Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? It has been customary in past years to draw to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister the activities of certain of his Ministers with whom we were not satisfied and whom, if I might put it that way, we wanted to report to the hon. the Prime Minister. This afternoon I want to draw to his attention particularly the activities of the two Ministers, one deputy Minister and the Cabinet Committee dealing with the subject of agriculture. I do it for a number of very good reasons, reasons which are of interest, not only to the farming community, but also to the entire economy of South Africa. The first reason is that the drought from which the country is now suffering has no doubt reached something in the nature of a national catastrophe, a national catastrophe especially, I believe, in respect of beef producers, although many cereal producers have been very hard hit indeed, and have the greatest sympathy from everyone on this side of the House. I use the phrase particularly in respect of and in connection with beef producers, because I believe the situation is becoming a catastrophe, not only to the beef producers themselves, but also to the nation itself.

The second reason why I felt it necessary to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to this matter was that I believed that had there been adequate, timeous and long-term planning, some of the worst effects of this drought might have been avoided. The third reason is that I believe the plans to cope with the situation seem to me to a large extent to be patch-work, and not imaginative enough to deal with the whole situation. I say that even if some of those plans have been formulated as a result of consultation with organized agriculture. What is so worrying is that certain aspects of this matter were raised during the Budget debate a few days ago by several speakers on this side of the House, when there was no reply from either of the Ministers charged with the care of agriculture in this country or from the Deputy Minister concerned. In view of the situation, I have no alternative but to bring this matter to the Prime Minister himself and to ask him to reply on behalf of his Ministers and to see to it that the country knows what the attitude of his Government is and what its policy is in regard to this matter. [Interjections.] Just as I expected, Sir, there is the parrot-cry that I am trying to exploit the drought for political purposes. May I say, Sir, that in my opinion it is this Government which is using the drought to cover up both its sins of omission and commission in respect of agriculture in this country. In any event, it was interesting to listen to the hon. the Minister of Finance earlier during this Session when he said that if large areas of the country were in the grip of a stubborn and prolonged drought, all other sectors of the national economy must inevitably suffer. If that is so, then this is a matter of national importance and one in respect of which a reply is due to the public from the hon. the Prime Minister himself. Just how serious the effects of this drought are going to be are going to depend, firstly, on the nature of the assistance given to the farmers concerned in the drought-stricken areas and, secondly, on what the state of affairs was in that section of the agricultural industry which was affected at the time the drought began. I think I can already say that there is no doubt whatever that the effect of this drought on the economy as such is going to be felt for several years to come. I do not suppose any one person—I doubt if even the Prime Minister himself at this stage—fully knows how seriously or otherwise various groups of farmers have been affected.

I want to say that in the course of my travels round the country in recent weeks in the course of the election campaign, when people are apt to come forward to give you some idea of the circumstances in their own areas, it is interesting to know that in most of those areas the Opposition party did better even than it expected and certainly very much better than the Government. [Interjections.] When members have made up their own minds. Sir, and finished their debate, I can perhaps say that I think I was able to form some picture of the sort of situation that was developing, not only as a result of what I myself saw, but as a result also of reports made to me and letters and complaints sent into me through the post. I say it was a tragic picture of many hundreds of thousands of morgen in which there were withered crops, in which maize farmers were suffering from a most serious situation, a tragic picture of exhausted grazing, of cattle, at the end of summer, in such poor condition that it is quite clear that there is no hope of their lasting through the winter unless they get artificial feeding of some kind or other, of fanners in so desperate a plight that many of them were leaving their farms and in some cases speculators trying to cash in on the misfortunes of the farmers.

In addition there is another development as a result of this drought, and that is that in certain of the Bantu areas, not only are the stock exhausted or have ceased to exist, but in many areas there have been crop failures to such a degree that there is no hope whatever of those people lasting through the winter without suffering very seriously from hunger and shortages of various kinds. The result is that already in some of those areas the population is on the move on a substantial scale without any regard to the normal sort of restrictions upon their movements. They are moving in such a way that the results may be frightening and serious unless steps are taken to deal with it. I think one of the matters on which we should like a reply from the hon. the Prime Minister is as to what steps are being taken to deal with that situation and what his plans are to meet the sort of difficulties which are going to arise, especially as it seems that certain voluntary associations, anxious to visit certain of the areas, have encountered difficulties in being granted permission to enter those areas.

The tragedy of this drought situation is that these blows have been struck at the foundation of an industry, the agricultural industry, which, on the whole, has not shared in fair measure in the prosperity the country has enjoyed in recent years. Because they have not shared in that prosperity, they are not in a strong position to withstand these onslaughts upon them, onslaughts from nature which has dealt with them so unfairly in their fight for survival. It is not only I who say that, Sir. The president of the South African Agricultural Union himself drew attention, in his last presidential address to his own unoin, to the fact that, in his opinion, the agricultural community had not had its just share in the prosperity of the country. Despite the explanations from the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and certain of the officials of the Department, that congress passed a unanimous resolution associating itself with the remarks of their president.

In the report of the director of the South African Agricultural Union, he made it clear that in his opinion the agricultural community was getting a very low-rated interest and a very high capital outlay in agriculture. In fact, he indicated that it might be as low as 2.1 per cent on the average. There are also figures indicating that the percentage of farmers farming at a loss, to judge from income-tax returns, was just about 6 per cent in the last three-year period for which information is available.

In addition to all this, most of the farmers affected by the drought have been farmers producing articles marketed in terms of the Marketing Act and producing products in respect of which the Government has followed a price policy which has been severely criticized, a price policy which, according to critics —and I believe justifiably so—has tended to hold the reins too tight and take insufficient regard of the vagaries of the weather and the difficulties to which they expose the farming community of this country. The result is that most people in many cases have not been able to build up reserves. They have had cost of production plus a certain reward, but in many cases that reward has been such that they have not been able to build up reserves for the bad years. Now you find them already in difficulties, in no position to withstand these further economic onslaughts which are being made upon their position.

I know the moment I make statements of this kind, when I speak of the agricultural community generally, I shall have the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing—if he can be persuaded to speak on this occasion —bounding up and telling us: How can things be bad with agriculture when land prices are going up steadily in South Africa. I want to tell him that that is certainly not the opinion of the President of the South African Agricultural Union that because land prices are going up, agriculture is necessarily profitable. I must also tell him that that is a very similar situation to what is happening in Great Britain at the moment where, despite the many millions spent on subsidies—I believe over £1,000,000 per day; that is the last figure I have—to the farming community, land prices continue to rise but farming continues to be more and more uneconomic.

I believe the reason here in South Africa could perhaps be sought in the fact that investments in land are often made by farmers themselves who know very little about other types of investment and who are seeking security against inflation; they are seeking to maintain a way of life for themselves and their families. Very often they are people who have been in the game a long time, people who have inherited large farms and are able to average out overheads and cost in a way which completely excludes the possibility of the young man coming into agriculture and being able to make a profit from the business at all.

I must say I am not impressed by arguments of that kind because one sees on every side the difficulties with which agriculturists are faced, agriculturists whose products are controlled and marketed in terms of the Marketing Act. I think if one needed further evidence then the sad story as to soil conservation in South Africa must illustrate the difficulties of the farming community and the neglect of the Government in that regard. Once again. Sir, you have the Soil Conservation Board, in its annual report, drawing attention to the lack of capital amongst farmers for the erection of soil conservation works. You get the blame given not only to floods, diseases and pests but also to the cost price squeeze that has been taking place in South Africa. In addition that board has emphasized yet again the lack of technical staff to do the necessary surveys and to draw up the necessary plans. It is a truism, I suppose, that well conserved land is far longer proof against drought than land that has been over-grazed and neglected. Here again we have an example of what I believe is primarily neglect on the part of the Government to give attention to this matter.

Hand in hand with conservation should go proper control of veld and grazing management. For the very same reason I ask how much has been done in this regard? I think it was two years ago when Dr. van der Watt, the Chairman of the Wool Board, drew attention to the deterioration of our grazing in South Africa over the last 20 years. It was less than that when Dr. van Wyk, the head of the Karoo Agricultural Region, drew attention to the neglect of grazing management and the resultant drying-out in our soils, the deterioration of soil cover, the scope even for termites and the deterioration of the soil itself. I myself have drawn attention to these matters at agricultural congresses and I believe the attention of this House has been drawn to these matters. The reply comes back: “Yes, but this is the responsibility of the farmer.” But what can the farmer do when, in many cases, because of poor price margins, he was forced to mine his soil, unable to adopt conservation farming methods and unable to protect his own heritage in that regard in order to make a living and to stay on his farm? I think a classic example of the sort of difficulties that have been arising, is the tragic position of our beef industry in this country. Do you realize, Sir, that our cattle population has been virtually constant for the last eight to ten years with a growing population and a growing demand for meat? A growing demand for meat not only because of the growing population but because of the changed eating habits amongst various members of the population who are demanding more meat and less bread and particularly moving over from mealie meal to meat. But our cattle population is remaining virtually constant. Do you realize, Sir, that from the year 1938 all there has been in South Africa has been a growth in our cattle population of roundabout 7 per cent? It rose from about 11,700,000 to about 12,300,000. Compare that with other countries of the world. Compare that with Swaziland and South West Africa where there has been a jump of over 50 per cent since the war years; compare that with the United States of America, a developed country, where there has been a jump of over 60 per cent over the last 22 or 23 years; Brazil with a jump of 85 per cent, Australia 40 per cent, France 33 per cent, Communist Russia 50 per cent, the Federation of Rhodesia 66 per cent and South Africa, under this Government, 7 per cent! Why? The reasons are not far to seek. Sir. The reasons are the lack of security which could be offered by a long-term policy in respect of the meat industry. This has been lacking from this Government.

Secondly, the eternal fixing of prices below what would make beef production attractive. We read year after year the report of the meat committee to the South African Agricultural Union; we have seen the requests they have made and the extent to which those; requests have been granted by the authorities concerned. This year we have perhaps seen the biggest jump, namely R2,30, I think, per 100 lb. for Grade I. But the damage has been done because we find ourselves in the position to-day that approximately 40 per cent of our breeding stock is in the hands of the Bantu population. Such severe inroads have already been made upon our own breeding stock by drought conditions that I have no doubt whatever we are going to face a serious beef shortage in South Africa within the next few years when the calves of that breeding stock should be coming on the market. I fear that we are going to be placed in the position where we shall have to import meat for South Africa just as we are having to import cheese and butter to-day to meet our own demands, demands which have arisen not just because of drought conditions but because the dairy industry as a whole has lost confidence in this Government because of the price policy it has applied to those commodities.

Japie, are you going to make him your Minister of Agriculture?

You know, Sir, there is an old Afrikaans saying: “Waar die hart van vol is, loop die mond van oor.” We have had this gentleman aspiring year after year to some job. however lowly in the hierarchy of the Nationalist Party, without success. He is not a member of the Broederbond; he has not got a hope. I must say, Sir, that he would probably do better than the Ministers the Prime Minister has at the moment; it would be difficult to do worse …

You will have to try for English, Blaar.

We have the difficulty in respect of technical services, the shortages for which the Government has been responsible, the lack of progress in breeding referred to by people like Professor Bonsma and Dr. Romain when speaking of our difficulties over the past 25 years. What is the picture? The picture is a simple one. Droughts are nothing new in South Africa; one could virtually say they are always with us. All that varies is their intensity and their extent but they are best withstood by an economically strong agricultural community aided by longterm plans to meet such contingencies on a national scale. Neither of those things is present in South Africa at the present time. We have an agricultural community affected by a variety of things, lack of long-term agricultural planning by the Government, a price policy which militates against building up of reserves, lack of technical services and research, inter alia, into marketing and things affecting the agro-economy in South Africa, insufficient attention to conservation farming and proper grazing methods and very small advances in respect of breeding progress. Above all no long-term advance plans to meet such contingencies at a national level. We have a Ministry of Planning; we have a Minister of Planning. That hon. member is new in his job but he has found time to interfere in such things as mixed audiences, social amenities. What has he done about long-term planning to meet the position in respect of droughts in South Africa? These difficulties can be expected year after year in this country and what has the hon. gentleman done about it? As long as I can remember there has been talk in South Africa of nationally constituted fodder banks. There has been talk about cattle hotels where cattle suffering from drought would be shifted and fed at the expense of the farmer concerned and sold for his account. What has been done? [Interjections.] If the Chief Whip is interested let me tell him: R 12,000 has been paid towards the creation of a central fodder bank in the Transvaal. I believe I spent more than that on feeding my own cattle in one year, and I am sure the hon. the Prime Minister did the same. R12,000! Sir, what are we faced with? We are faced with a crying shortage of roughage. The Government is assisting in an attempt to harvest withered crops and make it available with chemical feeds to the farming community, and I think we have to ask ourselves whether the Minister of Transport’s hard-pressed transport system is going to be able to move that food, and we have to ask him also whether he is going to be able to move the molasses, so necessary an ingredient of that food? We know already the difficulties which the sugar mills have in getting the molasses moved. We know how much has to be wasted from time to time so that they can proceed with their milling because transport facilities are not available.

I want to say at once that I have not a great deal of fault to find with the financial assistance which the hon. the Prime Minister and his Departments are offering at the moment by way of loans, but what I want to know and what is worrying every decent, self-respecting farmer in that area is: What is the position going to be when those farmers are expected to pay off those loans; what is going to be the position when they are expected to pay off those loans under the present price policies of this Government? You see, Sir, so many of them have talked to me. They are honest men. Some of them have attended explanatory meetings held by the Ministers of Agriculture. They have not been satisfied. They are loath to commit themselves for loans or commitments which they don’t believe they are going to be able to pay for while the present price policies of this Government are applied to the products they are producing on their farms. An honest man rather than commit debts which he cannot meet, will quit, and there are a great many of them who are honest men, good men, who are not prepared to commit themselves if they don’t see a way out. and I think the Government’s treatment of this matter is going to be a test of its attitude towards the entire farming community, is going to be a test of whether it wants a stable farming community in South Africa, and is planning for it. If the Government wants that, then I believe it must now commit which I would regard as an act of faith. I think it must indicate at this stage to the hard-hit farming communities in these areas that where loans have been taken up for approved purposes, such as saving breeding stock or for sowing for the coming season, and things of that kind, the State will either write off a portion of those loans, or subsidize them, or see that the rate of interest on which they are loaned is so low that amortization can be undertaken at a rapid rate. There are precedents for that sort of thing in other countries of the world. The United States of America under drought conditions, make uneconomic loans to the farming community; rent-free loans are made to the farmers who are affected by those weather conditions. I believe there have been similar instances in the past in South Africa, although I must say at once that I have not been able to check up on them at this stage.

I think the State’s attitude towards the farming community is going to be judged by its actions in this connection, and not only to the farming community, because the whole economy is going to be affected by the speed with which recovery can be effected by the farmers concerned, the whole economy is going to be affected by the success or otherwise of the proposals of the Government in this regard. You see. Sir, already, unfortunately, there is the suspicion that this Government is concentrating on the large-scale wealthy farmer and that it is not determined to try to maintain the stability of, shall I say, the average type of farmer, the middle type of farmer on the land of South Africa of the present time. [Time limit.]

