourable circumstances to make up the backlog, according to this report. We know that it seldom if ever happens in this country that we have four successively good years, with the result that the backlog which is built up and which cannot be caught up on and which is not covered by insurance will result in the fact that the farmers will have to struggle along for a long time. I want to conclude by repeating my request that the hon. the Minister give his very urgent consideration to my suggestion in order to insure the farmer against the loss of this very large amount of risk capital which he has invested in his own interests, in the interests of South Africa and in the interests of everyone in this country, even the gold mines, the Bantu and the Whites. Everyone has to live and each man can only do his work if he has sufficient calories to give him the energy he requires. These calories are provided by the farmers of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I feel rather dissatisfied because none of the critics of agriculture is present here. But that is what happens to people who have a lot to say. They issue challenges and when those challenges are accepted, they fail to appear. None of them is here and there is nobody to reply to us. But a party which seeks to justify its existence by means of abuse and by making belittling remarks and passing unfair criticism, has no right to exist. As I have said in the past, the position is as expressed in the old saying: Undeniable facts are the weapon of the wise man but abuse and belittling remarks and unfair criticism are the weapons of the man without facts but also without wisdom. The United Party have once again come forward here to-day as in previous years with the most unfair criticism against our two Ministers of Agriculture that one can imagine but there is not one member opposite who has had the courage to suggest one single price or to say what they would do under the circumstances. It is easy to talk. The easiest speech to make is that of a member of the Opposition who can only resort to abuse and, as soon as a reply is forthcoming, he is not here. That is a very easy attitude to adopt. I said once in this House that that policy was a rattle-trap (kokkoloelogus) policy. By this I mean an ancient cart whose bushes are very badly worn so that the wheels do not run straight but wobble all over the road. That is the way in which the United Party policy is being handled. It wobbles all over the place. It no longer has a bush. It no longer runs straight and nobody can say in which direction it is heading. It has no direction at all. We have experienced that sort of policy here for a long time. We have been entertained in this regard for some time and the criticism of our Ministers of Agriculture has been so unfair that it has really been inclined to annoy one at times. If it were not for the fact that we are governed by sensible rules in this House, one could use language which was really not parlour language. Because I am rather afraid of you, Mr. Speaker, I shall not use that language here but I can tell you that I have to restrain myself because I feel like using it!

He does not feel at home.

The United Party has attacked our colour policy in the strongest language possible. They have incited the Coloureds and the Blacks and have given overseas countries to understand that this group of barbarians on this side are the oppressors of the Black man. Things got so bad that countries overseas later believed that only a little pressure would cause the fall of this Government. They also believed that there was an Opposition in South Africa which would assist in that overthrow. Now that they see that the European countries are not in favour of sanctions and boycotts, the United Party has swung aside and is seeking another weapon with which to attack the Government. Now they say, as they said during the no-confidence debate, that they want to have White leadership throughout the Republic. I say that this is supremacy because leadership is something which comes voluntarily and it will not remain voluntary under their policy. They want to place the whole country under the supremacy of the Whites and they have now given us even greater trouble than we have ever experienced before although the outside world knows that our policy is one which has more respect for human rights than that of the United Party. The United Party say that they want to maintain supremacy forever but we say that when the non-Whites are ready for it, they will be entitled to what we are entitled to. How will we now appear in the eyes of the world? Now that they see that they cannot succeed by means of that old story, the United Party have come to light with another story, but again without success. The Coloureds did not at first accept it. The Coloureds rejected them at the Provincial elections. The Coloureds no longer believe in the fine promises and honeyed words of the United Party. They voted the Progressives into the Cape Provincial Council and they rejected the United Party.

And what about you?

That honey brush was no longer successful just as it has not been successful with the farmer and the labourer for years now. But then they had another plan. To our sorrow we have been experiencing a terrible drought for four or five years now, particularly in the Northern Transvaal. This has been the position for five years. The United Party have suddenly come to light with a new idea. All of a sudden it is the hard-pressed farmers whom they wish to protect. But they do not know what is going on. They have to ask those of us who represent those farmers, because I do not think that hon. members opposite have ever approached a Minister to assist farmers who need assistance. No, they have a great deal to say in this House about the farmers but when help has to be given they are not available. We have tested this and we have proved it to them. We have two constituencies in the Northern Transvaal which have been hard hit by the drought. If there is anyone who knows them and feels sorry for them, it is we. The Ministers sitting here can also feel sorry for them because at our request they travelled through those constituencies and those dry parts and discussed matters with the farmers. If there is anyone who has seen the starving animals in the Northern Transvaal it is the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. He met those farmers and tried to reassure them. These hon. Ministers are attacked undeservedly in the most spiteful way. But that was not enough. When the Railway budget was being discussed here, hon. members opposite spoke about the railway workers. But we remember when railway workers worked for 4s. 6d. a day. We know what the United Party Government did in its time. Where then was their affection for the workers? Nothing came of it. But now they advance the argument that the Government is building its surpluses on the shoulders of the poor people. And yet, with all their fine words and with all their grand sayings, they can get nothing done. The United Party has been steadily deteriorating over the past years. If we need a yardstick in this regard we can say that those people whom they are trying to protect should want to vote for the United Party because the United Party are protecting them while the Government wants to do nothing. Surely that is the yardstick? The yardstick is that one should ask oneself where one belongs. Can the United Party not see that they are wasting their breath because the farmer and the worker know that it is lip service; it means nothing. One of the farmers here wanted to take the place of the hon. the Minister yesterday but when they were asked to give us their ideas in regard to prices and so forth, they were not here. The leader of the United Party in the Cape has moved extremely critical motions in this House every year. They even appointed a candidate at Kroonstad which is also in the drought-stricken area. Can you see their plan? They appointed a candidate in the two Lowveld constituencies where we have a majority of 4,000 and 3,000 voters, because they thought that the farmers of the Bushveld would fall for this syrup-brush attitude. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) is one of the syrup-smearers, but when we ask him to give us a price, he says he does not belong to the Government. What sort of Opposition is it which cannot use its brainpower but which can only criticize? When one asks what the farmer should receive for his maize, they say that that is the work of the Government. This simply goes to show that when they have to state their case clearly they cannot do so. Can that hon. member tell me what price should be fixed for maize? Is there any hon. member opposite who is willing to tell us? No, there is not one. Is there any one of them who can tell us what the price of meat should be? Not one of them is prepared to say a word about prices but everyone is prepared to express blind criticism of Ministers who are working day and night for the farmers.

I come back now to those two constituencies. The Opposition were overjoyed to find those two drought-stricken areas. They wanted to prove to the Nationalists that they could reduce their majority. I was at a meeting there and one of their leaders said: We know that we cannot beat you but we want to bring down your majority by 400 or 500. Do you know what happened, Sir? We won Rustenburg with a majority of 1,100 and Marico by more than 1,000 votes. These are constituencies in the drought-stricken areas. I want to ask hon. members opposite where those 1,100 and 1,000 voters, respectively, came from. They are not children who have grown up there because hon. members opposite have said that a number of people have left those districts. If ever there were districts from which people have moved and which farmers have left to find work elsewhere, it is those drought-stricken districts. People have left those areas and we have not been able to trace them, but notwithstanding this fact, the United Party lost by 1,100 and 1,000 votes respectively. Why? Who voted? They were not even able to retain the votes of their own people. I think that hon. members opposite must understand that those farmers who are in so much difficulty will not be caught out in this way. I am being very serious now. If we boast that we are a Chritian nation as do the leaders of the Opposition, we will not exploit misery and drought in order to attack the Government but we will come together as a Christian nation and we will pray. We will not adopt the attitude adopted by the Opposition. Is that the conduct of a Christian nation? I believe that the farmers who are suffering to-day will prove in the future, as Natal has proved, that these remarks of the Opposition against these two Ministers are unjustified. I believe that even the urban voters will discover in due course that hon. members opposite will never again win the vote of the rural areas.

The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha) says that the arguments that we put forward from this side of the House do not take into account the facts. Well, I will give him some facts, but in the meantime he has said a lot about the United Party which is not in line with the facts. He talks about those constituencies where they have increased their majorities, but he forgets to mention that the Nationalists have constituencies in which their majorities were reduced. When the rains come the Government likes to take responsibility for the prosperity that follows, but when drought comes they do not want to acknowledge that a lot of the losses that are suffered are due to the negligence of the Government, in not predicting these droughts when everybody knows that they come regularly in South Africa. The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. J. J. Rail) has gone out. He said that this side of the House was always destructive and not constructive. I will try to be constructive, but I must point out that sometimes one must be destructively constructive. It is often necessary to pull down a tottering building before you can build something better in its place.

I am pleased to see that while we started discussing economic affairs the Minister of Bantu Administration is also present, because in dealing with the economic affairs of the border areas it is quite obvious that the Minister of Bantu Administration plays a bigger part in the decision in regard to industry there than the Minister of Economic Affairs himself. I want to say that it must now be clear to everyone what is going on in the Ciskei and the Transkei where border industries are concerned, and that the Government’s policies in that respect are now definitely a failure and a flop and in fact a fiasco, and I will proceed to prove this with facts. In dealing with the question of Bantu industries and Transkei industries, it seems to me that people lose their sense of proportion, particularly the Ministers who report on these affairs. We get reports which seem to leave any proportion quite out of account. When we discussed the Transkei Bill in this House three years ago, several members opposite said that the Bantustan scheme must succeed, and that Government policy depended on it; that if the Bantustans failed then South Africa would fail. To that I replied later that if the Bantustan scheme fails it would not necessarily be South Africa that fails, unless they had gone too far, but in all probability it would mean that the Nationalist Party would fail, and I quoted from Shakespeare—

I want to show that the border industries plan is a failure, and on the basis of statements made on the opposite side of the House, the Government’s whole policy is a failure, because their policy depends on the success of the Bantustans. For these Bantustans to be a success, they must obviously be viable. We should be able to see planning by this time by the Government to make the Bantustans viable. There are two propositions we must take into account. The first is the possibility that these Bantustans will become independent. We have been told for several years by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Bantu Administration that the Bantustans will eventually become independent. If they are to become independent, surely we must make them viable first, otherwise they will compel us to bid with other countries overseas for the necessary funds to make them viable. They will hold us up to ransom and tell us that if we do not supply the capital, they will get it from other countries. If, on the other hand, what many Nationalists have told me is true, that the Prime Minister will never carry out his promise to make these Bantustans independent, and they say they do not believe him, my reply is that if they do not believe him in that respect, in what respect can they believe him? If they do not believe his word in this case, they must ask themselves whenever he makes a statement: Whom is he bluffing now? I think that is the answer to those who say that the Prime Minister will not carry out this policy. I feel that we must proceed on the assumption that the Prime Minister will carry out his intention to make these Bantustans independent, in which case obviously there should be some plans to make them viable.

Why must they He viable? Is Basutoland viable?

If the hon. member does not know the meaning of the word, he will find it in the dictionary. It means that they must be able to pay their way. Apart from the many hundreds of millions of rands which have already been thrown into these Bantustans by way of the purchase of land and development, in the very first budget brought forward in the Transkei the budget was for R 16,000,000, of which R3,000,000 was to be found by the Transkei and the other R 13,000,000 by the taxpayers of the Republic. That is for one Bantustan. Take it on the basis of seven Bantustans, and then this part of South Africa will have to find about R 100,000,000 per annum to keep these Bantustans viable, unless we can find some means of making them viable. What is being done in that respect? The Tomlinson Commission reported this I would be necessary for White enterprise to be encouraged in the Transkei in order to build up industries to make it viable. The Government rejected that and said that it must be done by means of border industries, a policy under which the Bantu would live in the Bantu areas and work in the White areas in White industries. The Government rejected the report of the Tomlinson Commission and we are now faced with the problem of trying to find some means of making these Bantustans viable via border industries. The Tomlinson Commission report said that it would be necessary to provide new employment for 30,000 Bantu annually in the Transkei; that new employment would have to be found for them in order to make the Transkei viable. In answer to a question from this side of the House last week, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said that since 1948 eight industries had been established in the Bantu areas of the Transkei giving employment at present to 1,089 Africans and 21 Whites. In eight years they have found employment for 1,089 Africans when the Tomlinson Commission required them to find employment for 30,000 annually. On that basis I think we can say that the Government’s policy to make the Transkei viable is a failure and a flop. Let me read a little further what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said in the course of his same reply—

That is what they are doing to make the Transkei viable. Sir, that is how the position stands at the present time. Then going to the latest report of the Bantu Investment Corporation I find the following statement there: Over the past five years the loans granted to the Transkei amounted to R463,000. Let us see how this figure is made up. According to the report 105 new businesses were established. This refers to the taking over of trading stations. How is that going to develop the country? Then there were 17 new service industries established, concerns such as motor garages, service stations and things of that sort. Sir, I wonder if anybody can guess how many new industries were established during that period? Over the past year one new industry was established. The report goes on to say—

I suppose by “small industries” they mean baskets and beads. On the basis of 4 per cent of the total it means that there was a capital investment of approximately R4,000 in this one industry. Sir, that is the best effort in one year after five years of effort. On that basis we are supposed to consider that the Transkei is going to become viable in some way or other. Sir, if the Government thinks that the establishment of one industry at a cost of R4,000 is developing the Transkei, it is simply wishful thinking.

Actually we are doing much better than the United Party. You are fading away altogether.

Sir, the United Party policy is to develop the Transkei will all the available enterprise and capital.

As part of South Africa.