For the first time since I have been in this House it has so happened that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has confined himself to one subject—the position of the farmers. It has always been the practice of Leaders of the Opposition to discuss a variety of subjects under the Vote of the Prime Minister. But it is also interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, after the results of the latest provincial elections, did not say one single word about the Bantu problem, as has been the case on other occasions. I accept the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has learnt his lesson once and for all during these past provincial elections—that his federation plan is not accepted by the people of South Africa and that it is categorically rejected, because the whole election campaign of the Opposition during the provincial elections was based on the federation plan. I have had various pamphlets issued by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and which deal only with the federation plan. The Opposition are now trying to make political capital out of the drought conditions which prevail in the country at the moment. The speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was devoted solely to this question. It was aimed at making political capital out of the critical position. I want to say that all of us in the Government are aware of the position. I think that the Ministers concerned have already visited most of the areas which are affected by drought conditions and that they are fully acquainted with the position there.

The farmers want more than sympathy.

The Ministers are acquainted with the position. Another thing which interested me was the fact that the Opposition, knowing that the Government has made itself aware of the serious drought conditions which prevail and that it is already making plans to meet this situation, has concentrated on trying to mention examples of individual farmers who may be dissatisfied. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition belittled the steps being taken by the Government. Can you imagine! He spoke belittlingly and contemptuously of the R 12,000 which is being made available to the South African Agricultural Union. Is this the assistance which the State has offered to the farmers at this stage? The hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that this amount is only for the organization of the South African Agricultural Union; he was silent about the millions which have already been made available in various ways. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also knows very well, and has read reports in the Press, of all the assistance which is planned, and yet he has stood up in this House and spoken belittlingly about the assistance which has been made available, particularly for organizational purposes. The Government has given this assistance because it realizes that the South African Agricultural Union can be of very great assistance under these circumstances by carrying on with its administration as far as these conditions are concerned. I am sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke in such a belittling way.

The second point is that there is not one of us who does not have the greatest sympathy for these farmers, knowing what the position is and how serious conditions are. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that the assistance which has already been announced is extraordinarily comprehensive. I believe that the State will counter these conditions because over the course of years it has proved that it is always prepared to take the necessary steps, indeed, more comprehensive measures than any previous Government has ever taken to combat conditions of this nature. Just let me tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that, knowing the farmers of South Africa as we do, I am convinced that the farmers will find their feet again. I know their self-confidence and their trust in the soil of South Africa, and if they are given the opportunity and if they are assisted, they will, as they have done in the past, not disappoint the State and the Government. They are not asking for charity; all they want is assistance to combat the prevailing conditions and I am convinced that the Government will take all the necessary steps to see that this is done.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred to the Marketing Act. He said that the rules governing the Marketing Act systems should be made less stringent. Mr. Speaker, I think that, as far as most products are concerned, a system of prices has been drawn up, a system of price determinations, which is the finest cost system of its kind and which gives the farmers confidence. I have the privilege of often coming into contact with the farmers at the agricultural unions and elsewhere and both as regards wheat and maize there is one thing on which the farmers stand firm and that is that they do not want to see any deviation whatsoever from the system of price determination because this system gives them security. The farmer knows that the price for last year will be the price for next year, unless circumstances change. Compare this with the methods which the United Party followed in the past when they were in power. The rules governing the marketing systems, which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, were such at that time and the powers which the then Government had under the Marketing Act were used to such effect that prices were forced down according to the size of the crop. If the crop was large and was larger than was required in the country, it was the policy of the United Party to force prices down. The policy which is followed by the present Government of a fixed price determination system is one of the finest methods which has ever been worked out in South Africa as far as price determination is concerned; the farmers have confidence in it and they do not want to deviate from it. If any person were to stand up at one of the agricultural meetings and say that he wanted to depart from these methods of price determination, the whole community of maize farmers would be up in arms, and the same thing holds good for the wheat farmers. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned some thing which was apparently said by the President of the South African Agricultural Union.

I have the report here, the annual report of the Chairman of the South African Agricultural Union. When one reads this report and when one considers the circumstances under which this statement was made, I feel that there was no justification for the President of the South African Agricultural Union to make a statement of this nature in the light of his own report. I do not have the time now to quote from the report in regard to his comparison of the position here with that overseas, and in regard to his remarks in connection with the position of capital. This report certainly does not justify his having made a statement of that nature. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made statements of this nature previously without producing any proof of them. He has dragged in the President of the South African Agricultural Union in this regard without trying to produce any proof of the allegations which he has made. He has never tried to produce proof to show that his allegations were correct. According to the report of the South African Agricultural Union itself, that remark was not justified. [Time limit.]

It has been really amusing to hear the chairman of the Nationalist Party’s agricultural group trying so hard to get away from agriculture and trying to get involved in race politics immediately he got onto his feet. I do not blame him, but let me promise him that he will have his opportunity later to discuss these matters.

What has the hon. gentleman said? He has criticized the President of the South African Agricultural Union for the remarks he made in respect of the agricultural industry. Why does the hon. member not tell this House that the entire South African Agricultural Union voted unanimously to associate itself with the report of its president? The hon. member has attacked me for daring to criticize the Government’s price policies. Here are extracts, covering two years running, from the reports of the Meat Committee of the South African Agricultural Union. This is their request for the fixing of prices at a certain level. In 1963—

The following year—

Now, Sir, who knows more about what is going on in respect of the fixing of prices, the Meat Board of the South African Agricultural Union or this hon. member who does not seem to know what the unanimous decision of the union was? Sir, I have said that I believe that the time has come for an act of faith by the Government, an act of faith to the farmers in the areas worst hit by the drought, an act of faith indicating that the Government will give them consideration by way of subsidies or lower rates of interest, allowing for rapid amortization, in order that they should be able to remain on the land. I pointed out the difficulties of the honest man in that regard, the man who is not prepared to go blindly forward if he does not see the opportunity of meeting his commitments. I want to say at once that even such an exceptional step would be useless in South Africa, it, after it had been made use of to rehabilitate the farmers concerned, we are going to continue with the Government’s present agricultural policy and if we are going to continue with its present price policies. I believe the time has come for a reappraisal, a clear statement of objectives and the adoption of a more realistic approach in respect of agriculture generally.

And you are not concerned about the consumer at all?

Of course I am concerned with the consumer, and I have already said that if this position of the drought is not repaired rapidly, we are going to have to import meat at higher prices into South Africa. The same has happened in the case of butter. Whilst the Government used to subsidize butter with lc per lb., they are now paying 9d. per lb. subsidy on imported butter. I think the hon. Minister of Transport should keep to transport. But let me take it a little further. In that new approach there must be a general acceptance of the fact that where the prices are to be fixed, the farmer must be assured a guaranteed and fair income over and above his production costs. In that framework steps must be taken generally in what I believe is the right sort of direction, namely, that there must be better co-operation between grain and meat farming in South Africa, with the accent on beef production; there will have to be rationalization of the price ratios in that regard.

I believe, secondly, Sir, there will have to be better control, better management, more research, more assistance in respect of grazing land, and I believe this is going to mean also greater efforts on the part of the State to assist in reducing and keeping production costs down. That is going to mean four things particularly on the part of the State: The first of those is more qualified personnel in the Department of Agriculture and in the Department of Economic and Marketing Services, particularly technical personnel to assist the farmer with guidance and advice. I believe, thirdly, that better facilities are required for the training of farm labour; and, fourthly, better teaching and training opportunities for the farmers themselves. I believe we still have the position that only 12 per cent of all those who start farming each year in South Africa have had any agricultural training and have been to any agricultural school, college or university in South Africa.

I believe we should also move in the direction of a thorough reform of the control board system in South Africa. When that system was introduced, the idea was that it would give attention to things such as price stability, orderly marketing and, what is perhaps the most important of all, efficiency in respect of the farming community. If you read the report of the Commission on Control Boards of 1947, you will find that it accepted that these boards must give more attention to the efficiency of the farmers. Now, Sir, are these boards so constituted to-day that they can give attention to that matter, that they can give assistance in respect of the efficiency of the farming community? I think the third thing we have got to look to is that strenuous steps must be taken to combat the depopulation of the platteland and I believe it can be done by a sensible decentralization of industry in the rural areas and not only to border areas. Lastly, there is the need of better schooling facilities for the children, better teaching facilities for their sons and daughters in those areas. Do you realize, Sir, what is happening on the platteland at the moment. It is not a question of depopulation of those rural areas. It is a question of repopulation. For every White man who leaves at the present time, 26 Bantu are coming into our rural areas. That is what is going on under this Government. Those are the last figures for the ten-year period available to us. People talk about depopulation of the platteland. It is not being depopulated, it is being repopulated by Black men. That is what has been happening over that period. I believe also we must give more attention to financing smaller type farmers so that there can be more intensive production on small units, many of which tend to become uneconomic as a result of the present price policy of the Government.

Then I believe that we have got to have a country-wide scheme for the rehabilitation of those farmers who have been forced off their land through no fault of their own. Sir, in the United States of America steps are being taken for retraining these people for other occupations, and there is consideration even for pensions for elderly farmers who cannot be trained for new occupations. I believe that with the sort of development we are having here in South Africa, something of that kind must be undertaken in the interests of the farming community.

We have talked about production, but what about marketing? I think there are three things in connection with marketing that have got to be realized. The first is that there must be sensible acceptance of the fact that the prosperity of the farmer depends, in the absence of unexpected weather conditions or pests and things like that, depends in the last resort upon the prosperity of the whole community. That means the Black community as well as the White community. That possibly is why the Minister of Defence was so right when he told the agricultural community that their future was assured as long as they did not expect prices for agricultural products to rise faster than the wages of non-Europeans in industrial employment. He saw the connection, although he expressed it in a somewhat unfortunate way. But there is no doubt whatever that the Black market is part of our home-market and that it is not going to be assisted by a policy of forcing these people back to the reserves, to an economic standard which lacks industrialization and will not enable them to build up the demand for agricultural products, which is so essential for the wellbeing of our farming community. [Time limit.]

The speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition reminded me strongly of the action of a pupil, a person who has heard something for the first time or who has learnt a lesson, or has learnt something from a book. That was the way in which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke about agriculture. Long before he ever entered politics the farmers organized themselves on their own initiative. They established the Marketing Act. That is the Magna Charta of the farmers, and whoever interferes with that Magna Charta interferes with the very being of the farmer, because stabilization came about through the Marketing Act. I want briefly to sketch the policy of the United Party of before that time. During their period of office they departed completely from the provisions of the Marketing Act. They governed by way of emergency regulations. They closed down the agricultural colleges. They commandeered meat and paid Id. per lb. for mutton, which was the highest price paid during their period of office. They had the lambs slaughtered and decimated our herds of stock to such an extent that it took years and years to rectify the position again. That was the policy of the United Party. I remember the days when they were still in government and when we did not even have storage space for our maize. The maize just lay and rotted under their policy. To tell the truth, they went further and paid into the Treasury the money which the farmers made after the war when maize was exported, when an extra profit of £5,000,000 was made on the export of that wheat, and it was the present Government which, in 1948 under Mr. Klasie Havenga, brought the first stabilization fund into being for the farmers by using that same money. I should like to know what the United Party has done for the farmers during the period that we have been in power? Not one of them has gone to the departments. Not one of them has suggested a policy. Have they ever said that they have approached the banks, or whatever the case may be, in order to try to do something for the farmers? No, all they do is to try to make political capital out of the drought conditions. What solution have they suggested? Have they said anything to indicate what they would do under similar circumstances? I can give hon. members the assurance that this side of the House and the South African Agricultural Union, with whom we co-operate very well indeed, is very sympathetically disposed towards the farmer and shows it in a practical way. Hon. members opposite have spoken belittlingly of the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel). I want to tell them that he is one of the most prominent personages in the sphere of agriculture in South Africa. He knows a great deal; he knows far more about agriculture than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does. He has co-operated over the years to place the maize industry on a sound basis. But what did we do further? While hon. members opposite were sleeping and were doing nothing in this regard, we were cooperating with the Meat Board and the Agricultural Union and we worked out a plan not only for to-day but for the future as well. We worked out a scheme to encourage the production of beef, a scheme in terms of which we have a floor price which will not be a floor price only but a floor price which makes it a paying proposition for farmers to breed cattle, something which has never been done before in the past. I want to add that the increase last year was effected by this side of the House together with the Meat Board and in consultation with our other boards. We took the initiative in encouraging the farmers in South West Africa and in the Northern Transvaal who were experiencing drought conditions. and we gave them an opportunity to build up their herds of stock once again. It was this Government and our boards which brought this about. I have not heard one remark of a constructive nature from that side of the House. Previously we had a floor price for meat which was not a paying proposition. That was why we consulted the Agricultural Unions and the boards. When one considers the increase in the floor prices of beef, one is able to appreciate the amount of work that has been done in this regard. Last year it was 112 and it is now 140 and I am convinced that this will be an incentive to farmers and encourage them to produce meat, because nobody will produce meat if it is not a paying proposition. That is why this basis has been drawn up; it is slightly more than the usual production costs. It is an incentive price. What did hon. members opposite do in order to introduce an incentive price? We sympathize with the people experiencing difficulty owing to drought but we have also done something about the matter. Who approached the Departments in order to obtain assistance for the farmers? It was the farming group on this side. We visited the Reserve Bank; we did everything that we possibly could to obtain relief for the farmers, and we were successful. The other day the hon. the Minister made a statement indicating what this group has done to assist the farmers. What did that side do? We visited all the banks and the people who finance the farmers and we arrived at an agreement whereby the production of the farmers would not be curtailed by the banks in times of drought. It was this side of the House which succeeded in bringing this about. I am sure that that side has never had a group which approached the Land Bank. To what is the improved assistance by the Land Bank due? We amended the Land Bank Act yesterday. Who effected those improvements? It was our group and this Government. That is why we have all those improvements in the Land Bank Act in order to encourage production. That is why there is more money available for silos and more money for water, and water and fodder are two of the most important items in this country which is so prone to drought. When we look at our conservation programme, we see that this group, together with the Agricultural Unions, has made every effort to obtain increased subsidies for fencing material, silos and so forth. Hon. members opposite have never been near the South African Agricultural Union. All they are trying to do is make political propaganda out of the difficulties of those people who are in such dire straits. If they had come to this House with a comprehensive scheme to assist these people, one could have understood it. But I make so bold as to say that they have done nothing but try to make political capital out of a drought, the worst drought that we have had for 40 years. They are playing with the livelihood of those people. I myself am a farmer and I want to challenge them to show what they did for the animal husbandry industry. We did everything. Take for example the development of our stud-books and our milk recording schemes. Who established these things? This side of the House, together with the Agricultural Unions. Not one of those hon. members opposite has ever done anything in this regard. Not one of them has ever tried to do anything for the farmers. That is why I say that everything they have said to-day is simply aimed at making politcal capital out of the position of those farmers who have to be assisted. This Government made every facility available in the Northern Transvaal to assist the farmers there. Fodder loans were granted and we even went so far as to keep these people on their farms. What has that side ever done? [Time limit.]

As usual, we have once again heard the speech which we hear every year. We heard that the Marketing Act is the Magna Charta of the farmers. The only thing that the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F.