The Government rejected that idea, but the Government has stated definitely that they are going to develop the Transkei with Bantu industries and that is what we have had so far. The Government’s intention is to make the Transkei viable by means of the wage packets of the workers who are going to work in the White industries and go home at night over the fence into the Bantu areas. Well, perhaps that is a proposition; let us have a look at it. What are they doing in that respect? I find that in this respect the Minister also made a statement, to the following effect—

The textile factory at King William’s Town which is the biggest of them all was started in the days of the United Party Government. Sir, when I speak of border industries I mean industries which comply with the Government’s requirements for a border industry. Engineering works which largely employ Whites cannot be regarded as border industries. The Government’s requirement is that border industries must be industries employing mainly Bantu labour. Over the past five years only one such substantial industry has been established and that is the Cyril Lord textile factory at East London, and this in spite of the assistance which the Government is giving in the shape of tariffs and taxation benefits to encourage industries to go to the borders and in spite of everything that the local municipalities have done, including the sending of representatives by the East London Municipality to Europe and Great Britain to scour those countries to try to persuade industrialists to come and establish industries in South Africa. I know that I will be reminded that a large industry has recently been transferred to this country but that is an engineering industry which does not comply in any respect with the Government’s border industry plan. That is the position that we are faced with to-day after five years of effort by the Government. On the other hand, we find that in a place like Rosslyn in the Transvaal a large number of industries have already been established just outside Pretoria. There must be at least seven or eight industries there now.

About four.

I was up there recently and I counted seven industries in various stages of development. But the point is that more industries are going to Pretoria than to the real border area lying between the two great masses of Black population, which is where they are intended to go according to the Government’s border industry plan. Sir, what is the reason for this? Rosslyn does not comply in any respect with the Government’s requirements for a border industry in that it borders on a small black area, with an insufficient population really to keep their present industries going. The fact of the matter is that the border industry development is in inverse ratio to the facts of border industry requirements. Sir, if the Government’s border industry plan is to be a success, then by this time dozens of industries should be established every year, otherwise how is the Government going to make the Bantustans viable? In the meantime, passing through Port Elizabeth I see as many as four or five large new industries going up one after another. In Johannesburg they are being established by the hundred: in Pretoria and Durban they are being established in large numbers. Why then are they not coming to the border areas in spite of all the assistance given by the Government in order to encourage them? Obviously there must be a reason and the reason quite clearly is nothing else but Government policy itself. It is because of statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister, by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and by Chief Kaiser Matanzima that the border industry policy is a failure. If these border industries were carried out without the Government’s ideological policy, if they were carried out on the merits of the area, on the basis of all the facilities that the area has to offer to attract industries, then there would be a reasonable chance of the border industry policy becoming a success. Sir, these facts which I have put before the House are indisputable facts; I have extracted them from Government publications, and in the light of these indisputable facts I think I can claim definitely that the Government’s Bantustan policy will be a failure and a fiasco. Their Bantustan policy is a fiasco and their other policies will necessarily also be a fiasco. I say therefore that the time has come to challenge the Government to find ways of making a success of border industries; if they cannot make a success of them, then they must make way for another Government that will tackle the whole problem on a sounder basis.

We do not agree with the hon. member who has just sat down. The hon. member said that what the Government was doing was a fiasco. What a fiasco is the race federation policy of the Opposition! The past election also turned out to be a fiasco for them. We simply do not understand how they can still go on telling the same old tales and harping on the same old string about the separate development and Bantu homeland policy of the Nationalist Party and its border industry policy because their action in this regard has cost them various elections. It cost them the last election but nevertheless they still harp on that same string. The brakes of the United Party’s policy cart are very loose and that cart is gathering speed down a dangerous hill. It has already thrown off quite a few passengers—at the Rissik corner, at the Jeppes corner and at the Natal and Cape corners. And I want to say that if their leaders, their political policy mechanics do not succeed in applying the brakes a little, 1966 will turn out to be an even greater fiasco on the last corner and even more United Party members will be thrown from that political cart.

Mr. Speaker, just as was the case with the Budget of 1964 this Budget once again proves the maintenance of a continued economic growth and prosperity. It remains a fact that the rate of growth of the Republic’s economy is still one of the highest in the world, if not the highest, and this is due to the efficient administration of the Nationalist Government which has succeeded, because it is a stable Government, in creating an attractive investment field for foreign capital such as was never the case before. It is clear to me that all sections of the population in all sectors of our economic structure are participating generously in the prosperity which is prevailing in our country to-day. I and all of us are sincerely grateful in this regard. We do not begrudge anyone the fullest and most generous share of what this period of upsurge may have in store for him. And yet, Mr. Speaker, I must admit to-day, as the representative of an agricultural district, no matter how unpleasant and how disappointing it may be, that a considerable number of our farmers in the agricultural sector have not enjoyed their rightful proportionate share of the prosperity which the country is experiencing.

The reasons for this are certainly not those which the Opposition have advanced. It is not due to maladministration on the part of the Government; it is not due to a lack of sympathy on the part of the Government towards our farmers; it is not due to inadequate planning or inefficient Ministers and officials as is alleged by hon. members opposite. The real reasons are known and are, in my opinion, firstly, the revolutionary change which farming methods have undergone over the past two or three decades. The farming industry has changed from a way of life a few years ago to a highly specialized industry. The elimination of the draft animal, of the ox and the mule, and the swift mechanization of the farming industry has required an almost abnormally swift adjustment, firstly, on the part of the farmer in order to enable him to keep pace with the growing requirements of efficiency in regard to his farming machine, and secondly, in respect of the regulating of his economy in order to adapt it to his greatly increased running expenses. It has also made greater demands of the State in respect of protection, information, marketing, price determination and a legion of other necessary service adjustments. There are numerous factors over which the farmer has no control which contribute towards the adjustment backlog on the part of the agricultural industry.

Let me mention a few factors: Too high running costs, which simply cannot be tempered; rising prices of agricultural requirements which simply cannot be controlled; inefficient marketing methods which simply cannot be improved; wide gaps between the producer and consumer prices of agricultural products which simply cannot be closed; unrealistic prices for products which cannot be adequately increased; ineffective agricultural finance facilities and, last but not least, all the risk factors, with the drought factor being perhaps the most important, of which the farmer cannot rid himself.

I am aware of the fact that the responsible Ministers with their agricultural economic advisers are trying to unravel and solve this problem of adjustment. We are grateful for the success which has already been achieved in this regard. I am optimistic in regard to anticipated announcements of more realistic prices for products, particularly of red meat and specifically, beef. But I want this afternoon to discuss a factor which I mentioned last, a factor over which the farming industry has no control, and that is drought.

As the representative of a sprawling agricultural constituency, I consider it my duty to give a brief survey here of the widespread drought conditions by which at least 95 per cent of the farmers in my constituency are affected. I do this with a heavy heart because by doing so I may be accused of trying to make use of the critical position of the drought-stricked farmers, or rather, misusing it, to win sympathy and to ask the State for charity for them. The pride, the honour and the integrity of the farmers of the Marico constituency, just like the farmers of the rest of the country, is well known. They have held out to the bitter end; they have hung on with grim determination, but after two or three years of continuous drought a breaking point has been reached and some of them have all but given up hope. While engaged in this duel, they ask themselves: “Shall I, or shall I not? Shall I sell my stock and go and work temporarily; shall I sell my farm with everything on it and go and work and never return; shall I approach the agricultural co-operatives or the Farmers’ Assistance Board once again and ask for another loan or for an increase of my overdrawn account; shall I get work? Will I as an unskilled worker obtain a profitable position in the city; will I be able to adapt myself to city life; will I be able to outgrow my first love, my land and my animals; will I or will I not?” That is the duel which I have encountered on the part of hundreds of our drought-stricken farmers. This duel is a dreadful thing. Young farm wives have told me that their husbands are on the verge of a nervous breakdown: that they wander about like lost souls on their parched fields and barren-trodden grazing lands. Mr. Speaker, I travelled through my constituency for ten days and covered a distance of nearly 200 miles from the northern Cape boundary to the Waterberg border in the north. I visited 50 farms and crossed numbers of them for a distance of nearly 1,000 miles.

I want to vouch here for what I saw there. In the Marico bushveld, the Rustenberg bushveld and the Thabazimbi bushveld there are only about 30 per cent of the animals still alive, according to the registers of the stock inspectors. I came across farms of our larger stock farmers, farms of 10,000 and more morgen on which there is not one single head of stock to be seen. I came across farms of 1,200 morgen with only eight animals; farms of 2,000 morgen with 12 animals. I arrived at an auction at Mahkoppa where 1,200 animals were offered for sale of which 100 cows with calves under three months were sent to the abattoirs. I visited the crop areas in the west and according to the estimates of the agricultural co-operatives at Marico, to the west of Zeerust there is still 20 per cent of the maize crop standing, 20 per cent of the ground-nuts and 25 per cent of the kaffircorn.

In the Koster area which is an excellent maize region, there is only 30 per cent to 40 per cent of the crop standing. In a region of the same district but which actually falls under the constituency of the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling), namely the Derby-Boons-Syfontein region, 70 per cent of the crop is standing, and in the Swartruggens district, 10 per cent to 15 per cent. I mention these facts, Sir, to indicate what the drought can do and what it is doing in bringing the farmers of the north-western Transvaal to their knees. There was a word of thanks on the lips of every farmer for what the Government has done for the farmer in the northwestern Transvaal over the past few years. They also want to express their gratitude in advance for what the Government is still going to do to assist them, but all felt that something great, something new, another approach should be born from this disaster which has struck them in order to enable them better to combat drought conditions in the future and to draw the sting from the effect of drought conditions.

In brief, it amounts to this: The re-application, extension and increase of all possible emergency measures that were applied in the past. We know that special emergency measures will be taken by the Government. Measures which must be taken immediately are, inter alia: (a) Increased subsidies on cattle licks and cattle fodder; (b) increased rebates on the transport of cattle fodder and cattle to grazing; (c) increased fodder loans with lower interest rates; (d) lower or even frozen rates of interest on pressing loans; (e) the creation of more long-term credit facilities; (f) the creation of long-term rehabilitation schemes for farmers who are no longer solvent. These are all measures which will have to be put into operation immediately over a far wider area. There is one new proposal that I want to make for the consideration of the Government and that is the creation of a long-term rehabilitation scheme for farmers who, because of the drought, are no longer solvent or who are very close to this unfortunate position. The possibility of the purchase of farms owned by these farmers at the consolidated debt price by the Department of Lands and the immediate return to those same farmers of their own farms in terms of the provision of Section 23 of the Land Board Act of 1956 must be investigated. Such a farmer will then have the advantage of the lower initial rate of interest of 1 per cent, 2 per cent, 3 per cent, 4 per cent and 4½ per cent, respectively, over the first five years. Thereafter capital redemption will be added and he will have a further period of sixty years in which to repay this money. This will be something positive and I think that the Land Board Act should be amended accordingly to make provision in this regard.

Then there are also bodies which ask that the Government should give attention to the employment of those who have had to leave their farms, particularly those who are forced to find a temporary position as close as possible to their homes. These measures will certainly relieve the position of our farmers but they do not penetrate to the crux of the drought problem as such. Good sometimes comes from catastrophic disasters which affect nations, and that is why I want to suggest a new approach by the Government—that serious attention be given to the creation or establishment of a separate drought-control Department or Division of one of the existing Departments of Agriculture with instructions to undertake all aspects of the combating of droughts and to do no other work at all. I adopt the attitude that there is no other single factor which causes as much damage to our agricultural economy as do droughts. They are unavoidable and unwelcome but regular visitors which make their appearance as surely as does the moon which waxes and wanes and darkens but nevertheless appears each time on the horizon in its course around the earth. My second point is that the combating of drought is not the task of the farmer only; indeed, it is the responsibility of the people as a whole. My third point of view is that emergency measures during droughts are usually temporary and do not affect the crux of the problem. I know that millions of rand from our growing national income are earmarked for this purpose but I feel that the spending of that money should rest with a specially appointed State organization or State Department which, in terms of its instructions and in terms of its aims will, in my opinion, be better equipped and better able to control and combat droughts.

The task of such Department must primarily be to plan during the years of plenty and not simply to take action once a drought has struck. Mr. Speaker, I dare to ask: Which State Department in our present Government set-up is actually responsible for and is established chiefly to combat droughts, to plan intensively to combat droughts and droughts only? Which Department has effective administrative machinery to handle drought conditions properly? Is it Water Affairs with its praiseworthy irrigation schemes and drilling services? Is it Agricultural Economics and Marketing with its extensive duties in connection with the marketing of products, price determinations and the application of drought control measures once a drought has struck in earnest? It is Agricultural Technical Services with its praiseworthy soil conservation schemes and farm planning projects? Is it State Advances Recoveries Office with its crop loans and other advances to those who have been forced to the brink of ruin because of droughts? Is it the Department of Lands with its praiseworthy loans to land-hungry farmers to enable them to purchase land? I agree that each one of these Departments is making a great and remarkable contribution towards stimulating the agricultural industry and is also doing a great deal in an indirect way to temper the harmful effects of drought. But I contend that drought-control is not the exclusive task of any one of these Departments. In my opinion that is where the weakness lies. There are specialized advisory boards in almost every sphere of our economic life to-day whose task it is to devote themselves exclusively or chiefly to research, to study, and to advise the Departments or organizations to which they are attached. I want to mention a few of those bodies. I think of the National Council for Education, of the Economic Advisory Council of the hon. the Prime Minister, bodies which are engaged on matters of education and economics on a high level in order to assist the responsible bodies to plan in advance and so forth. I want to ask this question: Is there such a Department with its officials or a board which has been established with no other purpose than to study all aspects of drought and the combating of drought and to formulate plans in that connection? I think that the time is ripe for this to be done.