H. Bekker) forgot to mention was that the United Party was responsible for the Marketing Act. We have again heard the old story of the closing down of the agricultural colleges, but the hon. member did not tell us that the course has now been reduced from two years to one year. As far as the price of maize is concerned, he did not tell us either that in the first few years during which this Government was in power maize was exported at a profit but that the farmers did not receive that profit. The strange thing to my mind is this: Every time that we have a Nationalist Party Government, the farmers find themselves in the greatest difficulty. In the early ’thirties the farmers were in such dire straits that the United Party had to assist them by means of subsidies on wool and mortgage interest repayments so that the farmers could find their feet again. We have the same position here and once again this position will result in the farmers voting this Government out of power.

The hon. member for Cradock said that no person would produce something that was not a paying proposition. That is why the cattle population has remained static and has not increased—because this industry has not been a profitable one over the years. The new prices which have been announced are floor prices which will not affect the position because the market prices are above the floor prices. We have heard the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing tell us here and in the Other Place that the farmers have certain liberties and that if they want to retain those freedoms they must not expect the Government to guarantee prices in any way at all. On one occasion he also said that the farmers must take what they can get.

I said nothing about guaranteed prices. I was speaking about guaranteed income.

After all, the income depends upon the price. He said that any farmer who wanted to buy land could do so; that he could pay what he liked for the land, he could farm that land as he pleased and he could grow what he pleased. Those were his basic freedoms. There is nothing wrong in saying that a person who wants to buy land can buy it. The second point is that he said that the farmer can pay what he wants to for land. I believe that generally speaking the farmer pays a price which is an economic price. But it is to this fact that the hon. the Minister seeks to ascribe the difficulties which the farmers are experiencing to-day. He says that they are paying uneconomic prices for land and that is why they are in difficulty. I believe that the farmers will not pay prices which are unnecessarily high unless it is by way of exception. What percentage of the hundred thousand farmers has over the past 10 years purchased this so-called expensive land? It must be a very small percentage and I am sure that in most cases it happened when a farmer moved from one part of the country to another. He then had to buy expensive land but he also sold his for a good price.

Who then bought his?

In the case where his land was purchased, it was usually purchased by more than one neighbouring farmer. But I want to repeat that the percentage of farmers who purchased land during this period was small. One cannot link up the difficulties which the farmers are experiencing at present with the fact that they have purchased expensive land. When a farmer sells his land it is usually bought by neighbouring farmers to make their farms larger. These farmers usually have some money and they pay for that land but generally speaking a farmer can get by because he has a farm which is not heavily encumbered.

The third point is that the farmer grows what he pleases. I believe that the farmer farms with the product which he finds most profitable. Here and there there may be an exception; a farmer may farm with the wrong product because of his ignorance, but if he does so, it is the fault of the Government because the Government has to provide that farmer with the necessary information.

Must the farmer be controlled?

No, but he must be informed. There are few farmers who farm uneconomically. I do not think that the hon. member for Cradock would plant maize at Cradock. He knows what it will pay him to grow there and the same holds good for the other farmers.

And if he plants maize there, he must not expect to get a good price for that maize.

That is quite right. But the hon. the Minister has given us to understand that there are a number of farmers who do this, and I say that that is not the case. There are only a few individual farmers who farm with the wrong product and in most cases they do so from ignorance. There may be other cases of people who have continually to produce cash crops because their economic position is so uncertain.

When are you going to discuss the drought?

The farmer farms as he pleases. Of course the farmer farms as he pleases but he does so because he is sure that that is the most efficient way to farm. There will probably be a few exceptions. We said the other day that there are farmers who farm inefficiently but these farmers must make way for the man who is a better farmer than they are. I am convinced of the fact that every farmer farms in the most efficient way he can. These freedoms of the farmer therefore are freedoms which are practised, so it is not right to say that when they practise these freedoms they cannot expect an income. [Interjections.] The farmers are struggling but not only as a result of drought. There is a very serious drought at the moment but it is exceptional. We are always experiencing periodical droughts in our country and this factor has always to be considered in any price determination.

Are we supposed to know of a drought in advance?

No, but the farmer must be placed in the economic position where he can withstand those droughts. The farmer’s financial position must be able to be developed to such an extent in the good years that he is able to withstand a period of drought. [Time limit.]

I think that it was probably quite refreshing for the hon. the Prime Minister to note this new pattern of attack on the part of the Opposition this afternoon. I think that if hon. members in this House are sensible, they will realize that something useful can come of this. But if we try to make political capital out of this disaster which has struck the country, it will not get us very far. I just want to mention a few statistics. It is anticipated that, because of climatic conditions, the Western Province has lost about 25 per cent of its crop. The wool clip will be 22 per cent lower than anticipated and the maize industry has suffered a 40 per cent loss. Besides this, there are all the other branches of farming which have been detrimentally affected. South Africa will pay dearly for this in the years which lie ahead. But what on earth could the Government do as regards these unfavourable climatic conditions? The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) said that the farmer is going to vote this Government out of office, but, good heavens, we have just had a test, and what happened to that party? The hon. the Prime Minister and his party were given a vote of the fullest confidence by the public and in every agricultural district in which there was an election, with the exception of one, there was a great majority in the number of votes cast for this side of the House. In other words, the confidence of the country in us is increasing by the day, and not only this, we are winning over the supporters of hon. members on that side of the House. I am speaking of the English-speaking people of South Africa, especially in Natal. How they joked about it when the hon. the Prime Minister made a break through in Durban! How their newspapers ridiculed the appointment of two English-speaking persons to the Cabinet! But where does their party stand to-day? We have the judgment of the public. But, like the Bourbons of France, the Opposition have never forgotten a thing and have never learnt a thing, as the hon. the Minister of Finance said yesterday. Year after year they come to this House and, if they do not discuss the Broederbond, then they discuss the Bantu, but they never discuss the matters which really affect our economy.

In the short time at my disposal there are a few accusations which I should like to make against hon. members opposite. For the past 20 years now I have been closely connected with farming organizations and co-operatives in the Transvaal and, during that period, a revolution has taken place in agriculture. That side of the House was in power in 1947, and they appointed a commission of inquiry to abolish the control boards. These were its terms of reference. Now that side of the House has come along this afternoon and has said that we are not sympathetically disposed towards the farmers. In 1947 they wanted to abolish the Magna Charta of the farmers, as it is called by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker). I want to put this question to the hon. member for Gardens: Who determines the price to the farmers? Does the Government determine the price to the farmer? The farmers themselves determine maize prices, wheat prices and tobacco prices. We ourselves run the boards and we determine each price ourselves. We then approach the hon. the Minister with these prices and we have to consider the consumers who have to obtain the product at an economic price. It does not help to raise salaries on the one hand in order to enable the consumers to live, and on the other hand, to have a too-wealthy sector. The task of the Government is to treat all sections of the population in an honest and just way. Twenty years ago, when I became director of a co-operative for the first time, the largest of its kind in the country, what happened? At that time maize was lying and rotting by the hundred thousand bags over the length and breadth of South Africa. This country lost thousands of pounds in revenue as a result of the policy which that side of the House was following. I myself was a farmer when we asked for 21s. per bag. and we were paid 19s. The farmers said that they would not continue producing, with the result that we had to import maize from the Argentine. We also know what happened in regard to meat, how our wives had to queue for a small piece of meat, for a little bread and a little butter. That was the position during their period of office. It was because of that fact that the conservatism of the platteland rose up against them. It was because of that fact that the farmers turned against them practically as one man—their own people. I want to give a definite example. Groblersdal was virtually a settlement of soldiers. I know what I am talking about, because I bought land there at that time. They treated those pooi soldiers on that settlement in such a way and the agriculture there was so unprofitable that those people turned against them within a period of five years. I am sure that Groblersdal will never again send a United Party candidate to this House. These are the people who tell us that we are treating the farmers badly! But if we put our heads together to-day we can do something to alleviate this critical position in the country. It is of no avail to blame everything on the Government. I just want to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. This year started with more promise than any previous year in South Africa. It was to be one of the most promising years as far as the whole country was concerned. We all expected to harvest one of the largest crops in history, which would have resulted in greater prosperity for agriculture than ever before. If this had happened, and we had had a maize crop of 80,000,000 bags, what would the position have been to-day? Would we have made this a national matter for discussion, and would we have tried to score off one another, in this regard? No, the United Party would then not have made these accusations. But now that this disaster has struck the whole country—and I may say that in all my life this is the first time that the whole of South Africa has found itself in such a position. [Time limit.]

I do not propose to follow the hon. member who has just sat down. I want to deal with another aspect of the difficulties we are facing here. Whether it flows from the drought or not. I can merely say that droughts ate always with us. Some years are worse than others, but whatever we do so far as our economy is concerned it seems to me that any Government should take into account the fact that we will always have droughts. Some droughts may be more severe than others, but it is a factor which we must bear in mind. One of the points I want to deal with is the number of Bantu who are coming into the towns from the scheduled Native areas. Only just this weekend I had occasion to return from Natal and as the result of the reports I had received I was not able to carry out a very wide survey of the position, but I saw ample to indicate to me that the Bantu are moving in not by the hundreds but by the thousands. I do not know what information the Prime Minister has in this regard. It is mainly due to the drought. I saw miles upon miles of country where the Bantu will reap no crops whatever. It is not a case of small crops, but the mealies have no cobs at all. I wonder how far the proclamations dealing with drought-stricken areas are realistic and reflect the drought with which we are faced. I was amazed to read in the Press recently that the drought was broken in such-and-such an area. If you make inquiries you find that there were 40 points of rain. That is not breaking the drought; it is hardly laying the dust. It does not even make the grass grow at this late time of the year. The growing period is finished and the drought is not broken but is increasing day by day in severity and the high temperatures and the winds we are having add to our troubles. So we see this huge drift from the Native areas into the towns. These are hungry people. They are going into the towns whether there is influx control or not. We cannot arrest them all. They are streaming into the White areas because they are hungry and are looking for food. Their own food supply is finished. Natives I have spoken to, who are the owners of stock, have seen their stock on the point of perishing and have killed them, or they have taken those who have already died and eaten them. Hon. members know that is what happens to Native cattle which die. I want to point out that the Bantu are in many respects the small farmers of this country. Hon. members who know what takes place at Native cattle sales will know that hundreds upon hundreds of cattle pass from Bantu ownership into the hands of the feeders, people who fatten these animals and market them.

That brings me to the beef supplies of South Africa. I am prepared to stick my neck out and to say that in three years’ time we are going to be importing beef increasingly every year. It will not be just for a year or two. Hon. members who are engaged in cattle raising will know that there is this difference between raising beef and, e.g., pork or mutton, that from the time the man makes up his mind to go in for beef production it takes him five years before he can put a finished steer on the market. He buys a calf, he rears that animal …

You are out of date; you can market it after two years.

Sir, I am trying to deal with the position in South Africa as it usually obtains. From the time you buy your cow, and that cow has gone through the period of gestation and has produced its calf and that calf has been reared—and whether it is reared by a breeder or a feeder makes no difference—it takes the best part of five years under South African conditions before that calf is marketed and I defy anybody to say otherwise. I am not talking about baby beef. We do not supply the meat market in South Africa with baby beef. I repeat that the small White farmer in South Africa has gone out of production. The man who is producing a small number of stock goes to the towns and becomes a consumer. The level of money wages paid for such a huge proportion of our working population has brought into being a fresh section of our people who are meat eaters and who are paying these prices. Sir, they are quite unrealistic. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister, because we can get no answer from the Ministers of Agriculture or from the Deputy Minister, whether the Government is prepared to guarantee a floor price for five, six or ten years so as to give the man who comes into the picture to-day an opportunity of saying. “I will be marketing my first beef in four to five years’ time and for four years after that I know that I am going to get a secure price”. Because. Sir. unless something of that kind is done, we are simply going to see these small people dropping out of the picture more and more as feeders and as breeders. Breeding is dropping and feeding is dropping, and one of the worst aspects of the lot is the way that our veld is torn up, veld which in the past has been grass veld, producing beef, producing ordinary products. Today it is being put under trees. I am a timber grower myself to-day in the main. Sir, why are people drying up grass veld and putting it under trees? Because they are satisfied that in the long run they are going to get a worthwhile paying proposition: that they are going to get their money back with adequate interest and when we see that the price of land is going up, the answer is that many of the big combines which are buying tens of thousands of acres of land every year, are business men who form combines to buy this land; they are not farmers; they are businessmen taking their surplus profits, putting it into land where they believe it is going to be safe, where it will be a safeguard against inflation. They are to-day putting that land under timber for a long-term return on their capital investment. They are quite prepared to wait for it. They look upon it as some kind of security in their old-age, some kind of pension for themselves. Sir, every acre of that land is reducing our dairy products and is reducing the meat that we want for our South African tables at a time when consumption and the numbers of consumers are growing year by year. I ask the hon. the Prime Minister therefore whether the Government is prepared to guarantee a floor price for the next five to ten years for red meat in South Africa, so that the South African consumer will not have to rely on imported meat within three years, because that is what is otherwise facing us in this country.

This is presumably the first time in the history of this Parliament that an agricultural debate has been conducted under the Vote of the Prime Minister. It is perhaps an important matter for the country—that is true—but there is a time for everything. There is a time when broad national policy should be reviewed, and there are times when special matters should be dealt with. There is no doubt but that agricultural matters, particularly at this period, are of the greatest importance to South Africa, but they cannot be discussed in terms of generalities. The future of agriculture will have to be dealt with in a clear way. in regard to specific ideas, and the place for that is without any doubt when the Votes of the Ministers of Agriculture come to be discussed.

But they do not reply.

The complaint we have had so far that the Ministers do not reply is of course so much nonsense, because when a Minister’s Vote is discussed it is en-evitable that he should take part in that debate and reply to it. What he says need not always be in accordance with what hon. members opposite want. Let me illustrate this with a pertinent example in regard to the question put here by the hon. member who who has just sat down. He now asks me, because the Ministers of Agriculture are alleged to be unwilling to answer the question, for a specific assurance that a floor price for beef will be guaranteed for the next five or ten years. I call that a nonsensical request; it is a completely unpractical, stupid request, because supposing one guarantees a certain amount, and within three or six months or a year there is inflation which completely reduces money values, what on earth will be the use of that so-called guarantee then? Then it has no meaning at all.

If you cannot do so, say so.

It is not a question of not being able to do so; it is unwise to do so. The prices that are guaranteed must be announced from time to time. The farmer has no certainty at all in regard to his production plans for the future whilst he lives in this changing world, and anyone with common sense knows that. One does not guarantee a price for any other article like a motor-car, or for sugar, or for any article. The prices of articles continually vary in consonance with the change in the purchasing power of money. Therefore I say that to level the accusation that the Ministers of Agriculture do not want to reply just because they do not give the replies one would like to get, whether the question is a stupid one or not, is no accusation at all.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear to me why this debate is being carried on in this way to-day. It is because the United Party, as the result of the recent election results, no longer sees a chance to fight this party on broad principles of national policy. This is now the time when we should get a picture of South Africa and its future development, but I am obviously bound by the nature of the attack. In view of the fact that the attack has the characteristics of a double-barrelled shotgun, with the one barrel aimed at agriculture and the other at policies in regard to colour—those are the two matters raised so far—I am now compelled to bear that in mind. I want to add that one excuse has been given for the fact that an agricultural debate has been introduced on this occasion, and that is that it is a personal attack. It is the old dodge of people who can no longer defend their policy and their standpoint, and so they attack personalities. The target this year is the two Ministers of Agriculture and the Deputy Minister, who has only recently been appointed, and the Cabinet Committee about whose work the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows nothing. That is now the excuse he advances for the fact that an agricultural debate is being held under my Vote. I am not impressed by that excuse: I do not think it has covered up anything. The country and everybody will know that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not see his way clear to attack the Government on any other ground. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition still obviously thinks that he gained an advantage in the rural areas during the last election, and that is perhaps a reason why he has grasped this opportunity. I think he will soon discover how wrong he was in that belief. He thinks he is dealing with a group of people who have developed grievances with which they will readily burden the Government. I do not think our farmers are so unwise. I think they are able objectively to regard the problems with which they are faced and that they clearly understand and highly appreciate the bona fides of the Government, and particularly what it has done. Therefore the attack launched by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not frighten me. I just feel that it was not made at the appropriate time.

Now to come to the subject matter itself, the impression was created here that the Government does not take serious notice or does not have complete knowledge of the problems of the farmers in the country, and particularly of the scope of the drought and its consequences. I wonder whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition daily studies the position in the country with quite the same attention, whether the facts in regard to it are placed on his desk daily, and whether he is as concerned about it and devotes as much attention to it as the Government and I do. I may state that not a day passes without my ensuring that I am kept au fail with the conditions developing in every part of the country. Nothing causes other members of the Government and myself as much concern at the moment as the almost hopeless conditions prevailing in certain parts of the country, which are not anything new this year, but which have prevailed in certain areas for years already. Nobody is more aware than we are of the consequences this may have on the general economy of the country. It is not necessary to bring it to our notice that the consequences of an agricultural setback will have an effect on the whole of the economy of the country. I myself have repeatedly in former years pointed that out in this House and outside. A few years ago there was a severe industrial setback, particularly as the result of a setback in the agricultural sphere. The seriousness of it for our country and its prosperity, apart from the humanitarian aspect which evokes one’s sympathy and arouses one’s concern, is generally understood; but that is just why one ought not to make it a political question. One should rather approach it from a more positive angle, namely this: How can one relieve the concern and the misfortune of these people; how can one plan, not only to help them, but in such a way that the country as a whole will not suffer as the result? Therefore I should like to approach quite objectively a few of the main matters referred to here, but I want to add that I do not intend going into details in regard to the agricultural problem; that is a matter which should rest in the hands of the Ministers of Agriculture, and I think those are matters which can be more advantageously discussed under the Votes of the Ministers of Agriculture concerned. But I hope that some of the Ministers who are here will participate in this debate to-day also, although it is not customary for other Ministers to speak under the Prime Minister’s Vote.

Hear, hear!

I do not want to create the wrong impression. I know with what devotion and efficiency the Ministers of Agriculture perform their duties. Those Ministers are regularly in communication with me in regard to any plans which are made, as well as in regard to the existing conditions, and I want to express my fullest confidence in them here. I also want to take co-responsibility in regard to any plans which are made and published, and also for those plans which have perhaps not been made public yet. At the same time I want to say that it is the easiest thing in the world in an emergency of this scope and depth to make general allegations in regard to directions in which plans should be made, as was done by the Leader of the Opposition; but it is quite a different matter to be specific. It is also a different matter whether it is wise to formulate complete plans and make them known in advance, before the time for a solution arrives. I think it might often be foolish to do so.

I just want to refer for a moment to the question of meat production. It was said here to-day, as if this was a fresh warning to us, that meat production must necessarily be affected by the drought and its consequences, as if this is now a prophecy which the hon. members make before this House and the country, that there will be shortages and that it will take so many years to catch up with the backlog again. Mr. Chairman, it is easy to say that. Everybody knows—and we have all stated so publicly—that in respect of meat production the consequences of this drought will still be felt for a long time. This is no ordinary drought; it is a very serious drought, and its seriousness in this sphere is obviously all the greater because the drought has unfortunately affected particularly the cattle-raising areas in the various parts of the country, in the Eastern Cape, the Northern Transvaal, the North-Western Cape and in South West. The areas where the drought was most serious and protracted were particularly the cattle-raising areas. Not only have the slaughter cattle already been killed, but the breeding stock has diminished as well. The result has been that prices have risen, and also that a certain amount of speculation has taken place. We know that breeding stock has also been slaughtered. The results of it are apparent. Of course South Africa will face a difficult time in respect of meat production. That does not mean, however, that it is something which is not being dealt with at the moment. Nor does it mean that one cannot apply means and measures whereby these difficulties may be reduced. But it would be a fool who to-day closes his eyes to the fact that South Africa is facing a difficult time in regard to meat production. Is the solution then so obvious that it is just a question of prices being increased? That is what the Leader of the Opposition evidently suggests. Yes, prices can be increased to such an extent that people will eat so little meat that theoretically there will no longer be a meat problem, because only the well-to-do will then be able to buy meat and the greater majority of the population will not be able to buy any. One can of course seek such a solution, but that is not the eventual solution, because that lies in the sphere of production. I do not want to go into it too deeply but I just want to say that we are fully aware of this and of the problems connected with it.

After the Leader of the Opposition had said that not only meat producers were finding themselves in difficulties but also grain producers, he said that the grain producers should also be helped to overcome their difficulties, but a little later on in the course of his speech he tried to face the fact that that was really a contradiction, by admitting that one must have regard, as he put it, to rationalization between meat prices and grain prices. In other words, one cannot agree to price increases for various products without maintaining a balance between the various products. One must continually take into account all the different aspects that come into the picture. My main criticism of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that he did what it is very easy to do and that is to make a lot of general accusations, to give general advice and to make general prophecies. Mr. Chairman, anybody can do that; it is not a difficult thing. But to be able to determine what precisely the differences are between United Party policy and Government policy and which of the two is the most valuable, one has to be specific. I want to mention an example of the thread that runs consistently through the attacks made here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. All the accusations against the Government are based on the charge that what the Government lacks is a good price policy. I take it that in saying that he meant that the prices should be higher because, after all, he is trying to gain the support of the farmers. He tries to do that, as usual, by means of promises. The accusation that the Government’s price policy is wrong contains the insinuation that all the various farmers’ groups can expect higher prices under a United Party Government. What precisely does he mean? If he says that the price of meat should go up, what price does he want for meat? If he wants the price of maize to go up, what does he want the price of maize to be per bag? If he wants the price of milk or of butter or of cheese or any other agricultural product to go up, he must tell us precisely what his Government would make the consumer pay and what prices the Government would guarantee to the producer.

Then you will say in your reply that I am being too specific.

No. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that if he complies with my request to indicate precisely what prices a government led by him would fix as consumers’ prices and as producers’ prices for meat, bread, maize, milk and butter, I would say that he is being too specific. My reply to that is that I challenge him to do so. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must tell us what prices he wants to guarantee to the producers and what prices he wants the consumers to pay; we will then be in a position to argue quite objectively precisely what effect that is going to have on our economy and on the cost of living of the consumers of this country; we can then discuss the ability of the consumers to pay those prices and what chances the farmers will have of retaining a market of which they can be sure in the future. The entire stability of the agricultural industry and the whole question of the cost of living can then be thrashed out and we will know exactly where we stand. But that is not what hon. members of the Opposition do. They do not put forward anything substantial that one can get one’s teeth into. Because if he says, as he said a moment ago, that he is going to pay 45s. per bag for maize …

Thirty-five shillings.

Well, he has either come down 10s. or I misunderstood him. That price would then have an effect on meat production and dairy production and on the subsidies paid by the State with a view to keeping food prices low. It would also have an effect on taxation, and all these factors would have to be taken into account. That is the only way in which we can find out whether we are dealing here with sound criticism or once again with just vague criticism that leads one nowhere. That is my charge against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I carefully followed his speech; I made a note of each of the so-called solutions that he suggested and I find that he made no clear, specific proposal that one can get one’s teeth into. In other words, it is perfectly clear to me that although the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to talk in general terms, although he asks us for a clear policy; although he asks for planning, he confines himself to the usual generalities that we have been having from him for years.

The Leader of the Opposition says that there should be better planning in South Africa, that there should be better training facilities for our farmers and better training facilities for our workers. But has any Government in South Africa ever done as much in the field of research, extension services and education as is being done at the present time? We all know and every farmer knows what a high degree of technical skill has been displayed by the Departments concerned. It is easy for him to say that we should engage more experts. Where is he going to get them? Surely he is not going to train Bantu for these posts. If you say that we must have more technicians, that we must have more extension officers, then you should also say where you are going to get them and how you are going to get them. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not tell us that he is going to get them by paying slightly increased salaries because with the competition that we find to-day in all spheres of life there has been a sorting-out process and a pattern has been established which is not going to be changed easily. In the sphere of technical guidance the Departments are doing everything they can. I want to add in passing that when the Leader of the Opposition makes an attack on the Ministers then indirectly he is also attacking the Departments, and I think that is very unfair. I think our Departments of Agriculture in South Africa are known throughout the world for the thoroughness of their work and for their value to the agricultural industry. There is no country in the world which is in a happier position than we are in South Africa because we are fortunate enough to have capable, well-equipped Departments. The charge which was recently made against the Ministers and the Departments that there is insufficient planning and insufficient guidance is an unfair charge for which there is no justification in South Africa. I am afraid therefore that the conclusion to which I have to come is that although these matters have been raised in this debate under my Vote, the debate has produced nothing which calls for a more detailed reply than these few broad propositions that I have advanced. The one is that the position of the farmers in our country gives us the greatest cause for concern; the second is that we are constantly devising and carrying out plans to see the farmers through in this present difficult period; the third is that the steps that will have to be taken for their eventual rehabilitation will have to be considered in the light of the situation that prevails when the drought comes to an end. May I just enlarge upon this: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has stated that we should make an announcement at this stage already with regard to reduced rates of interest, remissions of debt and similar steps. Some of these steps will certainly have to be taken into consideration at the appropriate time, but it would be folly at this stage to come to any decision or to make any announcement. If the drought is broken immediately, the situation of the farmers will be entirely different from what it would be if the drought were to last another year or two. Must we commit ourselves at this stage to a certain line of action which may prove to be unpractical and impracticable when the emergency situation is over? We are not going to allow ourselves to be led astray but what we will do is this: We will show these people the greatest consideration and give them all the assistance we can mobilize to carry them through this difficult period and when the time comes to put them back on to their feet again we will announce the plans which are presently being devised, in accordance with the needs and the extent of the needs at that particular moment. May the drought conditions come to an end sooner rather than later so that the position will be easier and not more difficult. But I made an appeal from public platforms a few weeks ago already that we should all be prepared to assist, not only the Government but also the consumers —the whole public of the country—to put our farming community on to its feet once again, because the farming community has always been and still is the backbone of our country in these modern times.

It is most interesting to have the hon. the Prime Minister saying that this is the first time an agricultural debate has taken place under the Vote of the Prime Minister. Fortuitously I have before me the debate of 1946 when the old Nationalist Party insisted on conducting almost the entire debate on meat prices under the Prime Minister’s Vote. What was so amusing, Sir, was one of the speeches by Mr. Erasmus who said—

Sir, that is precisely what the hon. the Prime Minister has told us here this afternoon. If agriculture is not to be discussed under the Prime Minister’s Vote then I say it is high time that it was. It is high time that it was because in the Budget debate there was a discussion on various agricultural matters and on the drought but there was no reply from either of the Ministers of Agriculture or the Deputy Minister. The night the debate ended they issued a public statement through the Press. I say if there is anything which is in the nature of contempt of Parliament then it is the behaviour of those Ministers and that is why it has become essential to bring it to the notice of the Prime Minister. I have no hesitation in saying that if Ministers treat the House in this manner then their actions will be brought under the attention of the Prime Minister under his Vote or whatever the occasion we have the opportunity.

I want to say that the Prime Minister’s reply is completely unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons. When asked whether there was any possibility of long-term price fixing in advance we were told such a thing would be extremely stupid because the value of money might change. It might; that is perfectly true. But what is interesting is that there is a five year guarantee in Rhodesia in respect of meat prices and what is even more interesting is that their cattle population has risen by 66 per cent as against our 7 per cent despite the increase in population and despite the change in the eating habits of our people.

The hon. the Prime Minister is also critical about my having raised the position of the farmer who has been deprived of his land through no fault of his own under the hon. gentleman’s Vote. Sir, under whose Vote do I raise this matter? It must affect four or five Ministers in this Cabinet. It is becoming a great sociological problem under this Government. The farmers are losing their land annually under this Government, as a result of its policies, and what is being done to rehabilitate them and to assist them to adapt themselves to earning a living from sources divorced from agriculture? It is a sociological problem which other countries in the world are studying. There is a long report on it in the United States of America. It does not affect one Minister of Agriculture; it affects a large number of Ministers. It affects Social Welfare, it affects Health, it affects Community Development, it affects Education, it affects a number of other Ministers. But the Prime Minister says these are specific matters that should be raised under the particular Vote of the Minister concerned. Sir, I make no excuse at all for raising the question of the drought-stricken farmers under the Prime Minister’s Vote. This is not a decision for one Minister; this is a decision for the Cabinet of the Government of the Republic of South Africa. What I want from this hon. Prime Minister is an assurance to the honest farmer, who is not prepared to incur debts which he knows he cannot meet because of the price policy of this Government, that he will receive cost of production plus a reasonable reward, a reasonable reward which will enable him to pay off his debts. How can that man. who is an honest man, be prepared to commit himself when the hon. the Prime Minister says he will give him no assurance for the future? He wants that assurance now. He must know whether he can go on and farm and commit himself in the assurance that the State is going to look after him by means of some type of subsidized loan or something of that nature. I have made various proposals to the hon. the Prime Minister. All we get are vague statements that the matters will be considered or that it would be foolish to consider them now because the drought might be broken any moment. Let me tell the hon. the Prime Minister that if the drought is broken to-day it is going to be a year before most of those farmers can produce anything on their land and it is going to be a long time before there will be grazing for their animals because the growing season is over. The hon. the Prime Minister should know that.

Other countries have other ideas. I do not believe I am wrong in saying that in Australia, where there are severe droughts, the farmer is taken off his land, paid a salary by the State, and is not allowed to put animals back on that land until the soil has been rehabilitated. These are matters which the hon. the Prime Minister, and I should have thought the entire Cabinet, were considering in view of the seriousness of the situation. And when these matters are raised under the hon. gentleman’s Vote I am told I am being too specific that I should raise them under the Vote of the particular Minister. I make no excuse either for raising the problem of the Bantu who are being forced out of their areas at the moment because of the fact that they are short of food, because of the fact that their stock has died or has been eaten. We are faced with a sociological problem the extent of which it is difficult for me to judge at the moment but goes far beyond the stage of being dealt with by only one Minister.

But the Minister has been telling you for a long time what he was doing in regard to the Bantu.