I want to conclude by saying that tasks such as the following can be given to such a department as its prerogatives. What about the establishment of a State-aided drought insurance scheme for more security for the farmer? This could be the task of such a department. What about a State-aided fodder bank after the experience of a few years ago and now once again during the drought in the north-west, as the task of such a body? What of the idea of leading water from permanent streams and state dams by means of extensive pipelines to dry stock areas? For some years now it has been quite clear even to laymen that the subterranean water level is falling dangerously, that millions of rand are being wasted by the State and private enterprise on the supply of water and that the earth’s crust is being deprived of its water in this way. What about a State extension service which will concentrate exclusively on the avoidance of the worst results of drought? Mr. Speaker, the child must have a name. The present information given to farmers is praiseworthy but is more production-centric than drought-centric. This too is necessary, but there must be more specialized action in this sphere. Attention must be given to water saving and water conservation, both subterranean and surface, as part of a drought control plan. Attention must be given to the building of weirs in rivers which flow through the dry areas; attention must be given to the building of smaller dams, to the storage of waiter in the dry stock areas. Our larger schemes concentrate on irrigation and take a long time to be completed. “Water throughout the country” should be the watchword of such a department. Water is the only thing that can solve the drought problem. The first phase of the drying up of the earth’s crust was when our valleys were drained of their waters. The second phase is the pumping of water out of the earth’s crust by means of strong pumps from a depth of 1,000 feet. The third is the drying up of our dolomite springs by large-scale pumping of the feeder compartments thereto. There are springs which are drying up to-day—I have the official departmental figures here which prove how swiftly the flow has decreased as pumping has increased—as a result of the fact that the compartments which feed them have 10 or 12 or 15 boreholes, some of them nine inches wide, sunk into them. By means of modern pumping machinery these boreholes pump out thousands of gallons of water per day. The whole order of nature is being changed. Where previously dry-land farming was practised, extensive irrigation units are being established to-day and the farmers who had irrigation farms below the springs for 100 years and more, have to leave that land. These are all aspects which can be made the concern of such a department in order to enable it to approach the matter from the point of view of the combating of drought. That is why I ask that attention should be given to a new approach so that something great can come from this disaster which has struck us and which will continue to strike us from time to time in the future, a disaster which, judging by present methods, we are always going to combat by means of emergency measures— without any permanent results. Cannot we try something new which may perhaps bring greater relief in the future and give a new character to the combating of drought as an active department perfects and applies more efficient methods for drought control? The time for this is ripe.

While I was listening here to the speeches of hon. members of the Opposition, I could not help asking myself whether the Opposition was still asleep. Do they think they are still fighting an election? I want to bring them out of their slumbers; the election is over and they were ignominiously defeated.

I hope hon. members opposite realize that, because the sooner they realize it the better it will be. What was the outcome of the election? Sir, the electorate of South Africa passed a motion of no-confidence in the Opposition. The voters realize full well that, in terms of the policy of the United Party, the Whites in South Africa have no hope of survival. What I found even more interesting was the fact that the farmers of South Africa rejected the present Opposition.

What about Wolmaransstad?

I want to analyse the results and remind the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) that they lost no fewer than three platteland seats in Natal—Umkomaas, Queenstown and Zululand. What is the reason? [Interjections.] They lost two in Natal and they lost Queenstown. The fact that Queenstown is not in Natal does not matter; in all the United Party lost three seats. Sir, these are seats which were regarded as safe United Party seats. In addition to that, the majority of the farmers in those constituencies are English-speaking. They rejected the United Party. Why? Because they have no confidence in the United Party’s agricultural policy. After all, they know what happened to the farmers in the days when the United Party was in power. In an analysing the results further, I find it even more impressive that, in no fewer than 22 platteland constituencies in which the United Party put up candidates in the last election, the Nationalist majorities increased considerably. The Nationalist majorities were not reduced in a single constituency.

That is untrue. What about Wolmaransstad, Christiana, Queenstown, etc.?

It is true; there is not a single constituency in which the Nationalist majority was reduced. Here we have further proof that the farmers have no confidence in the United Party. After all, the voters of South Africa have not forgotten how, when the United Party was in power, women throughout the country had to stand in queues for food, so much so that some of them actually fainted.

That was during the war.

I think the wife of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) probably also had to stand in queues. What was the result? The electorate, not only the farmers but also the consumers, totally rejected the United Party because they were not satisfied with the policy of the then Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Strauss.

Sir, there is one thing that happened in this lasit election that one deplores, and that is the fact that the United Party concentrated particularly on those constituencies which are suffering as a result of abnormal drought conditions; they did so in the hope that they would be able to turn these climatic conditions to good account and catch a few votes. But, as the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha) has already said, they were bitterly disappointed r our majorities increased.

What was the majority in Wolmaransstad?

I only made a cursory analysis of the majorities. The Opposition tried, in a most reprehensible way, to exploit the drought conditions. Sir, hon. members on the other side, particularly the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk), asked what this Government had done for the farmers. They told the farmers that the Government was allowing them to be ruined.

We still say so.

I said so again yesterday.

What did hon. members say in this House yesterday? I should like to refer to the speeches of the hon. members for Gardens (Mr. Connan), East London (City) (Dr. Moolman), Drakensberg and Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson). Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me when I say that there was nothing constructive in those speeches. I think if the hon. member for Drakensberg had to listen to a tape recording of her speech she would refuse to believe her own ears. I think if she analyses her speech, she will admit that, apart from flinging mud here, she said nothing at all. She made a personal attack upon the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. She asked him what he had done with the heritage of his fathers. What has that to do with agriculture? I want to ask the hon. member for Drakensberg whether that is the sort of attitude that we should adopt here. Must we go into the personal affairs of hon. members? I wonder how the hon. member for Drakensberg would like it if we discussed her personal affairs across the floor of this House? I do not think she would like it; I think she would be ashamed to show her face in this House again. These are private affairs; they have nothing to do with agriculture.

I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Gardens. Sir, the hon. member made the very irresponsible statement here that this Government was not interested in the farmers at all; that the Government was only interested in secondary industries. I have never heard such nonsense before. Does the hon. member for Gardens think that the hon. the Prime Minister and the members of the Cabinet are a lot of stupid mules who do not realize that no country can have a sound economy unless it is founded on a sound agricultural economy?

I come now to the hon. member for East London (City). I am sorry the hon. member is not here, because I do not like attacking a member in his absence, but I have no choice.

Where is your Minister?

I think the hon. member should be ashamed of the frivolous statements which he made here yesterday in connection with the joint effort by the Government and the S.A. Agricultural Union to cope with these abnormal conditions. Does the hon. member realize that the drought has assumed such proportions that it has become a matter of national interest? It is no longer a Party matter. The situation which has developed is such that we should all put our heads together and see what can be done to save what we can still save. The hon. member ridiculed the fact that the assistance of the Army was being called in to help with the conveyance of bales of fodder to the railway stations, so that that fodder can be brought within the shortest possible period to animals which are succumbing to hunger. I thing if the hon. member for East London (City) and other hon. members opposite, who talked so much nonsense (“kaf”-chaff) here put it into bales, it would yield quite a large tonnage of fodder. They ought to bale it, and then offer it free of charge to the farmers in the drought-stricken areas as fodder for their animals. I am only afraid that much of that chaff would be so poisonous that it would kill the animals. I want to warn the farmers, therefore, not to use it.

Sir, we have been listening here to the criticism of hon. members on the other side, but I want to put a straightforward question to them. Hon. members opposite always represent themselves as the true champions of the interests of the farmers. They know that we are facing unprecedented drought conditions, and I want to ask them what they have done to help in the course of this Session. They were sent here to promote the interests of every branch of our national life. Hon. members on the other side also have a farmers’ group. Has the United Party farmers’ group ever held a meeting during the course of this Session to review the situation and to consider what measures they can suggest to the Government to cope with this situation? Have they ever submitted a memorandum to the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and to the other Minister of Agriculture in this connection; have they ever suggested certain measures which, in their opinion, offer a solution? No, Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite have never once done so. All they do is to make cheap propaganda.

As far as the credit restrictions announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance are concerned, as a result of which the credit of the farmers will allegedly be affected, would there be anything wrong with it if hon. members on the other side went to see the Minister of Finance and brought this matter to his notice? Have hon. members opposite done so? No. They are not interested in the farmers. They prefer to keep alive a grievance; they prefer to launch a strenuous attack upon the Government across the floor of the House and to pose here as the champions of the farmers. We, on the other hand, also have a farmers’ group. We realized the seriousness of the situation, and we convened a conference. We obtained a full report in connection with the local conditions from every region in which drought conditions prevailed. We put our heads together; we held discussions, we put forward suggestions, and we devised certain measures for submission to the Ministers. Thereafter we convened a conference where we met all the Ministers and the heads of the departments concerned. We submitted memoranda to them; we put forward suggestions to them which we believed would alleviate the conditions in the various regions. We are convinced that the suggestions that we put forward will be accepted in the near future—perhaps even during this debate—and incorporated in the numerous existing measures in terms of which assistance is already being granted to farmers. We also went further; we did not simply raise a hullabaloo about the curtailment of credit facilities. Our farmers’ group took active steps. We approached the Minister of Finance and asked him whether these credit restrictions also applied to agricultural credit. The Minister of Finance made it clear to us that these credit restrictions were not intended to apply to agricultural credit. We also had a discussion with the President of the Reserve Bank, and he confirmed that the credit restrictions were not intended to apply to credit for the purpose of agricultural production. The Minister and the President of the Reserve Bank assured us that they would raise this whole matter with the commercial banks, and that credit for the purpose of agricultural production would not be curtailed. It goes without saying, of course, that if a farmer is credit-worthy he will be given further credit. If he is not credit-worthy, he will have to go to State Advances. But there will be no curtailment of credit for the purpose of production, for the purchase of fertilizer, fuel and seed, and in order to meet the wage bill, nor will credit be curtailed in the case of essential means of production such as agricultural implements, tractors, etc., which have to be purchased. If it is necessary for a farmer to buy a new tractor, the commercial banks will give him the necessary credit. Where a farmer has lost his cash crop as a result of the drought, and he converts that crop into silo fodder or ordinary fodder, and he does not have the necessary capital to purchase cattle, to fatten them and then to recoup himself by selling them, he will also be given credit by the commercial banks to enable him to buy livestock. Then I want to come to another accusation which was made here by the hon. member for Gardens. He said that there was no planning in the agricultural industry and that the Government was not interested in the farmers. In this connection there are one or two matters that I want to bring to the notice of the House to show what a keen interest the Government has taken in farmers who have found themselves in financial difficulties as a result of drought conditions. Whereas in the year 1962-3 an amount of only R2,700,000 was voted for State Advances, in 1964-5, as the severity of the drought increased, an amount of no less than R7,000,000 was voted in the two Additional Estimates, and in the present Estimates we are being asked to vote an amount of R6,000,000.

How will they ever repay it?

That is quite a different story. The hon. member wants to know how they will ever be able to repay it. I will tell him. The hon. member for Point is not a farmer. They will repay it just as the farmers in the North-Eastern Free State, who found themselves in dire straits in 1947-8 as a result of climatic conditions, are now able as the result of favourable seasons in recent years, as a result of a record crop over the past year, to repay the interest on all those loans together with the capital. Fortunately, unlike hon. members on the other side, we are not a lot of pessimists who are too hopeless to win an election. We on this side face the future of South Africa with confidence. We believe that this assistance which the State is giving the farmers will eventually produce the results which they are intended to achieve.

I want to go further, Sir, by pointing out to you that, as at 31 March 1964, in respect of all forms of assistance given to farmers, there was an amount of R30,542 million outstanding. In 1961-2 the Department of Water Affairs made available a sum of R14,128 million for the provision of water and water schemes. But in 1964-5 that amount was increased to R3,881 million, and for 1965-6 the amount has been further increased to R40.53 million. Sir, it has been said here that there is no planning. It seems to me that hon. members on the other side are living in a dreamland; their memories are very short. Have they forgotten that the wonderful Orange River scheme was announced here just a few years ago?

That is our scheme.

Is that so! That is not true. Sir, this is the biggest water scheme in the whole world, and it is going to be undertaken by the National Party Government in South Africa; it is a scheme which will cost more than R350,000,000, apart from the cost of hydro-electric expansion and the cost of other industrial development. It is a scheme under which 333,000 morgen of land will be placed under irrigation and under which 12,000 to 15,000 additional farmers will be placed on irrigation holdings. I also want to point out how the amount made available by the Department of Lands has increased. In 1961-2 the amount was R9.45 million. In 1965-6, that is to say, in these Estimates, we are being asked to vote an amount of R18.3 million. What is the purpose of this appropriation? The purpose is to help farmers, foremen and farm managers, people who have no land, to acquire land. A further purpose is to help farmers who are farming on small uneconomic units, so that they will eventually be able to acquire economic units to enable them to make a decent living.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have said enough to prove that there is no truth in the stories propagated by hon. members on the other side that this Government is not looking after the farmers, and that the Government is not showing the maximum sympathy for the farmers who are suffering at the moment as a result of the drought; I say that this Government takes a real interest in the agricultural industry. I think hon. members opposite can go and tell those stories to the marines.

I am very pleased to see the hon. the Minister of Information here. During the recent election campaign the hon. the Minister, together with the Minister of Labour, addressed meetings in my constituency. We were never really in any great trouble there, but, nevertheless, I want to thank him very much; he helped us a great deal. I want to say to him, in the words that one often sees on placards, just outside towns: “Thanks very much for the visit; do come again.”

We will come before the general election; I wonder whether you will thank us then.

We are frequently reminded by hon. members on the other side, in particular by the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel), that this side of the House accuses the Government of not being interested in the farmers but only in industry. Sir, we have now had four or five speakers on that side who have dealt with agricultural matters, but where is the Minister? Surely we are entitled to say that they are not interested in the farmers.

He was sitting on the cross-benches.

The hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services was sitting with the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha), but what was he doing there? He was passing the time in small talk; he was taking no notice of what was going on here. We have the fullest right therefore to say that they are not interested in the farmers.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

When business was suspended, I was saying that, seeing that we had an agricultural debate this afternoon in which so many Government members took part, it was significant that not a single Minister of Agriculture was present to take note of it except the one who sat and joked here. Therefore I say that our accusation that this Government does not care about the farmers is quite justified.

It was quite interesting to see how the speakers representing farming constituencies did an egg-dance here in telling us how well things were going with the farmers. We have been saying for years that things were going badly with the farmers under this Government. If the farmers are prosperous, why do we lose thousands of farmers every year, who leave the land? If things go well with an industry, people do not leave it, but stay there. We have heard much about the drought, and some hon. members have accused us of exploiting the drought. I really do not think that was a justifiable accusation. Many of our members spoke about the drought, and as far as I can remember they all expressed their sympathy for the farmers who are going through such bitter times, and they then made certain suggestions. Therefore to say that we are exploiting the drought is not correct. The hon. members for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha) and Marico (Mr. Grobler) went so far as to say that in the recent provincial elections we were a lot of vultures and that we went to the constituencies where people were encountering difficulties and put up candidates there, and they mentioned the Northern Transvaal and the Western Transvaal. Sir, did we know two or three months before the election that it would not rain? That is the time when we appointed our candidates. They might as well say that we kept the rain away. Now that it has not rained yet they say that we are exploiting the position. No, if one uses such arguments one really has a dearth of arguments. But I should like to take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for Marico, and also the hon. member for Vryburg to a certain extent, for the support they have given us. The hon. member for Marico spoke about the deplorable position in which the farmers are. It is not all due to the drought. It has been going on for years, and under this Government’s agricultural policy it will continue.

What is that policy?

They have no policy. They struggle along from day to day. I just want to react to what the hon. member for Rustenburg has said, viz. that even the Coloureds have now rejected us. I want to ask him why his praty did not put up a candidate in that election.

We are not interested. We have enough members without them.

The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) told us that under the S.A.P. Government the people did pick-and-shovel work for 4s. 6d. a day. I remember how in 1931/2 people did pick-and-shovel work for 3s. 6d. a day, and that was not under an S.A.P. Government. If one has to fall back on such arguments and dig up such old skeletons, then one has no arguments. Conditions in those days were completely different.

I should, however, like to direct a few remarks to the hon. the Minister of Defence, particularly in regard to the training of ballotees. Let me say immediately that we all agree with the scheme adopted by the Government and we assist the Government wherever we can, but just lately we have received a fair amount of criticism and complaints, and hon. members opposite will agree with me that we continually hear that much time is being wasted in the training. The picture we get is that for the first three months the boys are kept thoroughly busy, they are drilled on the parade ground and they become smart soldiers, but the general complaint is that thereafter they are not always kept busy. They stand guard for very long periods at useless places, and that applies even to the Gymnasiums.

Do you want to say, as an ex-soldier, that standing guard is not useful?

Standing guard at useless places to make a young man stand guard night after night while giving him no other exercise, is not of much use. Even in so far as Gymnasiums are concerned, we are told that after the first three months, the men are very idle and have much time on their hands. Last year, for example, we had the display at The Warnderers in Johannesburg in which the Gymnasiums participated, and it was excellent, but it is said that for almost six months beforehand the boys were practically being prepared only for that display. That is all well and good, but I think we lay too much emphasis on parade-ground work. If we get these boys for nine months we should teach them more about the actual handling of weapons, behaviour in the field, etc.

Some time ago we read in the Press that the Air Force had held manoeuvres in the Northern Transvaal. That is par excellence the way to exercise the Army, the Air Force and the Navy, under actual conditions. But can the hon. the Minister tell me why we no longer hear of large-scale manoeuvres by the Army? I say that if, for example, we should use our forces to carry out a manoeuvre, just to mention an example, by moving a brigade group from Oudtshoorn to Pietersburg by road and by air, and we keep them in the field for a fortnight and bring them back again, that would give the men tremendous experience and exercise, and not only the men, but also the non-commissioned officers and the senior officers. They are almost all young men who did not take part in the last war and who can benefit enormously from this sort of manoeuvre. I do not want to say that nothing of this nature is done, but I think it is essential that these large formations should be moved under our heavy traffic conditions, and the manoeuvres should be held under those circumstances as training for the officers and everybody else. If we become engaged in war, surely that is what they will have to do, and we cannot wait until then to give the men this training. I am very sorry to say that during the past few weeks things have leaked out which disturb us somewhat. I think everybody will agree with me that if we can combat those things it will redound to the honour of everybody. I am thinking of the unfortunate young men who lost their lives in the manoeuvres. I know that one often gets a false impression from Press reports, and I also know that the Minister will cause a thorough investigation to be made into these matters, but we should remember that we should not allow the parents of these young men to get the idea that there is not enough supervision. We who have experience know that the Minister’s task is a difficult one. He started this scheme with a very small number of officers and non-commissioned officers with experience. He first had to train them, but this has now been going on for three years already and one does not expect things still to happen as happened, e.g. in Strandfontein where a large number of these young men could have been killed. There should be a responsible person present to see that these young men do not do irresponsible things. They are young boys and it is only natural that they will do such things, but they should be curbed. I have already said that we should make sure that people do not lose confidence in our training.

What happened at Strandfontein? What are you referring to?

I refer to this number of young men who were pushing a motor vehicle and the wireless antennae came into contact with the power-lines. A matter came to my notice not long ago in regard to a parent who said that his son had arrived at the camp and after a uniform and new boots had been issued to him he was immediately put on a route march of 20 miles, with bricks in the pack on his back, and when he returned his feet were covered with blisters and he had to walk around for days barefooted and tidy up the parade-ground. I readily admit that this may perhaps be exaggerated, but when this type of story leaks out it does us no good. We all agree that we should make our young men hard and tough, but I feel that we should do so gradually and not immediately put them into uniform with a heavy pack on their backs and make them walk 20 miles in the hot sun. That is no use; it does more harm than good.

Why did you not write to me?

Another matter to which I wish to devote a few moments is the malpractices which take place and have taken place in regard to the purchase of war material. Quite a few of these matters have come to our notice. The first was when the Army Chief of Staff suddenly left the Force. The second was a court case against a certain Commandant van der Merwe, and others who were punished, and the third case was one which appeared before a judge. But the aspect which I do not like is that these cases were dealt with in secret and not in public. The persons who are guilty go free; suspicion clings to certain persons.

You are going rather far when you say that people who are guilty go free.

I will say what I meant by it. As the result of these secret inquiries, rumours circulate and if they are only rumours the best way to dispose of them is to reveal everything. There are rumours circulating that a certain officer has £150,000 in an overseas bank. It is said that during the last secret investigation exemption was given to six witnesses, and they are particularly the persons who gave the bribes.

Do you believe that?

It is not a question of whether I believe it, but an end should be put to these rumours, and it should not be allowed.

What should we not allow?

Certain persons and officials and certain firms outside are still under suspicion. We have had this case which we do not like at all, and I think it is unjust towards the Deputy Minister of Agriculture—his name was mentioned, but that was all. There are certain others; there is a certain Mr. Greveling whose name was mentioned, and who is such an important person that even the Broadcasting Corporation had to apologize after the Minister had accused him of being an irresponsible person. It is not right towards these people, and the only way is to ventilate these matters. Let us say what the facts are. Then these people who get exempted will not go scot-free. Then we will know who they are. Who says they are not again busy doing that sort of thing? The Minister says these inquiries must be held in secret because our military secrets must be preserved. Sir, it preserves nothing! The secrets which may be revealed at these inquiries are already known to our enemies. We know the military potential of our enemies and they know ours. If we place an order there is not only one firm concerned, but hundreds, and there are hundreds of people who work for those firms, and it gets known immediately. It is not necessary for us to be afraid of doing these things in public. These secret inquiries simply serve to cover up irregularities and mistakes. I go further and say that the better our enemies know how strong we are, the better for us. Is it not better for us to frighten them off than to wait for a hot war? Let them know it. They know it in any case. These secret inquiries are of no use to anybody. They are of no use to the Force or to the officials who are accused. I want to make the accusation to-night that the Minister dare not reveal these investigations and trials because too many people and too many companies are concerned in them. The sooner these things are revealed the better.

Before leaving this point, I just want to say something about our new aircraft factory. I am not going to deal with the merits; there will be other opportunities for that, but I can give the hon. the Minister the assurance that in regard to this aircraft factory there is already, before it has even been started, a lot of connivance and underhand dealing, and the sooner an investigation is instituted, and the sooner it is placed on a proper basis, the better.

What must I investigate? What is wrong?

This is not the place to mention names. I am prepared to give the Minister the information I have.

I should like to say something in regard to our submarine-chasing off the Transkeian coast. It happened a few months ago and our Navy was sent there and also the Air Force, and later we received a statement to the effect that there was nothing in it. Let me say that I fully agree with the Minister that he had to take these steps. If a report is received that there are suspicious submarines off our coast, it must be investigated. But now I want to put this question to the Minister: If it is so dangerous for submarines to be near the Transkeian coast, what will the Minister do when those states are independent and those submarines surface and take into the Transkei what they like and bring out of the Transkei what they like? Then it will be equally dangerous, if not more so, for South Africa. We should like to know what the position is, because that is one of the greatest pillars on which the Government’s policy rests. We know that when that state is free and independent, much trouble will arise. We have the example of the other states in Africa. Therefore I say that it will be equally dangerous if our enemies, or the enemies of the West, go there as it is now.

I wish to conclude by referring to a very brave young lady who recently fell into the sea at Simonstown. I read in the Press that this lady visited her boy friend on the ship at 8.30 p.m., and when she departed she fell into the water. What I should like to know from the Minister is whether it is now the practice to allow women on board ships and in military places?

I have never been a soldier. You should you know.

When I was a soldier, that was not allowed, although I cannot say that it never happened. All I wish to say is that if it is allowed now, I think I was a soldier 50 years too early.

The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) started off by asking why so many farmers were leaving the farms. Does the hon. member not know that this process is a normal one, that depopulation of the rural areas is a process which is taking place in all countries that are being rapidly industrialized? Does the hon. member not know that, as compared with other industrialized Western countries, South Africa, on a proportionate basis, still has one of the largest rural populations. After all, some of these people die and others sell their farms for personal reasons. There are also weaker elements in the rural areas, just as there are in any section of the community, who are pushed out in the normal course of events. Look what has happened since I came to the House of Assembly 12 years ago. More and more Opposition benches have become vacant; one promising young United Party member after another has disappeared, and only the dead wood remains. The hon. member must realize that the effects of this drought are felt much more severely to-day because our agricultural industry is in a period of transition, and any transition period is necessarily accompanied by crises and difficulties. When I compare the transition period in South Africa with similar transition periods experienced by other older countries in the past, I find that our agriculture in South Africa has come through this transition period with surprising ease, and in all these difficult situations, which have been aggravated by the drought, we find the Government offering a generous measure of assistance, not to seek popularity, but because of a profound desire to keep agriculture sound and to keep the farmer on his farm. But the most significant aspect is this, and I want to emphasize it: Wherever governments in the past have granted assistance to the farmers, a visible gulf has been created between the consumer class and the working class on the one hand and the producers in the other. In South Africa this transition period and the generous measure of assistance which the National Party has rendered to the farming community over the years has caused no real gulf to develop between the labourer and the producer in South Africa. This is one of the striking features of our political history, and in this respect we differ from the rest of the world. I want to give you the assurance, Sir, that these difficulties that have arisen in agriculture at the present time for the reasons I have mentioned, will disappear just as quietly and will not result in a gulf developing between the labourer and the producer, but that the co-operation, the bond of union, which has existed will be maintained, as was shown so clearly in the recent provincial elections.

I do not want to say anything this evening about the so-called malpractices referred to by the hon. member for North-East Rand. I do not have the necessary information at my disposal, and the Minister will certainly give an adequate reply in this regard in due course. In regard to the fact that the hon. member connected the appearance of submarines off our coast with the establishment of the Transkei as a Bantu state, I want to say that I heard this story in Natal when I was holding meetings there …

Is it not true?

It is true, but what country in the world does not have its coasts visited by foreign submarines from time to time? It is an international phenomenon, and the hon. member, who has served in the Defence Force himself, ought to know that this is not something that is limited to the Transkei.

Why are they off the Transkeian coast, and not the coasts of the White areas?

They are everywhere, but you do not notice them because you are concentrating on the propaganda you want to make out of the Transkeian coast—that is why you notice them there.