The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration has told the public that he is trying to give the Bantu work, work in the shape of relief works, bridges, conservation dams and things of that kind; that he was trying to supply food to those who were staying in the reserves. But what about this drift from the reserves? He cannot check it. Who is stopping it? Even the women are going into some areas and we hear nothing on that from the hon. the Prime Minister.

How are you going to keep them there?

That is the Government’s problem; not mine. And that is exactly why I am raising it with the Prime Minister.

That would be a whole problem because you are opposed to strict influx control.

Mr. Chairman, who provided for influx control of the Statute Book? Has this side of the House not always said it stood for the maintenance of influx control? On no single occasion has there been any doubt about that. The Prime Minister cannot get out of it that way. The Prime Minister has to tell us not only that he is going to look after these farmers and how he is going to do it but he must tell us what he is going to do about the Bantu. If he is going to assist those farmers the Prime Minister must tell us that we are going to have a departure from the slap-dash agricultural policy which has been followed by this Government and that is not just a Minister’s responsibility, Sir, but the Government’s responsibility. Right along the line the snag has been a lack of long-term planning and the lack of security to the farming population. Why, does the hon. gentleman think, that within a period of about ten years, 28,000 farmers have lost their land and trekked away from agriculture? Why, does the hon. gentleman think, that the return on capital invested in agriculture is as low as it is? He tells us these are specific matters to raise under the vote of the hon. Minister concerned! These are matters of fundamental importance to the country, and the Prime Minister tries to get me involved on a discussion on prices for specific products and what the affect will be on the cost of living. I will tell him. Sir, that with his surpluses he can pay a good deal better prices, he can give more food subsidies and also give cheaper food to the public. [Time limit.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a few points which I should like to deal with, the first being the depopulation of the platteland. He blamed the Government and the Minister for the depopulation of the platteland and alleged that it is as the result of the policy of the National Party that the farmers leave the land. That is a phenomenon we see right throughout the world to-day, and not only in South Africa. Here I have a report on Shortage of Manpower, which says the following—

Now I come to the point—

I want to tell you further what happened in America, Sir. I have here the News and World Report, which says—

What percentage of the population is that?

Work it out for yourself. I read further—

That is what happens in other countries, and surely the Nationalist Government of South Africa is not responsible for it. In America they think that 1,000,000 farmers are sufficient to supply the agricultural needs of the whole country. Let us now have regard to the problem in South Africa, Sir. Why do our farmers leave the land? Why do they leave their farms? There is one reason alone, and that is drought. History shows that every time a serious drought has struck the country the farmers have left the land. Why? For the following reasons: The farmer with capital does not leave the land. He remains on his farm and tries as far as possible to save his animals. You will always find, Sir, that it is the farmer who goes in for farming and who, firstly, does not have the necessary capital and, secondly, does not have the necessary training and, thirdly, does not have the necessary tenacity, who leaves the farm. I can speak about drought. Not a single hon. member opposite has experienced droughts as I have. There are members on this side representing constituencies where drought prevails. I can tell you, Sir, that you can be just as good a farmer as you like, you can plan your farm and farm according to that plan, and you may have capital, but eventually a lengthy drought overtakes you and brings you to your knees. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has suggested many plans but I ask him: What is he going to do to save that farmer’s crop? He cannot trek with his crop; he cannot carry water for his crop; he will simply go under, and why? Because he farms on expensive land; because his production cost is high.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not said what he would do to save the stock. It is easy to say: You must save the cattle and the sheep. How? Sir, one can still feed a sheep for a year or two, but one cannot feed cattle economically for two or three years; within a year any profit is consumed. Éven though the Government should make funds available to those farmers to save their animals they cannot do so because there is no fodder available and that is not the Government’s fault. One hon. member said that the farmer farms with what is economic for him. If it pays the lucerne-grower better to plant sultanas, then he will not plant lucerne. Do you blame him? Who is going to compel him to plant lucerne? Let us face the position. South Africa is experiencing a drought unprecedented in history. We have had a drought for five to seven years in South West. I do not want to weary the House by mentioning everything that the South West Administration has done to help the farmers there. But I can tell you this. Sir, that had it not been for the rains 70 per cent of the farmers of South West would have gone under. We gave them all the assistance suggested here by the Leader of the Opposition, like the transportation of stock from the drought-stricken areas, fodder for stock in those areas, subsidized grazing, guarantees to the S.A. Railways in connection with the transportation of stock from the dry areas. So I can continue.

We gave loans to the commercial banks so as to obviate their curtailing the credit of the farmers. Those loans to the banks amounted to a few million rand. We gave loans to the co-operatives and to the canning factories and to the farmers to buy food for their labourers; we provided them with food; we subsidized maize products and lucerne. It has cost us over R20,000,000 over the past five years to assist the 5,000 farmers of South West. Many of them did not make use of these facilities. All that assistance would not have saved the farmer had we not had rains now. Therefore I want to say that this Government should not be blamed if the farmers are in a perilous position. I want to emphasize what the hon. the Prime Minister has said, viz. that the Cabinet is fully acquainted with what goes on in the country. There are members on this side who are in daily contact with those stricken areas; they know what the requirements are. They put that information at the disposal of the Government. The farmers of South Africa know the Nationalist Government; it is the farmer’s Government. And the National Party Government knows the farmer. My experience is that the farmer has never disappointed this Government. We have rendered much assistance, but we have always got our money back. The State has never suffered damage as the result of assistance it gave to the farmer. We do not want to do what is done in America. We do not want to drive the farmers from the land. It would be a sad day for South Africa if we were to say: So many farmers must leave the land and just so many are sufficient to keep agriculture going. No, Sir, this Government will ensure that also the small farmer remains on the land. It will assist the small farmer. When a farmer dares to go farming without capital and has to borrow large amounts, he is looking for trouble and he will go under.

The contribution of the hon. the Deputy Minister for South West Africa Affairs is particularly interesting. It makes one understand more clearly why the farmers of South Africa are in trouble to-day. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that the Government would not allow the small farmers or the less economic farmers …

Not the less economic farmers.

… to leave the land. But at the same time it was announced by the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister, and confirmed by the hon. the Minister for Planning, that farmers will have to leave the land at the rate of about 2,600 per annum. That is accepted as inevitable in South Africa.

They say what type will remain.

That makes no difference. The fact remains that it is accepted that the farmers in South Africa will decrease in numbers.

Under the Orange River Scheme new ones will be added again.

I take it that it is such an urgent matter that when the Minister of Finance had to prune expenditure the Orange River scheme was the first scheme in respect of which he pruned expenditure.

There will be no delay.

Then we are now dealing with a miracle. The Minister of Finance announced that the expenditure would be pruned by 25 per cent.

There will be no delay.

In other words, the Government is prepared to waste 25 per cent of the expenditure on the Orange River scheme by spending it unnecessarily. If one can save 25 per cent of an item of expenditure without its having any adverse result, then that 25 per cent was not necessary. It is seldom that one hears such arguments from a Prime Minister.

The point I wish to make is this: The troubles of the farmers are not caused only by the drought as the Deputy Minister for South West Africa Affairs and the hon. the Prime Minister wanted to intimate to-day. The deterioration of the farming population of South Africa is something we have been aware of for years, and nowhere does it appear more clearly than from the statistics supplied by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing in its Annual Report for 1964. On page 124 of that report statistics are given in regard to the producers’ prices for all agricultural prices over the past years. I find that in 1953-4 the index figure for producers’ prices was 144 if one takes 1947-8 as 100. In 1962-3 it had risen from 144 points to 147—a tremendous increase of three points! Last year it in fact rose to 155 points, but that was due to the temporary circumstances of the drought. In more or less normal years the producers’ prices for all agricultural products rose from 144 in 1953 to 147 in 1962-3.

Look at what happened to the cost of living of the farmers over the same period. See what happened to the index for retail prices. In 1953-4 it was 133 points, if one takes it as 100 for 1947-8. In 1962-3 it had risen to 156 points. In other words, while the prices received for his products by the farmer rose by three points, the retail prices rose by 23 points.

What is even more interesting is the table one finds on page 5 of that annual report. It is a table of the estimated net income of Whites on farms. Factors like the increase in retail prices, the depreciation of his possessions, the cash wages for non-Whites, etc., are all taken into consideration. We find that in 1954-5 the net income of all our White farmers was R391,800,000. Ten years later it had fallen to R383,300,000. It decreased by R8,500,000. I am not one of those who like to hurl challenges over the floor of the House, but to-day I want to do so. I challenge any hon. member opposite to show me any other important population group whose income decreased to the same extent over the past ten years—and that whilst there is prosperity in the country; whilst we hear about a boom, whilst we hear that things are going so well for every population group. The official statistics of the Department of Agricultural Economics shows that the income of the farmers, as a community, has decreased by R8,500,000. That is shocking proof of the neglect of the farmers.

What about the decrease in wool prices alone?

There is a decrease in the income of the farmers only. I shall be glad to hear of other communites whose income has decreased. I shall be glad to hear that this has happened to the workers and to the big capitalists and the other big undertakings in the country. But it happened to the farmers. Now we know why the platteland is being depopulated. It is not being depopulated. My hon. Leader is quite correct; the platteland is being repopulated. In the case of America which was mentioned by my Leader, we find that a Goals Committee was appointed a few years ago, the American Goals Committee, under the chairmanship of Professor Riston. They laid it down as one of the objectives of the American State policy to reduce the farming population by 2,000,000 over a period of years. That is deliberate State policy because they found that they could supply the needs of the American people with a smaller number of farmers. The result is that those who remained behind on the land have a better chance to make a good living. Is there anything comparable with that in South Africa? The farmers in South Africa are not becoming fewer; the platteland population is not decreasing; only the Whites are becoming fewer. It is only the White farmers who have to get out. In the nine years from 1951 to 1960 the White population of our platteland, according to official statistics, decreased by 50,000. That is the only area in South Africa where the White population decreased. In the same period the Native population, however, increased, not by 50,000 to take the place, one by one, of the Whites, but by 1,300,000. As my Leader said, for every White who left the platteland, 26 Bantu came in to take his place. It is the replacement of Whites by non-Whites. There is no comparison at all with the position in America or Britain or Germany or the Scandinavian countries. There the farming population is decreasing and here the farmers are changing in colour and the numbers are increasing. That is the difference. I think that is a matter which I can justifiably discuss under the Prime Minister’s Vote. The Prime Minister has changed the slogan of the National Party. When I opposed him in Alberton their slogan was, “Keep South Africa White”. It was not, “Keep South Africa White this side of the Fish River”. [Time limit.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made the accusation here that neither the Ministers of Agriculture nor the Deputy Minister of Agriculture took part in the Budget debate to reply to the attacks made here by the United Party. I do not know whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was so preoccupied with other matters after the election that he could not be present when the Deputy Minister did in fact reply to these attacks. Sir, when he makes a statement of this kind he should at least be sure of his facts. But the position is that after the Deputy Minister of Agriculture had replied succinctly to the attacks made by the Opposition, there was nothing else to reply to. That is the very simple position.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) made reference here to the income of the farmers over a period of years and pointed out how the income had dropped during certain periods. Agricultural income, of course, is something entirely different from the ordinary income of people who receive fixed salaries and wages. Agricultural income depends to a very great extent on the size of the crops, and if the maize crops shrinks by 30,000 bags as a result of drought conditions, if the wool production is reduced as a result of drought and if prices in the oversea market drop, then it stands to reason that agricultural income will drop during that particular year. In the year quoted by the hon. member when the total income dropped from R389,000,000 to R383,000,000, there was a drop of almost 20,000 bags in the maize crop. In spite of the drop in the maize crop therefore, the income derived from other agricultural products increased.

The hon. member for Yeoville also says that there are more Blacks in the rural areas to-day and that there has been a decrease in the number of White farmers. I want to ask the hon. member whether that land is owned by Whites or whether it is owned by Bantu who have gone to the platteland? The hon. member makes the charge that there are more Bantu in the rural areas to-day and he blames the Government for it. But in the Budget debate the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) stood up here and raised a great hullabaloo about the fact that the farmers could no longer get Bantu labour. That statement of his was supported by his side and greeted with “hear, hears!” And then the hon. member for Yeoville and the Leader of the Opposition come along and make the accusation against the Government that more Bantu are entering the rural areas. But in the same breath the Leader of the Opposition complains that there is insufficient Bantu labour in the Western Cape as a result of the policy followed by the Government.

Only in the Western Cape.

I am just pointing out the inconsistency of hon. members on the other side. On the one hand they plead for more Bantu in the rural areas and on the other hand they make the accusation against the Government that there are more Bantu in the rural areas to-day.

Is the Western Province the whole country?

And then they criticize the Government’s policy when the Government says that it wants fewer Bantu in the Western Cape.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville also made another statement that was incorrect. They said that throughout the years, before South Africa was hit by drought conditions, there had been a progressive deterioration in the agricultural industry in South Africa. I want to give the hon. member a few figures. In 1948, just after the present Government came into power and after a period of United Party rule, the investment in agricultural land in South Africa amounted to R988,000,000; in 1964 the investment in land amounted to R2,292,000,000. The figure had more than doubled. In 1948 the investment in fixed improvements on farms amounted to R496,000,000 and in 1948 the figure was R1,082,000,000. The investment in implements and machinery in 1948 was Rl54,000,000 and in 1964 the figure rose to R519,000,000, more than three times as much. I am quoting comparable figures now. As far as livestock is concerned, the investment amounted to R468,000,000 and to-day the figure stands at R994,000,000. The total investment in the agricultural industry amounted to approximately R2,000,000,000 in 1948 and in 1964 the figure stood at R4,889,000,000. Do these figures show a constant deterioration? Sir, I sat here this afternoon listening to attacks made by hon. members opposite. Because certain problems have arisen as a result of the drought, which has hit the cattle-producing areas in particular, we are now told by hon. members on the other side that problems are going to arise in connection with the production of meat in South Africa. The production of meat will naturally be affected but, remarkably enough, we have heard nothing from hon. members opposite about the sheep areas which have been hit just as hard by the drought, at any rate in certain parts of the country. We heard nothing from them about sheep prices and wool prices and the drop in the income of the wool growers. Why not? For the simple reason that the Government or the Minister of Agriculture cannot be attacked in connection with the fixation of prices when there is a drop in the price of wool. When the price of wool drops, as it has dropped, hon. members opposite cannot come along with the argument that it is the Minister’s fault that the price has dropped.

But I now come to the question of beef prices. Hon. members opposite must not come along, because of the fact that beef production has also dropped considerably as a result of the drought, and talk about a long-term policy in connection with the fixation of beef prices. They think they have a fine opportunity here to exploit the situation for political purposes. Let me put this question to hon. members: Is cattle farming an uneconomic proposition under present-day circumstances in areas which are not drought-stricken? You see, Sir, hon. members of the Opposition talk about a longterm price policy. During the three years preceding this particular year the South African Agricultural Union, together with the Meat Board and other interests, pleaded for a longterm policy. They were continually considering the matter and their attitude was that a price of R11.50 for first-grade beef on a longterm basis would be sufficient encouragement for the farmers to produce meat. They went further and put forward a scheme for the export of super beef, a scheme of which I approved, and their attitude was that if super beef could be exported at R16 per 100 lbs. it would encourage beef production. That was 12 months ago. We accepted that scheme and our reason for doing so was that we wanted to encourage beef production in South Africa along those lines. That price of R16 per 100 lbs. in the overseas market was insufficient in many cases and this meat had to be exported on a subsidy basis. This was regarded at the time as a long-term price policy which would give certainty to the farmer for five or ten years. Only six months have elapsed since then and to-day R18 for super beef is no longer a guarantee and R14 per 100 lbs. for prime or first-grade beef is no longer a guarantee for a long-term scheme. It only goes to show how easy it is to talk about a long-term price policy. The hon. the Prime Minister has already touched upon this matter. Sir, a price policy must be adapted to circumstances and the guarantee given to the farmer that he will not receive less than a certain amount for his meat in any particular year but that he will be able to get much more if there is a good market. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition talked about the lack of long-term planning with regard to the production of beef in South Africa. He referred to other countries in the world and said that beef production had increased in those countries. But why is it that our beef production in South Africa, apart from the present drought, has not increased to the same extent as in other parts of the world? The reason is obvious. In the first place, there has been a complete change in recent years in South Africa in the character of our cattle population. Seven, eight, 15 years ago when we had a very large number of draught-oxen forming part of our livestock and when cattle were marketed at a much older age then is the case to-day, we naturally had a much bigger cattle population. There was a much smaller demand for production than there is to-day. In spite of the fact that our cattle population has not increased to the same extent, there has been a continual increase in the supply of beef to the markets. During the past year alone the consumption of beef in South Africa has increased by 24,000,000 lbs. and that beef comes from cattle produced and slaughtered in South Africa. But there is another reason too why our cattle population did not increase to the same extent and that is that sufficient beef was produced in South Africa to meet the requirements of the population. At the prevailing floor price there was sufficient beef to meet the requirements, and any cattle produced in excess of those requirements had to be bought in in South Africa at the floor price and exported at a loss. In other words, the oversea market was such that one had to sell there at a lower price than one could get for beef in the domestic market. But with the tremendous development in our country, of course, the demand changes from time to time and that is why one has to adapt one’s price policy to changed circumstances. At the present time supply is not keeping pace with demand and it is possible that under normal circumstances it may not keep pace with the increased demand, and that is why we have the position to-day, since we have been producing beef in South Africa by way of grazing … [Time limit.]

Towards the end of his speech the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing outlined a problem to us. He said: “Our difficulty as far as beef production is concerned is that we cannot produce enough beef to meet the demand.” That is precisely what we have been arguing about the whole afternoon and we want to know from the Minister what the policy of his Department is and what plans they have in respect of this difficulty which has arisen. The hon. the Minister has been aware of this problem all along but has never yet found a real long-term solution for it. He tried to avoid the issue by pointing out what a tremendous increase there had been in the capital investments of farmers, how the value of their land had increased, that they were prosperous to-day and that they were doing well. That was the impression he tried to create. We know as well as the hon. the Minister that there has been an incredible increase in the capital invested in agriculture. Our argument is precisely that the farmer does not get a decent dividend on the capital he has invested in agriculture. The argument is not that so much capital has been invested in agriculture. After all you do expect a decent turn-over and a decent dividend on the money you have invested. That is the big difficulty of the farmers in South Africa.

The hon. Minister tried to ridicule the figures mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville but I want to quote to the Minister from “Agricon” to show him that it is not the drought which is responsible for the difficulties in which the farmers find themselves to-day. We admit that the drought has indeed played an important role but what did “Agricon” say in July of last year—

Then you get the following paragraph—

But this Government is continually trying to create the impression that it is mainly the drought which is to blame for these conditions. If it is true, as they say, that the drought is to blame for this position I want to draw attention to the following. Four years ago one of the members on that side of the House introduced a motion in which he asked for the appointment of a commission to inquire into the question of drought conditions in South Africa. What happened to that motion? The Government boast to-day about the assistance they are giving to the farmers, this new form of assistance which was announced in their daily newspaper the Burger during the weekend: “New Assistance Scheme to Farmers to be Introduced.” I want to know from the hon. Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing what is new in this plan; what does it contain that we have not had before? They boast about the fact that as far as sheep are concerned they will lend a farmer R40 per month to keep 100 head of sheep alive. I want to quote what was said in that debate in 1961 by nobody else than the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander). He said—

And to-day they boast about the new plans they have announced to assist farmers. It is precisely the same plan we had before and which the hon. member for Prieska described as ineffective three or four years ago in this House. To-day we are told it is such a wonderful plan to assist the farmers of South Africa. Then the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) has the audacity to say to the United Party: You must come forward with plans; you must come forward with schemes on black and white.

Of course.

Sir, his own side of the House does not even listen to him. On 28 March 1963 the hon. member for Cradock said the following—

He said that a full-fledged Department of Agricultural Finance and an Agricultural Finance Board should be established. Can the hon. member tell me what has happened to this plan he suggested to his own Government? If his own Government is not even prepared to listen to the suggestions of his own farmers’ group to whom will they listen?

He was chairman of that group.

That is precisely our difficulty on this side of the House. The hon. the Prime Minister told us the following—

The Prime Minister himself said it was not necessary to draw their attention to it. They are kept fully informed from day to day. I want to say to that side of the House that it is unnecessary for them to try to sympathize with the farmers who are struggling in the grip of a drought. They are getting more than enough sympathy. What those people are interested in is what assistance they are going to get. They realize that in these circumstances this so-called new programme of assistance will be absolutely ineffective. When the hon. the Minister announced this new programme of assistance he boasted of the fact that it would, inter alia, mean that R12,000 would be given for the administration of a fodder bank. But in terms of that proposed programme the subsidy on lucern is to be stopped. Why?

Do you know?

Of course I know. The reason is that there is no lucern available. The hon. the Deputy Minister for South-West Africa Affairs said: “A farmer is simply ruined by a drought, and there is no fodder.” I think it is scandalous for this Government to admit that there is no fodder in South Africa while they advised the lucern farmers at Vaalhartz and along the Orange River a few years ago to plough up their lucern.

Each farmer farms with the product which pays him.

Had there been longterm planning and had they listened to the hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) who is no longer with us, in those days and who pleaded for this sort of thing, had there been planning and had the Government realized that droughts were normal occurrences in South Africa we would not have been in the position in which we find ourselves to-day. [Time limit.]

I was discussing the floor prices of beef and the reasons why the number of cattle had not increased very much. Now I want to say that the demand for beef has always been smaller than the supply, except now with this drought. But it is obvious that as the country expands and the consumption increases one will later have to apply other methods to produce beef, and one will be able to do so because there will be the demand at a higher price. That will mean that one will be able to make use of expensive fodder to a larger extent to feed cattle for beef production. Then the number of cattle will automatically increase. I do not think anyone will deny that we are used to having droughts in South Africa, but neither will anybody deny that the present drought is one of the most serious we have had for a very long time, and everyone will agree with me that had it not been for this serious drought in recent years, and had we had normal rains, the shortage of fodder would not have arisen. This shortage of fodder therefore arose because there was an abnormal drought in large areas of the country. Now the hon. member says that the Government did nothing about it and that the plan for assistance it has announced is worthless. The hon. member says it is only the old method. In the statement the Government announced that it was granting a subsidy of 50 per cent on all fodder feed in the heartwater area of the cattle-raising areas, to the amount of R1 per month per beast.

R2.

Yes, but the subsidy is R1 per month per beast for all breeding cattle in those areas. It was increased from the number of 250 to any number. But the Government went further and gave a guarantee to the co-operatives in regard to mealie-stalks still available in the maizegrowing areas, to collect those stalks, a guarantee of R6 per ton to make it available as fodder in the drought-stricken areas. The hon. member said that the R 12,000 the Government made available to the S.A. Agricultural Union to administer this scheme of theirs was worthless. But the R12,000 is not intended for the purchase of cattle. There are other systems in terms of which fodder can be bought. The R12,500 was made available at the request of the S.A. Agricultural Union itself. But now the hon. member knows what the Agricultural Union requires better than they themselves know. They said: Give us that amount and we will organize the matter between the farmers producing it and those needing it. The Government gave this ex gratia assistance to cover that administration. If those hon. members want to pose as the spokesmen for the S.A. Agricultural Union, they should at least make certain in regard to what these people themselves asked. On various occasions the Agricultural Union came and discussed these matters, such as the price structure and other things, and within limits the prices were always fixed in accordance with their recommendations. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said that there were various occasions when the Minister said that the proposed floor price was too high. The reason for that is clear. It is because on that occasion the meat bought in had to be exported at a tremendous loss. Therefore we said that the floor price was only a basis of protection, and in most cases the floor price was below the actual price they received.

The hon. member has now made the allegation that the hon. member for Cradock said last year or the year before that a scheme of agricultural financing would be established. But that scheme has been established and it is busy developing. An amount of R4,000 is made available under certain circumstances for production purposes, a scheme which never existed in the past; those are loans by State Advances to the farmers. We have done much towards making farming units more economic. Legislation was introduced in Parliament in terms of which loans could be granted to farmers for the purchase of land to consolidate their land. We made other loans available for the purchase of stock. Apart from the fact that the hon. member mentioned a separate Department for financing, the whole scheme mentioned by the hon. member has been tackled and we are gradually expanding it. That, however, has nothing to do with the drought. It is a normal method of financing certain categories of farmers. But now the hon. member says that this scheme has not been put into operation yet; the Minister sits there and does nothing. The Minister does not even listen to his own members. It is very easy to get up here and just make a noise. Now the hon. member says that had we paid more attention to what they said there would not now have been such a shortage of lucerne. But there is enough lucerne for ordinary consumption. Lucerne is not only used during droughts. Lucerne is used to a large extent in the production of milk and other things. Now, however, we have special circumstances and the demand for lucerne is much higher than it ever was in the past. And of course we know what will happen. If it rains within a short time, what will the position be then? In the North-Western Cape, where rains have now fallen, I do not think the farmers will buy any more lucerne in three weeks’ time, and then the producers of lucerne are landed with that lucerne and must find other markets when the drought is broken.

No, Sir, the drought-stricken farmers in South Africa know that they have the ear of the Government. They know that the representations they made to the Government when conditions were difficult were not only dealt with sympathetically but that actual steps were taken to assist them to bridge these troubles. Now the Leader of the Opposition says that we should announce beforehand that certain of these loans will be at a lower rate of interest and that some of them will be written off or that subsidies will be paid. The Prime Minister referred to it in passing. There is not a drought in the whole of South Africa, but only in certain areas. If we now institute a subsidized scheme, are we to do so for all the farmers? If we want to charge a lower rate of interest, must it apply to all the farmers? No, it is essential, after conditions have changed, to review the whole position of the farmers in the area concerned and thereafter, according to the circumstances then prevailing, one can adapt the assistance to those circumstances.

What about those who go under in the meantime?

They need not go under. Loans are available for them to continue and to keep their stock alive and to continue their production. But three or four years ago the North-Eastern Free State was to a large extent faced with the same problem as the result of the drought and bad crops which the rest of South Africa is now experiencing. We gave assistance to the farmers of the North-Eastern Free State which does not even compare with what is now being given. Thereafter they had two good harvests —unfortunately this year the crop is again not too good—but those farmers rehabilitated themselves to a tremendous extent, without being granted relief by way of reducing their interest or writing off their loans. That proves that when climatic conditions are normal, the prices are such that the farmers can rehabilitate themselves and improve their position. Surely one cannot in advance announce schemes applying to certain farmers and not to others. If one takes measures to combat the drought, one must take special measures, and these measures have been taken and are increasingly being taken. As circumstances develop and fodder becomes available in other parts of the country, possibly on the sugar plantations and other farms, further steps will be taken to make fodder available to save the herds as well as the farmers. [Time limit.]

The hon. Minister has referred to the replies given by his own Deputy Minister to the representations made by this side of the House during the Budget debate. I just want to tell the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing that his Deputy Minister did not in a single instance respond to any of our suggestions how to combat the drought. The Minister talks about the wonderful assistance they are giving to-day, this dry fodder which the co-operative societies can now buy at R6 per ton from anybody who has shrivelled up cobs to sell. For heaven’s sake must they go and buy the machine to bale it? Had this been a strong Government which had the interests of the farmers at heart they would have fetched 20,000 Bantu from the Transkei to come and help to cut and bale that fodder so that the effort could have been effective. They would have given financial assistance to the people to fetch the animals from the drought-stricken areas.

That is stupid.

On a point of order is the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) entitled to keep on telling the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) he is stupid.

Did the hon. member say that?

I said it was a stupid remark.

In regard to the Minister’s reply to my leader it is becoming more and more apparent that there are three alternatives. The hon. the Prime Minister is either not kept fully informed by his Ministers in regard to agricultural matters and the Ministers in turn are not kept fully informed by those hon. members opposite who represent agricultural constituencies, those hon. members who are always trying to gloss over the acts of this Government and do not tell them what the real state of affairs is; or otherwise the Prime Minister is indifferent towards the plight of the farmers who have been hit by this disaster and when I say a disaster I mean a disaster. That is also the reason why my Leader raised this matter under the Vote of the Prime Minister because we believe he is not kept as informed as he should be [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must stop making these continual interjections.

We believe that the hon. the Prime Minister is not fully informed about the extent of this drought and its effects. Last year we discussed this drought and we accused the Ministers of Agriculture of foolish fumbling, of being without definite plans, while the farmers were perishing in the drought. That was last year. This drought is nothing new. We on this side of the House made many suggestions last year but these Ministers ignored those suggestions because they came from this side of the House. We suggested a particular form of financial assistance to agriculture; the establishment of a fodder bank; financing the person who could no longer feed his animals so that he could take those animals to the farmer who could feed them but had no money. Not only did we do that but we cited other examples. I repeat them—

That was on 1 April 1964—

Can anything be more condemnatory of South Africa than this warning by a neighbouring State to its farmers on 1 April 1964—the situation has changed there as little as it has here— and this special appeal to those who have grazing to buy the stock. They were prepared to lend money to those who did not have any to buy the stock. But what has this Government done?

We did the same. We introduced a subsidy.

We do not want to be assisted by way of subsidies and loans for all time. We do not want to become the slaves of this Government. We do not want to be in the employ of this Government. We suggested a fodder bank from which the farmer could draw fodder and pay for it. Sir, do you know that there are thousands of bales of chaff here in the Western Province. Nobody is going to tell me that is not fodder.

You are chaffing.

Order!

That only shows how indifferent the hon. member for Cradock is about the drought. Nobody is going to tell me that chaff is useless when you have no other roughage to add to the concentrated food you feed the animals that are dying in a drought. Those hon. members regard the drought and the plight of the farmers as a joke. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Cradock is the Goliath amongst the Philistines but you do not require a stone to knock him out.

All you need is a light cane. During the debate last year this side of the House recommended methods to overcome this crisis, this catastrophe, but so far not one of our suggestions has been accepted. Then the Prime Minister tells us he wants to rid himself of this matter because he does not think this catastrophe should be discussed under his Vote. If ever there was a time when it was necessary, in the words of the hon. member for Pretoria (District), to lift this matter out of the political arena and for us to put our heads together, it is now. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) was the only one who said this was a serious crisis and that we should put our heads together, not only to save the farmers, because they were not the only ones concerned in this, but the economy of the entire country. Over the years there has been a shortage of meat, butter and breeding stock. It will take years before not only agriculture but the animal population have rehabilitated themselves. Nobody can say what the losses have been up to the present. Who can estimate the damage that will be suffered from now to October?