I want to say a few words about the present political situation in the country and about the dangers that may threaten our country. Sir, I am deeply concerned about the false sense of security that is creeping into our people and even into the ranks of the National Party in regard to the struggle in which the Republic of South Africa is involved on various fronts. This false sense of security arises firstly from the growing strength of the National Party from the point of view of the number of seats it holds. The large mass of the population considers this increase in the strength of the National Party as being synonymous with the Republic’s ever-increasing capacity to resist attacks, and its increased unassailability. The second cause of this false sense of security is the apparent lessening in the vehemence and the effects of the propaganda of the Black states, which, on their own admission, are hostile to the Republic. This decline in the effectiveness of their propaganda is due firstly to their internal dissension and mutual strife; secondly, their economic impotence and economic difficulties; thirdly, the fact that they reached the end of the game they have been playing with the West and the East over the past number of years—this game of bargaining; fourthly, the shift that has taken place in the emphasis placed on various issues in the very heart of the United Nations Organization, as a result of which the game played by the Black states has become less effective than it was in the past. A further reason for the loss of effectiveness of the propaganda of the Black states is the tremendous growth in the economic strength of the Republic of South Africa, as a result of which economic sanctions, trade boycotts and the prohibition on the supply of arms, as means of forcing the Republic of South Africa to its knees, have become a razor-sharp, double-edged sword; fifthly, the gradual acceptance by the people of the fact that the pending South-West Africa case will not force South Africa into an immediate military crisis, as a result of the erosion of power that has taken place in the United Nations Organization because of their internal disunity and the conflicting interests of the member countries of UNO, which factors have led to the deteriorating international situation in which so many other fronts are assuming much greater importance than the South West Africa / Republic of South Africa front. A further cause of this sense of security is the success achieved by your Government in freeing us from the grip of the subversive revolutionary powers in South Africa which were meant to bring us to our knees. And to come nearer to the political front, there is also, of course, the elimination of the Progressive Party as an effective political force in the House of Assembly and in the politics of our country. In addition, there is the loss of prestige suffered by the United Party. The United Party received a severe blow during the recent provincial elections. Another reason for this sense of security is the unparalleled lack of morale in the United Party as a fighting political force. To my mind the best definition of morale we have ever had was the one given by Gen. Marshall when he said—

Mr. Speaker, the United Party over there is “morale-less”, if I have to coin a new word. This sense of security which is developing amongst our people and amongst us Nationalists in regard to the struggle in which we are engaged is a false one and is a dangerous approach which is based on an unrealistic conception of the true position. Sir, to adopt this approach is to assume a security which is by no means fully guaranteed. We are building up security, but a hard struggle still lies ahead for us on the domestic front. Unlike the Progressive Party, the United Party was not finally eliminated as a political factor in South Africa at these elections. I want to credit them with that.

Far from it.

We shall still have to contend with them, in the next election as well. There is only one matter in regard to which a final decision was given in the recent elections, as at previous elections, and that final decision given by the people was in regard to the colour policy. I want to say this to the United Party: However much they may exert themselves and jump to and fro, the people of South Africa will never accept their colour policy. The people will accept the colour policy of the National Party, no matter what other circumstances may develop against us. This aspect has been finally put to the test.

I am not so sure whether, at the forthcoming national congress of the United Party, the members of the United Party will not force their leaders to change their policy in regard to the Coloureds. That party is a political weathercock; it is unpredictable. I venture to predict this evening that at their national congress they will make a change as regards their colour policy and as regards the Coloureds. The United Party is pre-eminently a political weathercock party and it will turn to the right as far as possible with the object of blurring the clear lines dividing us from them.

You are not rightist; you are liberal.

They will pose as the Santa Claus of our farmers and they will present themselves as the guardians of the security of our workers. They will go even further and follow the pattern of the English-language Press. They will present themselves as being ardent republicans. They will accept the Republic, although they opposed it a few years ago. But they will have an object in doing so. They will endeavour to destroy the image of the National Party as an integral part of the Republic, as the party which was responsible for its establishment on the political front; they will endeavour to destroy the image of the National Party as an integral part of that political structure, and they will endeavour to remove the image of the National Party from the image of the Republic. That is what they will do, and that is what we must expect, and therefore our fight against the United Party is not over. They will accuse the National Party of breaking up the Republic of South Africa.

Perfectly correct.

They will say that the United Party stands for White leadership, but not for domination. Does the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) stand for White leadership or for domination? [Interjections.] I say they will seek to impair the image of the National Party.

You are giving us good tips now.

They are doing so already. They will go further and they will blame the National Party for the droughts and for any economic set-backs that may arise. If we should experience any economic set-backs they will use against us the stream of immigrants which is flowing to South Africa and which is so greatly welcomed by them. They will carry out a pincer movement by using the great prosperity in the country and the influx of large amounts of capital into the country as one arm of the pincers and the economic distress being suffered by the farmers as a result of the drought, together with the increasing cost of living, as the other. They will try to catch the National Party in these pincers and they will try to close them upon us, and in attempting to do so they will make use of the economic distress inevitably caused by the normal development of circumstances. That is the task that the United Party will set itself in the future.

Why are you so afraid?

I want to admit that the National Party has many patriots in its ranks who love South Africa and who regard South Africa as a bastion of security for them, who belong to our party, but do not realize what is involved in the struggle being waged by the National Party. The task that lies ahead for us is to keep these people away from that destructive party with its erosive policies and to get them to support us on the basis of their inner convictions. This is an enormous task that lies ahead for the party. Some people are already saying that we must have a new party in South Africa. The task of the National Party has not even commenced yet. We are about to commence with an infinitely greater task than the tasks we have accomplished. The struggle has not come to an end. We must ask in all seriousness to what extent the influx of immigrants and of capital into South Africa will have an effect on the present right-wing National Party Government, and whether these factors, helped along by the United Party, will not open a breach in the direction of concessions which will afford the powers waging a cold war against us an opportunity of getting a better hold on us. The duty of the National Party, as the ruling Parliamentary party, as the interpreter and executor of the royal commands of the people, is therefore to carry out the task assigned to it and, as a strong party, to deal with the Opposition, which, realizing its own weakness, will be capable of actions that will do great harm to the nation; to see to it that the price the United Party is prepared to pay for its White control or leadership over the whole of South Africa is not paid, because the price the United Party is prepared to pay for its White control is that it wants to open the doors for the Black man to come in gradually. It is the task of the National Party to see to it that that price is not paid.

It will also be the task of the National Party to preserve its image as the bastion of a pure democratic state, as the protector of the democratic principles and the foundations on which this State is based. But it will also be the task of the National Party to maintain the security of the White man in South Africa in spite of the Opposition. It will be the task of the National Party to continue to protect the small worker, the small entrepreneur, the humble public servant and the ordinary citizen. It is the National Party that will for many years continue to develop the form and the content of this Republic as we as Nationalists see it.

As far as the domestic political front is concerned, we therefore have to deal with a party which is a dangerous snake on the one hand and a harmless chameleon on the other.

Order! The hon. member must not compare hon. members to a snake. He must withdraw the word “snake”.

I withdraw it. Sir. What task remains? I want to come to the second aspect, which involves an assessment of the nature of the attacks against us from the broad international front. Although I may be wrong in my assessment in certain respects, I do think it will be right as far as general strategy is concerned. There are five facts that are perfectly obvious. The first is that, in the struggle for Africa, South Africa remains the most coveted economic, geographical and political prize, because of the enormous food potential, raw materials potential and geographic strategic importance of the Republic of South Africa. As far as these considerations are concerned, no other state in Africa can be compared with the Republic of South Africa. Secondly, we remain an objective in this cold war. In future we will be assailed on the political, economic and psychological fronts to an increasing extent. We have warded off the attack on the domestic political front for the time being. We still have potential saboteurs in South Africa who are waiting for an incident that may possibly arise so that they can again raise their heads, and if that should happen, Sir, I wonder whether the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) will be prepared to fight? [Interjections.] The third point I want to make in connection with the threat against us is that the cold war against the Republic imposes an obligation upon us to be in a constant state of military preparedness. Attempts will be instigated both at home and abroad to create unrest in South Africa. There will always be the possibility that the cold war may turn into a hot one. Fourthly, the position of checkmate which has been reached in regard to the use of nuclear weapons has made war by means of conventional methods, whether on a local or limited scale or on a world scale, a definite possibility. The arms race is in top gear. In certain countries the process of psychologically conditioning people to war is beginning to reach the stage where people are prepared to accept war. Fifthly, communist countries and the non-committed countries are openly advocating military action against the Republic of South Africa. Promises of assistance are being made, and active assistance is being reduced in the form of economic and technical aid and military training. Capital goods are being promised. Training in methods of conventional and guerrilla warfare is being provided. Artillery, anti-aircraft guns, aeroplanes, long-distance bombers, transport aircraft, tanks, armoured vehicles, torpedo boats, submarines and naval equipment are all things that are being promised at some stage or other to the so-called freedom fighters in Africa by various countries. We must ask openly, and I want to ask openly now, whether the Republic of South Africa has a broad enough strategic appreciation of what form the attack against us will take in the geographic or economic or political sphere? In view of this military assistance and these military preparations South Africa can expect the following from potential aggressors. We can at any moment expect an incident arising from an attack against us from a Submarine in the Indian Ocean, operating from an advanced base in North Africa. We can expect a conventional attack by the air force of some power or other. The Republic of South Africa stands alone. Our defence is not reinforced by any treaties. Our flanks are not covered by strong neighbours. We are not supported by neighbours who are able to defend themselves in the economic field. We do not have the support of a stockpile of weapons that can ward off atomic bombs. No, we shall have to rely on four main things, and these are our morale, the type of armaments that we possess, our economic strength, and our strategic conception and appreciation of what we can expect. We therefore must have arms. We must have a broad strategic conception of the nature of the aggression, of the strategic geographic fields of attack, and of the organization that will be necessary after such a first attack against us has taken place. [Time limit.]

For the sake of courtesy, I would be delighted to fallow the hon. member for Ventersdorp, but after the ride which he gave his hobby-horse, all around the world, I am afraid it is a very tired horse—and I simply cannot mount it and ride it off in all directions, as he did; he surveyed the four corners of the earth. The odd thing about his speech is that he said that we, the Opposition, were “moraal-loos”. This is a newly-minted word which I abhor and detest, but I take it for what it is worth. Now, considering that we have no morale, and that he has written us off, it is an extraordinary thing that we still seem to give him the horrors. He has a nightmare about this Opposition. Then he took the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) to task for referring to the presence of unidentified submarines off the coast of a part of South Africa known as the Transkei—he was heard to say during the speech of my hon. colleague, when he referred to these submarines, “Skande!”; it was a scandalous thing to refer to them. But in the last five minutes of his speech he pointed out that we were vulnerable to submarine attacks from the Indian Ocean. Now, where is the Transkei coast-line? Is it in the Mediterranean? [Laughter.] I will remember this speech, because, apart from the reference to our defeat in the provincial elections, this was the speech which the hon. member made last year! It was a good speech then, and it is a good speech now —but it is no more in point now than it was then! So I would suggest to him that, while he had the opportunity, he should have told us something about the policy of the Government of which he is a member, a senior member who carries some responsibility as its military strategist. The fact that he is self-appointed is not my fault; that is the business of the Minister of Defence. But he should have told us about the dangers inherent in the Government’s policy which requires the complete and utter dismemberment of this Republic of South Africa (of which the hon. member is so proud) until we arrive at the stage, logically—if they mean what they say— where we will have seven, eight or nine in dependent Bantustans, all sovereign and all open to the machinations of the people who send submarines to our coasts, who have the atomic power with which to attack us “die kernkrag”, as he calls it. Then he speaks of patriotism! The first duty of a patriot, as I understand it, is to preserve the land in which he was born. This land happens to be 475,000 square miles of territory stretching from the Cape to the Limpopo. Who is that hon. member to talk to us about patriotism, when he is a member of a party which is avowedly determined to dismember this country and to leave us embattled in what they call “White South Africa”, and they do not know even where that will be? And it will not be White either, because they have made no provision at all for the Cape Coloureds, and the Indians, and for the 5,000,000 Bantu who will remain in the urban areas because we need their labour. I have a great regard for the hon. member, but I cannot mount that tired hobby-horse, and therefore I want to discuss what I believe is the subject of this debate, the Budget.

In the unfortunate absence of the hon. the Minister of Finance, I must point to the fact that he has in recent years apparently drawn his inspiration from the one or other nursery rhyme or jingle. He has been, in turn, a soldier and a sailor, and last week when he delivered his speech he was a tailor—but it seems to me that he has missed one fitting role, that of a tinker! Because in actual fact the complete line is “tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor”, and this Minister has done nothing else but tinker with the economy of South Africa for many years. Now, if he were Peter Sellars, he would no doubt play all the roles—not merely that of the soldier, the sailor or the tailor, but also that of the tinker. But in the light of his own difficulties, he does not talk about the tinker because it does not suit his role at this time. Sir, he goes out of his way to say that “the tailor’s creative ability is circumscribed by the materials available and the affluence or otherwise of his client”. I want to suggest with great deference to the honourable and absent Minister that he should make a closer acquaintance with other characters in his favourite jingle, because in the second line of that jingle or nursery rhyme, “tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor”, there is reference to “rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief”. I say that the only obvious inference from this Budget is that it is a Budget for one “client”, for the rich man, and with that category of persons referred to in the jingle, the Minister has more than a passing acquaintance, as is evidenced by his Budget. For example, we have it on record that since last year the profits of non-mining companies rose 31 per cent. This is not bad, Sir. I have a cutting here from a newspaper which advertises the annual meeting of a certain company, to whom I do not wish to give a gratuitous advertisement, which reads as follows—

So, as I say, the Minister knows very well what goes on with the rich man, because the situation at the moment is that people who happen to be fortunate enough to have substantial shareholdings in companies like this have little to complain about in regard to the Government’s financial policies.

How do you know it is not the poor man who holds the shares?

Here is the point. I read quite recently in a certain newspaper that a certain lady had gone into a shop in my city of Johannesburg and bought two fur coats for a total price of R6,000. It is common cause that there is a dearth of gem diamonds because so many people can buy diamonds for R6,000. Now this is the remarkable thing— that when the same person, the controlling shareholder or managing director of such a company, enables his wife to acquire two furs or one diamond for R6,000, that is called a “hedge against inflation”, but if that person should pay his 1,000 employees each R1 more per week, that is called, by the Government, inflation. This is something which I, as a part-time economist, cannot understand.

You are talking “Gorshel”.

On a point of order, should not the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) withdraw the word “Gorshel”? [Laughter.]

Order! The hon. member may continue.

I submit to this House, and particularly to the hon. members opposite who are so concerned, as the hon. member for Ventersdorp said, about the poor man, that the kind of policy they are to-day establishing as the normal financial policy of this Government means that increasing profits can allow a person, or a number of persons, to spend as much as they desire, and then that has nothing to do with the problem of inflation; but when we advocate an increase in the earnings of the working classes, or even in the pensions of the aged, we are told that is not advisable because of the danger of inflation.

Who told you that?

You have said so over and over again.

You are talking nonsense.

Now I want to deal for a moment with the position of the class of persons I will describe as the “poor man”, with whom the hon. the Minister merely has a nodding acquaintance, the people who represent the majority of the population, the people who have jobs and make a reasonable living, but who have financial problems because they are barely able to manage on what they can earn. Let us not run away from the fact that the person who is prepared to work for his living is entitled to expect from any self-respecting Government the opportunity to earn a reasonable livelihood, and not merely to try to make ends meet, month after month.

You are talking utter tripe.

The other day the hon. member for Vereeniging told the hon. member for Constantia that he was talking tripe, when, as it turned out, the hon. member for Constantia was quoting the hon. member for Vereeniging. [Laughter.] If the hon. member for Vereeniging, Sir, had a baritone voice, I would have liked to sing a duet with him, but he makes it extremely difficult for me to say what I want to say. I want to talk about the poor man, the average wage-earner. This is the kind of problem that he has to face—I will merely read the headlines. Here is one: “The boom has not helped the housewife.” And here, according to the Bureau of Statistics: “Food prices have increased by more than 10 per cent in the past year after rising by only 4.4 per cent between 1958 and 1963.” Will you deny that? Then the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has a headline all to himself in the Cape Times of 4 March: “Diederichs plans to curb soaring prices.” Will you accept that prices are going up? Why do we have thus unearthly silence on that side now? The moment the Minister speaks, they are not prepared to argue! Here we have another one on the question of rents. On the question of having a roof over your head, we have this kind of headline: “Landlords …”

What is your point?

The point which the hon. member for Heilbron has missed is that, first of all, this is a rotten Government, and secondly, this is a rotten Budget! Here we have headlines dealing with accommodation: “Landlords cashing in.” “Tenants told to take it or leave it.” “Intimidation of flat tenants alleged: pay extra or go, before appeal verdict.” “Flat dwellers (in Cape Town) to fight rent racket.” “Seventy tenants told to pay or go.” This is in Johannesburg. “4,000 controlled flats go up.” The increase in some cases has been 60 per cent. “Tenants call for rent freezing at level of May 1964 in Cape Town.” Whether it is Johannesburg or Cape Town, from one end of the country to another—that is the position.

Is that not due to the inflationary tendency?

What does the hon. member call “inflationary tendencies”? The opportunity of the working man to earn a little more, so that he can make ends meet a little better? Is that an inflationary tendency?

He has an inflated opinion of himself.

Here is just one of the many letters which I am sure are typical of letters which other hon. members received. I am sure even hon. members opposite received similar letters. They may suppress them, because they are so committed to the support of the Government that they no longer have an independent opinion. Here is a letter which sets out one simple problem which is typical of hundreds of thousands of people in South Africa. It comes from a woman in Johannesburg, in my constituency, who says—

Is that right or not? This is your fiscal policy. This is the kind of instrument the Minister talks about, when he says he may have to find “other instruments”. This is the bludgeon which compels the elderly person who has saved all her life to pay tax, to begin with, year after year, and having accumulated a little savings to tide her over her old age, she has to pay income-tax on the return from those savings. This is the way this “poor man’s Government” takes care of the poor man.

No, I say this is a rich man’s Government. What protection has it given the ordinary working man in regard to his investments in financial institutions? Does the hon. member for Vereeniging remember Parity? Does that ring a bell?

I believe it went bankrupt under a United Party chairman. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) must now stop interrupting.

In reply to a question I put to the Minister, the question being designed to get some information about what had happened in regard to a large number of financial institutions which have failed in recent years, and to ascertain how much had been lost by the public and how many people were involved, this is the kind of figure that emerged from that answer and this, if nothing else, proves conclusively how interested this Government is in protecting the working man, the ordinary man in the street. First of all, there was a large number of companies which failed but about which the Minister was unable to give chapter and verse as to the exact amount lost and the number of people involved. But in regard to those about whom he did give me the figures, the total number of persons involved was 742,190 and the total amount of losses ascertained was R21,985,138! Is this not a reflection on a Government which claims that it is, first of all, interested in and, secondly, concerned about the poor people? Is it not? Then I can only say that what covers the frame and the flesh of the hon. member for Vereeniging is even thicker than I suspected. Take the African Mutual Credit Association— just one company. It disappeared after R 14,000,000 had been lost by its very “small” investors, who totaled 135,000 people. The reply to my question makes it perfectly clear that the victims of this AMCA crash will not get a single cent. But then, apparently, someone in the National Party caucus, someone with a conscience—which is a rare thing on that side—decided that something had to be done about it. So quite recently—in fact, early this month—a report began to circulate that there were proposals in the National Party caucus that compensation should be paid to those persons who had lost money in Parity, money which they could ill afford to lose. Yet when I questioned the hon. the Minister about it, it turned out that he knew nothing about the approach which the hon. members concerned had publicized in the Press, and he moreover had no intention of giving any compensation in whatever form. Now, it must be remembered that this is the time when the Government claims prosperity to be at its highest peak, that there is an enormous upsurge in our economy, and that money is coming out of the ears of the people—at least, on the Government side. But here we have a situation where they cannot, in decency, find the money to compensate those people who lost their money because of the negligence of Ministers of this Government. Thousands of people have written to hon. members on this side of the House, as they must also have written to hon. members on that side of the House. I have a letter here in which the writer refers to one of the companies in this list, i.e. the Provident Insurance Company, and in which he said that he was insured with this company under an endowment policy—his life’s savings, on which he was going to retire, He said that he read in The Star that I was going to take up the matter on behalf of the insured persons with the Minister of Finance —just as hon. members on that side of the House claimed that they would take up the matter with the Minister. This man told me that he made regular payments for seven years—and all this has disappeared! Now, this person is only one of thousands. What kind of protection is this for the ordinary working man, the poor man in the jingle: “Rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief” …?

Before coming to the “thief,” I should like to deal with a class which, for the sake of convenience, I shall call the “beggar man”— people who do not wish to be regarded as beggars at all. I am referring here to the old age pensioners. They are compelled by the policies of this Government to stand cap in hand, day after day and month after month, waiting for a handout and that while they are entitled to much more by virtue of every moral law. Well, we have heard a lot about morals from that side of the House.

What did the United Party give them?

After 17 years, the hon. member has no business to ask us why we did not give them certain things. Figures given to Parliament last year show that 34 per cent of White old age pensioners and 91 per cent of Coloureds depend entirely on their pensions. We know what this means—the position in which hundreds of thousands of people have to eke out a living. Admittedly many of them are getting the extra Rand a month but the fact remains that they have to eke out a living, a meagre living, because of the policies of this Government. It therefore ill becomes the Minister of Finance, apart from the one jingle from which he draws his inspiration, to go to another one, pat himself on the back and say “What a good boy am I! ” He has given practically nothing, except to those who already have as much as they need. All the others, also those to whom I have referred, he has left out in the cold. Hon. members on that side of the House are aware of that, even though they may not want to admit it.

I now want to come to the category of the “thief,” in this case those who, unfortunately for them, enter our prisons. Recently we have had a statement by a judge of the Supreme Court drawing attention to the fact that the incidence of crime in South Africa has increased tremendously, so that it has become more than a social disease—it has become part and parcel of what we call “the South African way of life.” It is startling to find that in the Budget there is provision for more prisons, a provision which this year is going to be R7,000,000 more. Let us see where all these prisons have been or are to be built: Barberton, Baviaanspoort, Nigel, Paarl, Pollsmoor, Pretoria, Stofberg, Sonderwater. Utrecht, Bloemfontein, Brandvlei, Goedemoed,

Grootvlei, Cape Town, Odendaalsrus, Paarl, Witbank, etc. It seems as if the prison has become the status symbol of the South African community! Does the Government know that? Wherever you look in this vote of the Budget, you either find increased prison facilities or provision for the building of new prisons …

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

I should not be more ashamed than the hon. member should be. The point I want to make is that if we say that we have a society in South Africa which is well-ordered, and that we have a Government which is ordering that society properly, there should be no need, surely, to point to the fact that there is this tremendous increase in the provision for prison accommodation, and that there is a daily average prison population of 70,000 in this country.

Disgraceful …

Of course, it is disgraceful!

It is disgraceful what you imply.

But instead of paying attention to such an important matter, a matter which, as I said, was more than a social disease, we are constantly being dragged away from it by means of such devices as Bantustans.

In conclusion, I want to say that for so long as we have a Government which tinkers with our economy from year to year, which despite a very flowery 5-year Economic Development programme, does not, on the admission of the hon. the Minister himself, know from one month to the next exactly where our economy is heading, for as long as you have such a Government, you must expect to have this imbalance in our economy, you must expect this kind of injustice in regard to the spreading of the benefits that economy produces, and you must expect those consequences to which I referred when I dealt with the provision of additional accommodation for the “thief”.

Mr. Speaker, I immediately wish to express my indignation at the scandalous things the hon. member has just said, namely that this Government is now alleged to be making provision for additional prison accommodation and that South Africa’s prisons have now become a symbol of the country. I do not know whether he said it because many liberals of his type find themselves behind bars, but in any case I think it scandalous that the things which are necessary to ensure the preservation of law and order in the country should be depicted in this light, and that according to him it should be symbolic of the people of South Africa. I am glad that I do not belong to that section of the population of which it might be a symbol. It may be a symbol for that hon. member.

The hon. members of the Opposition are very chary of one matter. Ever since Monday until to-night—Wednesday—they have been talking, but they are as afraid of this particular matter as the devil is of holy water. I am referring to last week’s election. The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) has given that side of the House a golden opportunity to discuss this matter. We know that the matter lies near to their hearts; we know that they are continually holding caucus meetings about it, but nevertheless they are very loath to touch on that matter. Well, I am not going to follow their example by also ignoring the matter, because I want to discuss this matter and to give my views in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, the events last week were important, and I think that what actually happened last week in South Africa should be put in the right perspective. What happened can either be exaggerated or minimized. It may be exaggerated, and I know that it has been put on a par with the debacle of 1948. I also know that it is even being compared with the results of the referendum. But on the other hand it has been grossly minimized, particularly by certain supporters of the United Party who want to ascribe this debacle to just a little bad organization on the part of the United Party. But apart from these two possibilities, there is also the possibility that the actual meaning of this event may be completely ignored.

The Press supporting the United Party and most of the conjectures in regard to the results bring those results into context with the Opposition and its failure in the election. Well, I do not think we should attach too much value to the Opposition in this case. I feel that the most important meaning of these results should be regarded against a particular background. Firstly, there is the fact that the Whites in South Africa regard themselves as a separate nation and that they want to maintain themselves as a separate nation, and accept the intention to remain living here as a separate White nation as one of the fundamental facts of our politics in the Republic. Secondly, there is the fact that the continued existence of this separate White nation is being threatened by the outside world. The hon. member for Ventersdorp expanded on this point and therefore I do not wish to say too much about it. But I want to state that it is quite clear that every South African, whether English or Afrikaans-speaking, is all too conscious of the fact that South Africa has become the target for international criticism. The first and most important meaning of the election results is that the conservative White voters of South Africa are increasingly joining forces to defend themselves against this foreign interference. The English liberal Press describes it as “entering the laager”. Sir, all nations have the right, if they are threatened, to gird their loins to ensure their continued existence. I am thinking, e.g., of Great Britain which did so during the last war under the leadership of Sir Winston Churchill, and it redounds to their honour. In the same way it redounds to the honour of every conservative South African if he now wants to “enter the laager” to fight for the existence of White South Africa. As long as that laager is the National Party, this party will be proud to undertake that task. Consequently, Sir, I want to allege that the National Party is therefore not an ordinary political party but it has in fact become a national bastion. In respect of this fundamental matter, it is the task of the United Party itself to decide what it wants to do, but every right-thinking conservative South African, English as well as Afrikaans-speaking, will stand by the National Party to work and to fight, and to stand guard. We dare not relax, nor will we relax in this political struggle, because we are struggling for our lives, and it may even be a struggle to the death. In so far as it is the task of the National Party to be a national bastion, we must obtain greater national unity, and that within the ranks of the National Party.