What do you suggest.

We are repeatedly asked to suggest something. There are still hon. members who cannot understand when we say: Finance the man who has grazing to buy the animals that are on the point of dying from the other man. In that case he is not subsidized but given financial assistance which he can pay back into the Treasury at a later stage. That is not the only suggestion we have. Those friends do not want to touch a fodder bank. This side of the House has been pleading for it for years. No fodder is of too little value to use in fodder bank whether it be chaff or straw. In the circumstances we shall have to use every grain of roughage and every grain of mealie to feed to the animals in order to save our animal population. [Time limit.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has raised the question of the drought conditions in the Bantu areas. When my Vote comes up for discussion I shall deal with that in greater detail and give a full report on it but I feel obliged to rise to my feet because the two hon. members have raised the matter in such a way that an impression will be created in the world outside which is not worthy of South Africa. I do not think it is fair towards South Africa. Why did the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Coast not first make sure of their facts? I have repeatedly given the assurance that we knew exactly what was happening in the Bantu areas. I admit that the position is fairly serious in many places but it is with a certain amount of gratitude that I want to say that never before has a Government helped its Bantu population so humanely through a drought as this Government has done. We are continually creating opportunities for the Bantu, in the form of developmental works in the Bantu areas. I find it strange that only a fortnight ago the United Party launched a bitter attack on me in the Other Place because I was creating so many working facilities in the Bantu areas, particularly in those areas which were drought-stricken and because the Bantu were returning to their areas on such a large scale and that they no longer had farm labour. But the hon. member for South Coast tells us to-day that the Bantu are moving to the cities in their thousands. Why does he not make sure of his facts? And if that is the position, why does he not draw my attention to it?

I do not want to say a great deal. In the first place the Red Cross Society in South Africa told me they wanted to convince themselves of the truth of what I had said. They asked permission to send a representative to go into the matter. I said he could go wherever he wanted to go. He submitted his report to the Red Cross Society on 27 May 1964 and this is what he said—

That was what he said but the Leader of the Opposition knows better than he does. That was on 27 May 1964 but in the meantime we have extended those development works in practically all the areas. An official of my Department is stationed there permanently. I want to give another example and it comes from Professor E. J. Krige, a well-known anthropologist, and head of the Department of African Studies of the University of Natal. He wrote to the Chief Bantu Affairs Commission as follows—

[Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks which month it was. I shall give it to him but it was only a short while ago. I repeat that this work has been expanded. I went to the trouble of visiting these places myself and I am leaving for north Natal tomorrow to see how the position can be alleviated there.

And south Natal?

I shall travel through south Natal as well as east and west Natal because I am not a United Party supporter; I am not only concerned about the welfare of my own people, but about the welfare of the whole fatherland. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition laughs but does he think it is fair towards South Africa to get up in this House and to send stories like those into the world? The hon. Leader made the accusation that certain welfare organizations were not allowed to enter there. I challenge him to mention their names. Let him give the names to me. I refused to give permission to one but I shall tell him why I refused. When he knows the reason he will agree that I acted correctly. I refused permission because it was not a welfare organization which wanted to go and do welfare work there. They wanted to conduct a smear campaign in those Bantu areas just as there are certain welfare organizations—and I can mention their names— which manufacture food and sell it to the Bantu on the pretence of doing welfare work while they are really only making money out of the Bantu. They piously represent themselves as welfare organizations but in the meantime they are besmirching South Africa in every possible respect. I cannot allow that sort of thing. No decent White man or Bantu in South Africa would allow that. We have our officials throughout the country and one of my strict instructions to them is that they must immediately bring this sort of thing to my notice. We have a network of Bantu authorities, territorial authorities and regional authorities over the whole country and they are in direct contact with my officials and with me. [Time limit.]

I did not really intend entering into this debate between the passionate plattelanders, but I feel I should like to say one or two things in reply to the Minister of Bantu Administration and then to come back to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he will be good enough to give this House, and the country, an explanation for something which has been happening largely as the result of a policy he pronounced last year.

I just want to say to the Minister of Bantu Administration that I am very glad indeed that his Department is now taking steps, during the last few months anyway, to relieve the famine conditions in the Transvaal and in Natal, because unfortunately only last year he was denying that there was drought and famine, and he was insinuating that people were attempting to smear South Africa’s good name when they tried to bring to his notice the terrible conditions which had existed in those areas after several years of severe drought. I am not worried about “competitive organizations” because there had to be welfare organizations which attempted to do a job at the time when the Minister’s Department was not attempting to do a job. I for one am very glad that the Department is moving now and is assisting those people, although I do not have as much praise for the way in which it is being done as have the Red Cross or Dr. Krige.

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he does not think the time has come to give a statement to this country on the whole policy in regard to mixed entertainment which has been upsetting everybody to such a degree. I ask him that because one of his own newspapers, Dagbreek, only a few days ago in an article entitled “Gemengde Gehore” in fact asked that the whole position be clarified. I think that the Prime Minister owes it to all of us to give us some idea just how far he intends to carry this rather nebulous policy which he enunciated for the first time last year in Port Elizabeth at a National Party Congress. Since then that policy has been widened considerably by the hon. the Minister of the Interior, who made a statement in this House on 26 January this year. At the time the Prime Minister spoke to his congress he said—and I am translating from an article in the Transvaler of 27 August last year the following—

Now this is all very well, but I would like to know exactly what the Prime Minister means by our traditions and why the whole concept has been widened far beyond the original criterion of mixed audiences; because we have gone well beyond that both in the statement of the Minister of the Interior and in Proclamation R.26 which was published in February. I would like to ask the Prime Minister to tell us in words of one syllable just what he believes the determining factor should be, since we have gone far beyond this idea of mixed audiences only. I presume it is no longer the mere presence of different races at the same function which is now to be the yardstick for the two Ministers who have to make the decision. Will he tell us exactly what types of functions he means? Are they sporting events out-of-doors, cultural functions indoors; does he frown more heavily on White audiences attending Coloured performances, or on Coloured audiences watching White performers; or is it mixed audiences watching Coloured or White performers? Does he object to mixed audiences if completely segregated facilities are provided? Does he mind, if the events cannot be repeated, allowing mixed audiences in that case? Because we have had every type of conceivable differentiation and variation ever since the Prime Minister made his statement which had the force of law prior even to Proclamation R.26. Is he aware of the first-class mess this country has got into since Ministers have been attempting to apply Proclamation R.26? Has he any idea how many officials are involved in trying to sort out all the permits streaming into these Departments, applications for permits for multi-racial entertainment? Does he know that in six weeks there have been 389 applications?

Where do you get the figures?

The figures come from the Ministers. I presume the Prime Minister is aware that we are suffering from a severe shortage of manpower, including the Public Service Departments. I wonder how many man hours are involved in sorting out these applications and finally making the decisions. The Department of Community Development is supposed to be responsible for housing the people of this country and for providing other essential services. I wonder whether he realizes how many man hours are taken up in that Department in dealing with all these applications for permits. Since when have we not accepted mixed entertainment as the norm in this country?

Ever since I can remember, I have been attending sporting events at The Wanderers in Johannesburg and at Newlands, and I have always seen separate stands set aside for non-White audiences. They have always been allowed at Ellis Park, Hartleyvale, etc. Why does the Minister now tell us that it is not a tradition of this country to have mixed audiences?

I wonder whether he has any idea, being a psychologist and a pretty good one, how hurtful it is for non-White people to be turned away from entertainment they have always attended without friction, simply because they are non-White. I wonder whether he knows what sort of turmoil charitable organizations are in, which have always had multi-racial functions. I wonder whether he took note of the bitter comment of a Coloured man recently when he said: “They take and they take and they take until they have taken everything and have everything, but the goodwill of the people concerned.”

Does the Prime Minister think race relations will be improved in this country and that foreign relations will be improved? He is always telling us that South Africa’s problems are being better understood in the outside world. Of course, I do not believe that for a moment. I do not believe the outside world understands our problems and that it is accepting our form of racial discrimination. Quite the contrary. It is true that South Africa is considered a good risk by investors and that the tough forms of sanctions are out of the question at present for various reasons, owing to the UN’s own difficulties, for one, and, of course, the fact that there are trouble-spots all over the world. But the Prime Minister, I am sure, does not believe that our brand of race discrimination is understood and approved of any more now than it has been in the past I want to put it to him that for South Africa to embark on this particular form of multiracial fracas at this particular juncture is abysmally stupid. It is just the sort of thing which will infuriate people of colour all over the world, because it is an affront to human dignity. I want to point out to the Prime Minister that at this particular time it is especially stupid for us to do this, because 1965 is a very important year for South Africa internationally. I do not need to remind the Prime Minister that we are expecting a very important decision by the World Court, and if that decision goes against us all sort of pressures will be put on UN to take action against this country, and South Africa will need every possible friend she can get.

The hon. the Prime Minister knows or should know that the whole scope of international responsibility has widened in the world over the last few years and that these things are no longer regarded as domestic issues. I think the hon. the Prime Minister owes it to this country to give us an explanation of his policy and how far he envisages this policy is going to go before he is satisfied that what he believes to be the traditions of South Africa are indeed being followed. [Time limit.]

I want to come back to the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman). Listening to him one would think that he was a stranger in Jerusalem. He put forward various plans which he says the Government should have carried out during this period of drought. He says that the Government should have hired the services of Bantu in the Transkei and that the Government should have purchased machinery to process and to bale fodder, etc. Sir, I want to tell the hon. member that the steps taken by the Government were taken in close collaboration with the Members of Parliament who represent the drought-stricken areas and, in the second place, in close collaboration with organized agriculture. The hon. member now comes along and says that the Ministers of Agriculture were not informed. Sir, can you imagine anything more laughable than that statement by the hon. member that the Ministers were not kept informed with regard to the drought position, particularly in view of the fact that we have been sitting on the Ministers’ doorstep from morning till night in recent months and years and in view of the fact that organized agriculture has been making representations regularly to the Ministers and that the Ministers themselves have gone to see for themselves what the conditions are like? In spite of all this, the hon. member says that the Ministers are not informed with regard to the drought conditions.

I agree that the idea of fodder banks is a good one, but even if the Government were to undertake the financing and establishment of a fodder bank and to process sufficient quantities of fodder to last for three or six months, we may very well have a drought lasting for 12 months and then the supplies will again be inadequate. That is the problem that we face in that connection.

I want to make use of this opportunity to thank the Ministers concerned, the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister for the intense interest that they have been taking in recent years in the drought conditions in South Africa. They have shown in these times of emergency that they are the farmers’ friend, and I want to thank them for it wholeheartedly. Sir, much more has been done for the farmers than the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) suggested here. He says that we are simply introducing the old 1961 scheme again. The hon. the Minister has already replied to that and he has pointed out that the new 50 per cent subsidy introduced by the Government gives considerable relief to our farmers.

Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said here that our cattle population has increased by only 7 per cent since 1938, but I want to assure him that the quantity of meat produced in South Africa has increased by much more than 7 per cent. There was a time in South Africa when we farmed entirely on an extensive basis. Our cattle were reared mainly on grazing; they were marketed off the veld. To-day the position is quite different. We are beginning to farm much more scientifically in South Africa, and the marketing of cattle at the age of 12 months, 15 months or 18 months is nothing exceptional; it is being done to-day on a reasonably large scale. One can get a much bigger turnover by feeding livestock and marketing them earlier. Even with our present cattle population we are able to feed many more people, even allowing for a considerable increase in our population. In this connection I want to point out that the production has increased considerably but that prices have also risen considerably. When we take the index figures for agricultural products, with 100 as the basic figure for the years 1947-8 and 1949-50 we find that the producers’ index figure for 1947-8 was 97.7, whereas it was 214.1 for the year 1963-4. In other words, the price of slaughter-stock has more than doubled since 1948, and it has also more than doubled since 1950. This price increase naturally benefits our farmers. The number of head of cattle slaughtered over the past two years, 1962-3 and 1963-4, has increased by 100,000 a year. It is clear therefore that we are producing considerably more than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggested here. Sir, that is also my reply to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) who says that it takes four years before cattle can be marketed. The Opposition are now trying to suggest to the farmers that the floor price of beef should be guaranteed in advance for a number of years. Sir, that has never been done throughout the years. I want to ask them—and I want to see whether they are brave enough to reply to this question— whether they would be prepared to tell us what prices they would be willing to guarantee for five years for mutton and beef. If they are not prepared to do so we know that we need take no further notice of their stories.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also held it against the Ministers of Agriculture that they refused to accept the prices submitted to them by the chairman of the S.A. Agricultural Union. He held the Ministers up to contempt because they refused to accept those recommendations. Sir, let me put this question to him: Would he be prepared every year, if he came into power, to accept the prices recommended by the S.A. Agricultural Union? I hope he will tell us whether he would be prepared to do so. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggested it very clearly by implication because he said that the Ministers had refused to accept the prices recommended by the S.A. Agricultural Union, and I can only infer from that that he would be prepared every year to accent the prices recommended by the S.A. Agricultural Union …

And guarantee prices for five years.

I want to say just a few words now with regard to the depopulation of the platteland. Sir, South Africa is rapidly expanding in the industrial sphere. We find throughout the world that where a young country expands industrially, the population in the rural areas always decreases and the urban population increases. One finds the same pattern throughout the world; it is a sign of economic growth and of prosperity, but when we have the same pattern in South Africa it is attributed to the so-called unsympathetic policy of the Government towards the farmers. We know, and statistics prove, that the number of farmers is diminishing, but that is not something which has happened under this Government only. It also happened under United Party rule. But the total agricultural production of the country increases every year; its value increases year by year, and the position of the farmers who remain on the land, fortunately, actually improves because there is an increase in the average production per farmer. After all, the Government cannot forbid farmers to give up farming; the Government cannot forbid them to go and work in some other industry. On the other hand, there are many salaried people who think that they will do much better if they take up farming and there are some of them who actually do better as farmers. Then again there are people employed in the cities who have to take over the family farm when their parents die. Those people have never farmed before but they also enter the farming industry.

But that does not amount to a depopulation of the platteland.

We often find that people leave one industry and enter another, but a farmer is not allowed to do so; when a farmer leaves the platteland and takes up employment in another industry the reproach is levelled at the Government that it is responsible for the depopulation of the platteland because of the wrong policy followed by it.

I also want to deal just briefly with the statement made by the hon. member for East London (City) that the farmers do not want loans. He has tried to create the impression in the minds of the farmers that loans are something evil. [Time limit.]