This election must necessarily have made an impression abroad, and I am convinced that it has given our enemies overseas the impression of solidarity and determination on the part of the Whites in South Africa to maintain themselves. And in view of the fact that the dangers in the outside world are increasing instead of decreasing. I want to emphasize that we in South Africa can achieve the necessary measure of determination and solidarity only within the ranks of the National Party. It is therefore a task which the National Party will undertake.

But the recent election also brought something else to light, namely that the Whites of South Africa want to remain in existence as a separate nation through the application of the policy of separate development, because it is this policy which ensures their continuance in South Africa. Another fundamental principle revealed by this election is that Afrikaans as well as English-speaking people want to see the preservation of the White nation within the National Party because it is this party which stands for separate development, a policy which can ensure that we continue as a White nation. In this respect there is also, we may say, “an entering of the laager”. I am glad that there are so many English speakers who want to join us and that the old set-up according to which our people were politically divided, on a language basis, is now disappearing. At best that division was only artificial. The deplorable attempts on the part of the United Party during the recent election to try to separate the English-speaking people of Natal from the National Party is, in my opinion, a crime towards South Africa and against the continued existence of the Whites.

Another fundamental significance of the recent election is that English as well as Afrikaans people indicated that they wanted to see the Whites continue as a separate nation through this Government’s policy of separate development. Now I want to make this statement, namely that just as little as the nation will tolerate that its existence is threatened by the outside world, just as little will it tolerate its existence being threatened by the watering down of its policy of separate development in this country. The National Party has therefore become a national bastion, not only against communism and liberalism emanating from abroad, but also against racial integration, which wants to destroy it, in this country.

In view of these circumstances the United Party can now choose which course it wants to follow. I have heard much as to what they intend doing, and that they are now in a state of “re-thinking”. But I predict that there will be increasing unity within the National Party against the threats from abroad, as well as those in the country, to ruin the policy of separate development.

And also the abandonment of White leadership.

I shall have something to say about White leadership later. I suppose there will be people who allege that I am advocating a one-party state consisting of the National Party and the destruction of the Opposition. Well, that is simply not the case. We of the National Party are democrats, and we need an Opposition. There is room for an Opposition, but then it must comply with two requirements. The first of those is that it should have a love for its own nation and fatherland—in other words, that White South Africa should come first. The second requirement is that it should be honest. The opportunistic game played by this Opposition in the recent election was a deplorable exhibition of dishonesty. Now they come with this story of White leadership, but this story was rejected in the recent election, because the voters know that it was dishonest, that it was not something in which one could believe. They know that this is an opportunistic game. There is, therefore, as I say, room for an Opposition in South Africa, but, as I have also said, that Opposition must be honest. There is a need in South Africa to-day for a good Opposition.

There can be no compromise in respect of the continued existence of White South Africa or the policy of separate development. Now we hear of the “re-thinking” which is in progress in the United Party, and the Press supporting it is also thinking aloud. They ask for a rethinking and for a compromise in respect of certain aspects of separate development. But an aspect in regard to which no compromise is possible is that the Bantu who are within the White area are here merely as immigrants or migrant workers. Their homeland is in the Bantu area, and there they must enjoy all their rights and privileges. There can be no compromise about that. That the development of the Bantu homelands can then be accepted as common cause, and that the colour question should be limited only to the Bantu in the White area—the so-called detribalized Bantu, as they like to call them—must be rejected because it does not reinforce the policy of separate development. This, therefore, offers no solution to the problem, but is merely a shifting of standpoint in favour of racial integration, because the White man does not have his own homeland yet, and the continued existence of the White man will not be ensured if the Bantu is to be integrated in his area.

There is a second aspect in respect of which there can be no compromise in regard to the policy of separate development. This is that the Bantu areas should remain there as the homelands of the Bantu and should be developed by the Bantu himself. Consequently, there can be no compromise in respect of the proposal that the Bantu areas should be developed by White capital, because racial integration will necessarily accompany it. The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field) said this afternoon that—

But this story that separate development can only succeed if the Bantustans can become economically viable is pure nonsense. We know that. We know the Basutoland, for example, is not economically viable, but it will receive its independence within a year or so, in spite of the fact that it is not economically viable. Why should our Bantu areas then be economically viable if we want to lead them to independence? I cannot understand it. Take Bechuanaland, which is much worse off than even Basutoland. It will never become economically viable. But if they are led to independence, that is no sin. Then they need not be viable, but the Transkei and the other Bantu homelands in South Africa must be viable!

What African state is economically viable to-day?

Yes, that is true. None of the African states is economically viable today. All of them are kept going with American aid or British aid.

Just as the Transkei will be kept going with Chinese aid!

The hon. member also said that the development of the Transkei had failed. He intimated that only a few industries had been established there. But the test for determining whether our policy has succeeded is surely not how many industries were established. The test is how many Bantu regard the Transkei as their homeland and accept it as such, wherever they may work. That will indicate whether our policy is successful or not. Now I want to give the hon. member the assurance that by far the greater majority of the Bantu in the White areas do in fact accept the Bantu areas as their homelands. That is the test, and not how many industries have arisen there. As I say, the test is how many Bantu accept the Bantu areas as their homelands and do not demand social and economic rights in the White areas, but in their own areas.

With reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Zululand, I want to say something in regard to the borders of the Bantu areas. I want the hon. member to listen now. In Zululand he told the same story during the recent election that he has told here. In the first place, the hon. member ascribed certain words to the hon. the Prime Minister which the Prime Minister never used. The hon. member intimated that the Prime Minister said that all traditional Bantu land would become Bantu areas. To that he added that the whole of Zululand was traditionally inhabited by the Zulus and should therefore go back to the Zulus.

I said that historically it belonged to them.

Let me now quote what the hon. the Prime Minister said in this regard. The hon. member could have read it for himself but he never does that. On 12 April 1962, Col. 3810, the Prime Minister said the following—

That then is what the hon. the Prime Minister said. He also said—

That is the story which the hon. member told during the recent election in Zululand. The Prime Minister said—

That is surely very clear. I hope that the hon. member now thoroughly understands the matter and that he will remember it. But the hon. the Prime Minister continued and said (Col. 3927)—

That is what the hon. member for Zululand alleged. This afternoon still he accused the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education of having said something in conflict with that. The hon. the Minister said in the first place that consolidation in one area was the ideal position. [Interjections.] He also said that unfortunately it was not possible everywhere. Therefore consolidation is done by clearing up Black spots in White areas and adding them to the Bantu areas. The process is, however, gradual and takes place in consultation with the Whites and the Bantu. That is what the Minister said. He also said that where it was not possible to consolidate everything in one area, there may be two or three or four Bantu areas for one population group, as in Natal, and that the Zulus may be given self-government over those areas. In regard to the exchange of areas there must always be consultation between the Bantu and the Whites. Now the Prime Minister has also said this. I want to quote what he said in Col. 3927 of Hansard of 13 April 1962—

That is what the hon. the Prime Minister said. It is therefore clear that there is absolutely no contradiction between what the Minister of Bantu Education and the Prime Minister have said. That hon. member said this afternoon “Leave the Bantu areas (alone) as they are”. Is that not fragmentation? Will it not be fragmentation if various small areas lie scattered all over the place? And what does the Natal Agricultural Union say about it? They say that they particularly want those areas consolidated because they want to protect the catchment areas about which the hon. member complained this afternoon.

I wanted to say something about the further aspect about which there can be no compromise, namely our policy of border industries, but I am afraid that my time has elapsed and I cannot go into that further.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has dealt with the Provincial Council results and has covered a wide field in regard to the reasons for those results. But we have had no indication at all as to how the R 110,000,000 surplus is going to be allocated. This being a Budget debate one would perhaps have expected a number of the Government members to discuss the present financial position. The hon. member for Heilbron also dealt with the question of the role the Opposition has to play. I can only say that the United Party, as the official Opposition, will fight back. We shall continue to fight for what is right and just. The hon. member also spoke about love for the fatherland. It is for that very reason that we on these benches believe that our fatherland should be kept as a whole and not be fragmented in terms of Government Party policy. It is the very love of that fatherland that will make the United Party continue to put forward a policy which indicates the just path to follow.

The great prosperity which it is claimed South Africa is enjoying at the present moment is not a prosperity which is being enjoyed by a large section of the community, a section which has made its contribution to the welfare of the country. One of the legs of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) says—

I wish to address the House on this particular leg of the amendment particularly in regard to the announcements made by the hon. the Minister of Finance when he introduced his Budget. When I heard the surplus of R 110,000,000 I felt that the Minister of Finance could have been more generous. When we think of it in times of prosperity, in times of large surpluses, it is deemed unwise to put further financial assistance in the hands of the consumers and in the hands of the neediest group of all, because of the fear of inflation, it means that in difficult times those persons can expect even less in the form of assistance from the Government.

In this announcement the Minister of Finance dealt with the relaxation of the means test. I believe some progress has been made in this very important matter. It is a matter which members on this side of the House have pleaded for many years. We have pleaded for a more satisfactory basis on which the means test could be calculated. We have suggested that the ceiling of the income permitted should be raised; that the applicant for a social pension should be allowed to own more assets and the consolidation of the allowance with the basic pension so that the ceiling for the means plus pension limitation would automatically be raised. Naturally we on this side of the House are pleased to see that the Government have taken notice of those pleas of ours. We are pleased to see that the consolidation of the allowance with the basic pension has brought about a raising of the ceiling.

However, Sir, I did not intend dealing in great detail with the proposals put forward by the Minister of Finance in his speech as amending legislation will naturally come forward later in the Session, a Pension Laws Amendment Bill I presume, on which occasion we shall have an opportunity to discuss in greater detail the proposed amendments in regard to the means test. But I should like to deal with these proposed amendments in the light of the Government’s degree of generosity in affording some relief to those people who require some assistance from the State by means of a social pension. When one comes to analyse what these suggestions mean one finds that one important feature is the means plus pension limitation. Although some concession has been made in regard to the assets permitted, the free income permitted has only been increased by R1 per month. Previously the pensioner was allowed a free income of R15 per month. In terms of the proposals put forward by the Minister of Finance now, that free income will be raised to R16 per month. That is indeed a very small concession, although the over-all ceiling is to be raised because of the consolidation of the allowances with the basic pension from R26 per month to R42 per month. The question of the raising of the income limit is very important because the value of the income of the asset together with the income in excess of R15 per month brings about the means plus pension limitation which in turn affects the concessions which have been given in regard to the permissible assets. The hon. the Minister of Finance indicated when he introduced his Budget that the assets to be permitted would be raised from R2,400 to R5,600. On closer examination one finds that in actual fact R2,400 still remains the amount allowed in respect of assets because the income value of the amount over R2,400 is still taken into account. Although a person will be entitled to claim a full pension of R28 per month with assets up to R 5,600 we must remember that the amount of income from any other source must be below R16 per month i.e. R192 per annum. Consequently that small increase in regard to free income and the adjustment of the income limitation has brought about a restricting effect on the concession that has been given in respect of the assets that are permitted.

The White Paper sets out the position and says that an amount of up to R 10,800 as an accumulated asset would still entitle a pensioner to the minimum pension of R2 per month. That figure relates to the person having no other income whatsoever. I mention this point because a considerable number of people, on reading the Budget speech, would perhaps be under the impression that they would now qualify for a pension and would possibly be disappointed. Because of the limitation value in regard to income it means that, although a person is entitled to the minimum pension of R2 per month with assets up to R 10,800 and he has an income from another source in excess of R192 per annum, his pension would remain at R2 per month if he has an income in the R192 to R216 per annum bracket. This in turn means that he will be restricted to assets up to R7,200 and if his income is just over R192 per annum he will also qualify for R2 per month which is the minimum pension. Whereas had he had no income whatsoever he would have been entitled to a pension R20 per month. So you can see, Sir, that the limitation placed by this sliding scale does bring about a slightly different picture from the one gained in listening to the Budget proposals.

However, as I said earlier, we on this side of the House are naturally pleased and welcome any steps which show progress in relaxing the stringent means test which has been applied to applicants for social pensions in the past. Another important feature concerning the means test is the drop in the purchasing power of money and a decrease in the value of money. All the properties in the major municipalities have been re-valued which means that there will be some persons who were previously disqualified from receiving a pension and who will now receive a small portion. We naturally welcome that. The other aspects of the relaxation of the means test are important, I believe, when one takes into account cost of living. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) quoted the various cost of living index figures to show how the cost of living had increased in recent times. In view of the increase in the cost of living a large percentage of our social pensioners will only receive an extra R1 per month. This will be the first increase they have had since 1 April 1963. The Coloured and Indian pensioners will only receive an additional 50c per month and the vast majority of them have not received an increase since 1 April 1963. The question of the adequacy of this pension to the neediest of our pensioners is one of the important legs of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia.

I shall deal at a later stage with other aspects regarding these increases. I should just like to mention what I regard as important omissions in regard to the relexation of the means test. I think it is an anomaly that the income earned by a person over 70 years of age as an employee is not taken into consideration for the purposes of the means test but in the case of the person who is self-employed he is discriminated against in that the profit he derives from his business is taken into account and classified as income for the purposes of the means test. It is this particular class of person whom I thought would have received some consideration from the Government as the Government claims to be one which encourages initiative. Yet in the very instance of the person who is self-employed he is discriminated against. No concession seems to have been made in regard to those persons who are endeavouring to supplement their pensions by self-employment. The other omission in regard to the means test is that no consideration is given to the war veteran over 70 years of age apart from a increase in the means plus pension limitation which has been brought about by the consolidation of the allowances with the basic pensions. As far as the assets are concerned they appear to remain unchanged so the war veteran of over 70 years of age has received no concession.

This side of the House agree in principle with the deferred pensions. We think it is an excellent move in that it will encourage people to continue in employment. It seems, however, that certain difficulties can arise. For example, if a person deferred his application for a social pension for two years and then receives an additional R6 per month what would his position be if after a period of a year he once again recommenced employment? What would his position be if after another period of 12 months he re-applies for a pension? Would he then be entitled to a higher rate of his deferred pension or not? However, these are matters which could perhaps be dealt with at a later stage when the Minister of Pensions introduces legislation to give effect to the various concessions.

In terms of the present Budget the maximum pension will be increased from R27 per month to R28 per month. This is indeed a very small concession. I thought the Government would have seen fit to be far more generous to this deserving group of members of our community. It is estimated that the concessions to pensions in respect of the means test will involve the State in this financial year in a further R5,000,000. As far as the increase of R1 per month to the White pensioners and the 50c to the Coloured and Indian pensioners are concerned this will involve the Government in an increased expenditure of R2,000,000. Surely, Sir, it would not have caused any inflation had the Government seen fit to grant them at least R2 per month. That would have cost the country another R2,000,000. This would have greatly alleviated the plight of those pensioners who are fully dependent on their pensions as a means of livelihood.

The increase which has been granted is one which will be welcomed by the recipients but we must take into account that many of them have waited for a period of two years before receiving any increase. In terms of the figures given in 1964 in regard to those persons who received increases in 1963, 274,000 of the total number of 524,000 social pensioners of all races received an increase—the Whites R2.50 and the non-Whites a proportionate lesser amount. This represented 42,500 Whites i.e. one-third of the total number of White social pensioners, 62,650 Coloureds, i.e. 91 per cent of the Coloured social pensioners, 8,000 Indians, i.e. 73 per cent of the total number of Indian pensioners and 160,850 Bantu pensioners which represented 57 per cent of the Bantu pensioners. Therefore in effect it means that 274,000 social pensioners have not received an increase for a period of two years. They represent 52.5 per cent of the total number of social pensioners. When we take into account the increase in the cost of living, which the Government itself admits and which is causing consternation amongst the Ministers concerned, such as the Minister of Economic Affairs, we realize that this is a very minute increase indeed. In the case of the Coloured pensioners, who definitely fall into the category of the neediest of the needy, their increase is only 50c per month. I think this increase is scandalous in comparison with the surplus of R110,000,000.

The other 250,000 pensioners received an increase on 1 April, 1964. They received their increase a year later than those who were termed in 1963 by the Minister of Finance himself as the neediest of the needy. In terms of the Budget before us the neediest of the needy have only been granted a small amount of R1 per month or 50c per month in the case of the non-Whites, after a period of two years.

The other group who are affected by these proposals of the Minister of Finance are the Bantu pensioners. In their case the system is to be altered from 1 October, 1965. They are now all to be brought into one category receiving a pension of R44.40 per annum, or R3.70 per month. This in effect will bring about a reduction as far as the Bantu in the city areas are concerned although, I understand, they will not in actual fact have their pensions reduced, but that it will mean that all future Bantu pensioners in the city areas will receive R44.40 per annum instead of R47.40, i.e. a decrease of R3 per annum. The town Bantu will receive a slight increase and the rural Bantu will receive a considerable increase. The Government recognize the fact that cost of living in the cities is higher than in the rural areas. However in the case of the Bantu pensioners the Government have seen fit to reduce the rate of pension in the city areas.

I think the Government has once again lost a great opportunity in augmenting the manpower shortage when we think of the reservoir of labour which we have in the pensioners, although they are in the latter part of their years. They can still play an important part in the development of the country. The Government has once again lost an opportunity in not encouraging other pensioners to continue in employment. The social pensioner has been given this inducement to delay his application for a pension thereby qualifying for a higher pension but what about the civil and the Railway pensioners who are dependent on the policy of the Government in regard to the other civil pensioners. We find that their position is still restricted by a means test limit. There are many cases of civil and railway pensioners who are most anxious to continue to play a part in the labour market of this country but they are reluctant to do so due to the fact that they would sacrifice their temporary allowance. This temporary allowance which is payable to civil and railway pensioners and which can reach a maximum of R40 per month is a very important factor when they consider whether or not to take up employment. I might mention that a large number is involved. There are something like civil pensioners and 23,820 railway pensioners, i.e. nearly 44,000. They have served the State and are willing to continue to serve, not only the State, but to serve in the open labour market in the interests of the country. However, they are restricted by a means limit and in the case of a married person this limit is R150 per month and R75 per month in the case of a single person. This limit decidedly has a restricting influence and is certainly not an encouragement to these people to take up employment. I know of cases, which I know for a fact are genuine cases, where the persons are anxious to take up employment but when they come to work out the figures they find it is not worth their while doing so. When a person has qualified for a pension and receives a temporary allowance he has to take into consideration, when considering employment, whether he will score if he takes that employment but loses his temporary allowance. I know of a case where a person went on pension and received a pension of R116 per month. He qualified for a temporary allowance of R34 per month. That gave him R150 per month which is the means limit in the case of the civil pensioner. He was then offered part-time employment at R40 per month which he was most anxious to take. However, he was advised that if he should take up that employment he would automatically lose his temporary allowance of R34 per month. So in actual fact he would have been R6 per month better off. This can hardly be considered an inducement for these people to take up employment. When he takes up employment he has additional expense in regard to transport and better clothing and so forth. It is therefore not worth his while if he only scores R6 per month.

I think this was an ideal opportunity for the Government to have made a concession towards these people. If the Government want to be consistent when they say they want to encourage these people to play an important part in the labour market, they can be so by doing something concrete, by making a concession to these people, by raising that means limit as well so that those persons will be encouraged to continue to help to build up the country as they have done in the past.

As little as the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) followed up the remarks of the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) so little do I wish to follow up the remarks of the hon. member for Umbilo.

You cannot.

It is easy to say “you cannot”. I shall come to the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman). I want to refer to something that was said by the hon. member for Umbilo. At the start of his speech the hon. member said that as far as the speech of the hon. member for Heilbron was concerned he could give him the assurance that the United Party would continue to put its policy to the country and to convince the country that the policy of the United Party was the correct policy. This is more or less in conformity with the statement which he had yesterday afternoon from the caucus of the United Party by their Chief Whip. We do not resent this fact, Mr. Speaker. The United Party can continue to put their policy. But the United Party must also not resent the fact if, on each occasion, we expose them and explain to the electorate how the United Party is giving them wrong information. In this connection I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) on 4 February, 1965, during the Second Reading debate on the Part Appropriation Bill. I do not want to reply to that speech at this stage but I just want to say this: The hon. member for King William’s Town chose the time for his speech in such a way that he made his speech just before the period for that debate expired and nobody could reply to him. On that occasion he replied to the hon. member for Edenvale (Dr. Koornhof) who said that land was not becoming any more plentiful. The hon. member for King William’s Town said: “Land is not becoming any more plentiful but it is this Government which is giving the little land we have to the destroyers of land—the Bantu.” These were statements made by the hon. member for King William’s Town during the past election campaign in that area. Unlike the case in other constituencies, he was successful in retaining King William’s Town but I want to tell him that we shall give the people in that area the correct information. What is the position? Is this Government giving away land to the destroyers of land—as the hon. member put it, to the Bantu—or are we simply giving effect to the provisions of the Bantu Trust and Land Act of 1936?

The hon. member is aware of the fact that under the 1936 Act provision is made for scheduled areas, demarcated land, to the extent of 10,729,433 morgen. The hon. member is also aware of the fact that quota land has been released. The idea was that a further 7,250,000 morgen of land should be purchased and certain land was released for that purpose, in other words, land which was released from the provisions of the Natives Land Act of 1913 which provided that no White land could be sold to a Bantu. Only 6,789,544 morgen of land was released and not 7,250,000 morgen. The hon. member for King William’s Town is aware of that fact. The hon. member ought also to know that there is no scheduled land nor is there any released land (oopgestelde grond) but 188,000 …

What is “oopgestelde grond”?

Open land …

“Vrygestelde grond” (Released areas).

“Vrygestelde grond” or “oopgestelde grond”. The term used in the 1936 Act is “oopgestelde grond”. I do not know whether the hon. member is aware of this fact. Mention is made of “open ground”. There were 188,660 morgen which did not fall into one of these categories but which formed black spots and which had to be cleared. This was Bantu land within White areas. The hon. member for King William’s Town had this to say—

The hon. member for King William’s Town ought to know that that is not true. I want to say this; No 100,000 acres of unreleased land was purchased in that area; neither was 50,000 acres purchased. Will the hon. member admit that?

I shall deny it when I reply.

I also want to tell the hon. member that 10,000 acres of land was not purchased either. Why, knowing what the position there is, did the hon. member try to give us the impression that 100,000 acres of land, which is not scheduled land, was purchased there in order to make that area Black? What was this hon. member trying to do? The hon. member was trying to create unrest as he was trying to do when he said that a bomb was going to burst and that the hon. the Minister would be responsible for it. I said by way in interjection that he was trying to make people afraid just before the election. I want to tell the hon. member that 100,000 acres of land was not purchased; there is not that much land available.

They purchased 100,000 acres which was land scheduled under the Act.

Just listen to that, Mr. Speaker. I have here what the hon. member said. He says that this land was scheduled under the Act. Where does he get that from? The land which was scheduled was scheduled in 1913 and is mentioned repeatedly in the 1936 Act. And in 1936 that hon. member was a very strong supporter of the then Government which passed the 1936 Act. He is now trying to make out that we passed this legislation.

The hon. member made another wrong statement. He said that this Government wanted all the land lying to the west of the railway line from Berlin, I think. The hon. member also knows that that statement of his is not correct. Now he shakes his head. The hon. member was present at the meetings which were held. The farmers were never told that Bantu Administration and Development had to have the land to the west of the railway line. It was put to them that they should obtain the land on the southern side of the national road which is something completely different.

Which national road?

The national road running from East London to King William’s Town via Berlin. The hop. member for King William’s Town says that it is the land to the west of the railway line, but the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) does not know that part of the world. He should leave this matter to the hon. member for King William’s Town and myself.

Then the hon. member said that 200 farmers were being uprooted. He said that that corridor would be excluded in such a way that King William’s Town would become a White spot in a pitch black area. He spoke about the German settlement of Frankfurt and Brunswick. Does the hon. member know that there are still two released areas in the vicinity of Frankfurt, Braunschweig and Wiesbaden?

What are the numbers?

There are two released areas between those German settlements. They lie from Frankfurt via Wiesbaden to Braunschweig.

You do not know your geography.

Does the hon. member deny this? If I am wrong I am prepared to stand up here in the House and apologize to the hon. member.

You will still have to do that.

I shall apologize to him if there are not two released areas in that area, that area which is still White at present.

The hon. member made the further statement that the hon. the Minister was making that area so Black that the national roads would have to go through a Black area and that the power lines would have to do the same. This is through those 100,000 acres which has been made Black by this Government! The hon. member knows that the area from near Alice up to King William’s Town is an old Bantu area and that it has never ever been anything else.

What about Melitsha?

I shall come to that. The hon. member is wasting my time. I shall discuss Melitsha with him at some other stage. The hon. member knows that that area has never ever been a White area. When I was a little boy I travelled through that area; the road ran through Bantu area. At a later stage they built a tarred road there. Think of the road through King William’s Town via Peddie to Grahamstown. The hon. member knows that when one leaves King William’s Town one travels through an old Bantu area until one crosses the Fish River bridge except for a short distance between the Keiskama and Peddie.

No.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member cannot make me believe that his knowledge of King William’s Town is so poor. What is the policy? The hon. member is now seeking to make out—he also said this on the occasion I have mentioned—that this Government, at the request of Mantanzima, wants to join up the whole Bantu area of the Ciskei with the Transkei. The hon. member knows that the efforts that are being made are being made in order to clear that White corridor through to Stutterheim; there are a number of Black spots in the hon. member’s own district.

How many?

I shall give the hon. member the number but my time is running short. He asks how many? He told us how Mooiplaas and Newlands had been trampled down and how much squatting there was there. The hon. member is aware of the fact that Mooiplaas and Newlands are both places which must be cleared, that they are both scheduled areas which have to be taken out and they can only be taken out if other land is given in compensation. The hon. member also says that released area No. 34, situated to the north of East London, has already been withdrawn and that other land has to be given in compensation. Mr. Speaker, it would be very easy to solve these problems of consolidation if we had people who were prepared to co-operate with us, as is the case of so many fanners’ associations. The fact which makes this problem so extremely difficult is that there are people like the hon. member for King William’s Town who—I cannot express it in any other way—sabotage one’s plans to bring about consolidation.

I hope I have.

Is it necessary that we should have consolidation? I should like to quote to you, Sir, the finding of the Tomlinson Commission. I come now to the hon. member for East London (City). He is not here now but he was co-responsible for drawing up the Tomlinson Report. I hope that he still stands by it because he signed it. This is what they have to say on page 210, chapter 50, paragraph 14 (12) (translation)—

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