We have been told by the hon. the Prime Minister that he has the fullest confidence in his Ministers of Agriculture and that they have the whole problem of agricultural administration and the drought problem entirely under control; that they have taken all the necessary steps to cope with these problems and that those steps are being proceeded with. But, Sir, the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Niemand) who has just sat down has now made an interesting admission; he says that members on that side have been sitting on the doorstep—I am using his words— of the Ministers from morning till night during the whole of this Session; that every member on that side has been pleading with the Ministers from morning till night. What is the truth? Is this problem under control, or is the position so serious that the hon. member over there is speaking the truth when he says that they have had to plead with the Ministers from morning till night? Why do they have to go and plead with the Ministers from morning till night, day in and day out. [Interjections.] Sir, these are not my words; they are the words of the hon. member for Pietersburg. Hon. members opposite cannot have it both ways. They are either pleading with the Ministers day after day, which proves that the situation is unsatisfactory, or the situation is satisfactory; it must be the one or the other, and if it is true that hon. members opposite are so dissatisfied that they have to plead with the Ministers from morning till night, then the position cannot be satisfactory.

But I want to refer to the very interesting speech made by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. The hon. the Minister read out an impressive list of steps taken by him and his Department to help the Bantu during this period of drought. He referred to various measures introduced by his Department. He read out a long, impressive list of steps which have been taken to overcome the difficulties and the problems of the Bantu. Sir, we wish the hon. the Minister luck. There are certain areas in which much more will still have to be done, as the hon. the Minister himself admits, but I think it is only fair to congratulate the hon. the Minister on behalf of this side of the House on the steps he has taken. Sir, if the Ministers of Agriculture had done as much for the farmers for whom they are responsible, the farmers would not have found themselves in this critical position. [Laughter.] However, I want to be serious. At meetings which I held throughout South Africa I made a promise to numbers of farmers who asked me whether I had any influence with the Prime Minister. I told them that I had very little influence. They outlined their problems to me and I told them that I had very little influence but that I would try to assist them. I want to carry out that promise now. I promised to ask the hon. the Prime Minister on behalf of the farmers of South Africa to exchange the two Ministers of Agriculture for Oom Daan. The farmers tell me that if they can get the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who does look after his people, as their Minister of Agriculture, they will be on a good wicket. If the Prime Minister is not prepared to exchange the two Ministers of Agriculture for the Minister of Bantu Administration, I am prepared to throw in the half-Minister of Agriculture as well!

Sir, the problems of the platteland are becoming more and more serious.

And you make a joke of it.

All we get from members of the farmers’ group of the Nationalist Party is a series of expressions of thanks to the Ministers for what is being done for the farmers. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) stood up here and told us what his Party had done for the farmers. Sir, I want to put two questions to the hon. member in his capacity as chairman of the farmers’ group of the Nationalist Party …

I am not the chairman.

Well, then I put these questions to him as the first speaker on the other side representing the farmers’ group of the Nationalist Party. I want to ask him whether he is prepared to say in this House that he and the Nationalist Party members of Parliament are satisfied with the way in which the farmers have been treated; whether they are satisfied with the planning and with the policy of the Departments of Agriculture. I want him to stand up and to say unequivocally that Nationalist Party members who are farmers are satisfied with the policy of the Ministers of Agriculture and with the implementation of their policy. If he is prepared to reply immediately I will sit down. Is he satisfied, yes or no?

Yes, I am satisfied with the steps which the Ministers of Agriculture are taking at the present time. Now that the farmers’ group has negotiated with them and pointed out the general conditions that prevail to-day, conditions with which they themselves are familiar, I am perfectly satisfied with the steps which are being taken to help our farmers, and I am convinced that those steps go much further than any steps which have ever been taken in the past.

Well, we have just had a half admission from the hon. member. I notice that the hon. member made no reference at all to the policy of the Nationalist Party. He did not say a single word with regard to the policy or the implementation of the policy of the Nationalist Party. He merely expressed his approval of the emergency steps which are being taken in connection with the drought. He deliberately refrained from saying a word about the policy and the implementation of the policy.

Do you want me to make a speech?

No, I gave the hon. member an opportunity; I sat down to give him a chance to reply. The hon. member spoke here on behalf of his party and I want the farmers to notice that the members who represent the farmers of South Africa in the Nationalist Party are quite satisfied with what is being done for our farmers. I do not think hon. members on the other side willl find it very easy to justify that statement when they get back to their constituencies where these problems are forcing the farmers off the land today. Does the hon. member know that in his own constituency farmers, who formerly only had to obtain a permit for their harvesting teams, now have to go along personally in a lorry to go and fetch them and that when they arrive at Mafeking they have to enter into a written or official contract with the captain of the team and sign that contract? They are no longer trusted; they have to appear personally before the Bantu Commissioner, whereas in the past their word was good enough. Whereas in the past they paid four bags per hundred, they now have to pay six bags per hundred. What has the hon. member over there done to help the farmers in his constituency in connection with this problem which is pushing up their costs? If that hon. member had been Minister of Agriculture, he would have seen to it that the present Ministers of Agriculture, who would then have been Ministers of Bantu Administration and Development, did not place such obstacles in the way of the farmers.

You know that that is not true.

Order! The hon. member cannot say that another hon. member knows that what he is saying is untrue; he must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

I challenge the hon. member to go and ask the farmers in his constituency what they will have to pay this season to get their crops off the land.

I know what I am talking about.

Sir, I was in the hon. member’s constituency three weeks ago and the farmers were all complaining about the fact that they have to pay six bags per hundred and, moreover, the Nationalist Party majority there was reduced by 1,100. [Time limit.]

Just imagine, Sir, that the fetching by lorry of teams of harvesters at Mafeking should be discussed under the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister by an hon. member who serves in the shadow cabinet of the United Party! Is that not extraordinary?

Boxer!

That hon. member should beware; he has already received several knock-outs. Does it not prove that what the hon. the Prime Minister said here is the truth, viz. that the United Party flatly refuses to discuss the general national policy with the Prime Minister under his Vote? I heartily agree with the hon. the Prime Minister, but I wish to add something: The whole object of hon. members opposite with this trivial agricultural debate under the Vote of the Prime Minister is that the other wing of the United Party must not be given the opportunity to discuss the most delicate subject, the predominant problem in the country, as they have always described it, namely the colour question.

Do you regard agricultural matters as trivial?

The hon. member ought to know what I mean. I did not say that agricultural matters were unimportant. Sir, see how silent the hon. members of the Opposition are. Just see how they sit there. They do not say a single word about this vital problem. It is only the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) who speaks, who paid a visit to Bloemhof and Christiana and came back with his tail between his legs. It is only the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) who gets up to speak; it is only the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who gets up to participate in this debate. A characteristic of this debate is that the Gorshels and the Mitchells keep silent.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) accused my colleague, the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel), of making only half a statement, of not saying anything about our agricultural policy. Let me tell the hon. member that our agricultural policy rests on two great, broad foundations which I will mention. I jotted them down briefly while the hon. member was talking. The first is this: We seek to practice conservation farming by protecting our soil, our water and our useful flora, and also afforestation. That is the first broad basis on which our agricultural policy rests.

Good old United Party policy!

The second is to make our agriculture increasingly more productive by doing four things, four foundations to which we have adhered and on which we have built. The first is to increase the educational level of our farmers in order to make the application of more modern farming practices possible; the second is the increase of the skill, the efficiency and, along with that, the standard of living of our farm labourers in order to enable them …

And the third is the insolvency of the farmers.

… to be more useful in a more productive system of farming. The hon. member for Durban (Point) says we have no policy. The third basis on which our policy rests is to promote price stability and to ensure it as far as possible …

Since when?

… always taking into consideration the quantitative aspect of the matter and the overseas marketing possibilities. The fourth basis on which our agricultural policy rests is to ensure as far as possible that the increasing production complies with the increasing food requirements in our country; and the fifth is to provide the necessary assistance, such as transport, electrification, canalization and distribution in order to bring the farmer’s product to where the consumer in this country or overseas wants it. That is my reply to the hon. member for Durban (Point). The hon. member probably wanted the hon. member for Christiana to explain the foundations of our agricultural policy by way of interjection. The hon. member for Christiana could obviously not do so by way of interjection, but the hon. member now has his reply.

Do you stand by that policy?

I stand by this policy 100 per cent, and I can say that the National Party has remained faithful to these basic policies, and I shall prove it in a moment. But, Sir, in 1943 there was a Reconstruction Committee of the then Department of Agriculture, and that committee was instructed to draw up a report in regard to the agricultural conditions prevailing in those days. I cannot go back much further, nor can I take a year much later than 1943, because we came into power in 1948. I therefore just want to quote what that Reconstruction Committee said about agricultural conditions under the last United Party Government If one reads that report, one comes to the following points of agreement they had with the then Social and Economic Planning Council which had to comment on that report. It is interesting to note that they agreed in regard to the weaknesses inherent in agriculture at that time, and I want to mention a few. They drew up a joint statement in which they said the following: The farming units are uneconomic and too small. Sir, if our Ministers want to solve that problem the members of the United Party go around the country spitting fire and saying that the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing said that the small farmer should be chased off the land. That is not the truth. I come to the second thing they said: The then Government over-emphasized the slogan, “Back to the land”. This matter of going back to the land is not something which one can solve by means of a slogan. It is a process which is not peculiar to South Africa alone; it is a process one finds throughout the world particularly where there is industrialization. That commission further said that there was an unequal movement between rural and urban price levels and incomes; that there were unstable prices for farm products. They accused the then Government of inefficient distribution, of too heavy mortgage bonds on the farms, of over-valuation of land and they say that the price and export quality led to a badly managed farming structure. Sir, those are serious accusations against the last United Party Government. The present Opposition now flounders around here with a lot of confusing ideas and tries to ascertain where they should launch their attacks. They range from the Mafeking harvesting teams to any other triviality. That is what I meant when I said that they came here with a trivial agricultural debate. This report was followed by the White Paper of the then Prime Minister in regard to agricultural policy, and listen to what it says. I just want to read a few sentences (translation)—

The second accusation is this—

That was during the United Party régime. The third accusation is—

Until the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) spoke in this debate I was under the impression that there was general agreement that we were dealing with this drought as something which was approaching the proportions of a national catastrophe. I thought there was general agreement on that. But having heard the hon. gentleman, we have a point of view heard for the first time, to this effect that this drought is of so little consequence that it ought not to have been brought up …

That is a lie.

Order! The hon. member for Ventersdorp must withdraw that.

I say the allegation is a lie.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir, but it remains the truth.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member says he withdraws it but it remains the truth …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it, Sir.

On a point of order, should the hon. member not stand up and apologize?

Order! The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) may continue.

Those were, of course, not the words of the hon. member but that was certainly the impression he conveyed in the earlier part of his speech.

The discussion we have had so far has had to do principally with the livestock industry in South Africa and the mealie industry.

You are going to talk about the sugar industry.

Although the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) may think the sugar industry is virtually of no importance in South Africa I propose to say something about it because the impression has been given by some hon. members that this drought is confined to relatively few areas in South Africa. I do not believe that that is correct. I believe that the hon. Minister for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, for one, said it was confined to certain areas. I believe that that puts the emphasis wrongly. I believe it is only certain areas to which it is not confined. It covers largely the whole of this country. The emergency measures which have been announced so far are virtually of no use whatever to the sugar industry in Natal—and I am speaking of the farming aspect of that industry. I do not blame the hon. Minister for that because his attention is devoted to farming industries other than sugar—sugar falls under the Department of Commerce. But the announcement has been made that the sugar crop which we are to expect this season may well be down to an extent of 40 per cent. That announcement was made only yesterday. That is a very substantial blow to this large and important industry. It does not end there.

Zululand is becoming “Nat”.

But unfortunately it has not rained yet. The announcement was made yesterday that a certain number of the important mills on the North Coast and in Zululand will not be able to open and commence crushing on 1 May which is normally the beginning of the crushing season, unless there is widespread and general rain during the period from now to 1 May. Unless rain falls between now and 1 May no cane will be crushed along the North Coast. And I think, unlike the hon. member for Heilbron, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs will appreciate the magnitude of the disaster that would be. A couple of inches between now and then is not sufficient because the major rivers on which these mills have been built are dry. That is the situation. A couple of inches will not restore the water-flow to those rivers; it must be a widespread general rain.

I believe I am correct in saying that not only has there been so far—whether rain comes in large quantities make no difference —a major fall in the sugar crop for the ensuing season, a fall which cannot be rectified now because the growing season is over, but unless widespread rains fall there will be a considerable reduction in the milling capacity we have available in Natal. That will be a major catastrophe whichever way one looks at it— both from the national point of view and from the point of view of the people concerned. In these circumstances one is entitled to ask whether there are long-term measures which can be brought into operation to prevent this sort of thing from happening again? Short-term measures cannot help; you cannot make rivers run in a short-term. Are there measures which can be brought into effect? I say too that this must not be looked at, as far as the sugar industry is concerned, as merely a drought, a severe drought which will not happen again. Because the situation of the mills not having sufficient water in the rivers to enable them to crush has happened before. It happened in 1952. The tragedy is this—and I would appreciate the attention of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in this regard—that it seems that the lack of water in the main rivers of Natal bears a very definite relationship to the denuding of the veld in the reserves which form the catchment areas of those rivers. If we continue on our present course this will occur more frequently as the years go by. The incidence of the drought will be greater and greater, in the sense that these rivers which were perennial, and always have been, are now beginning to dry up completely at periods, and I speak not of streams, Sir, but of major rivers of the Eastern catchment area. How can this be tackled? It can be tackled only in the long-term, by two measures, I believe: Large-scale storage dams to ensure that the milling capacity of this major industry can be kept going throughout the winter months, even in exceptional periods. Because the whole of that crop is lost, even the 60 per cent that is remaining, unless these mills can crush, that is clear. Storage dams and storing capacity as a long-term solution will only be of some use if the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who expresses such great concern for the areas under his charge, will see to it that rehabilitation measures are begun immediately and are pursued in an energetic manner in those Urge areas, because in every instance these rivers are fed by a catchment covered largely by Native reserves in Natal. I have said that it seems that only long-term measures can rectify this situation. But it is the thought of longterm measures to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred in his opening address on the Prime Minister’s Vote, and it has to be looked at from the national point of view—it is not something of which the hon. the Prime Minister can say that that is a matter for the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration, or the hon. Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. This affects the economic life of part of a province, virtually the whole of a province. It affects not only the Whites, it affects the Blacks alike. You have heard the speeches of other hon. members of the effect this drought is having on the Bantu population as well. We know that there is a great deal of truth in that, and unless this is approached as a national problem under the aegis of the Prime Minister, then we are in for a sorry future, because these droughts will occur and their incidence will become greater. [Time limit.]

I am quite serious when I say that if one considers the motives on which the arguments of the Opposition are based in their criticism of the agricultural policy of the Government, then one can meet those arguments with this rhyme: “ ’n Boer laat hom nie vlei nie, hy laat hom ook nie vry nie.”

I want to try to give a very objective reply to the question as to whether the agricultural sector is really sharing in the economic prosperity. Firstly, I want to refer to two extremes, and thereafter to an average. The first extremes I wish to refer to are the climatic conditions accompanied by sound Government policy and good prices (which is part of the policy of the Government) and good, practical, and hardworking farmers. Then things go well with our farmers, and there are parts of our country which are really getting no less than their legitimate share these days. The wheat-growing areas, and here I think particularly of the Western Province, in 1963 had a wheat crop of 9.6 bags per morgen and in 1964 it was 12.1 bags per morgen, an increase of 3.5 bags, and in addition in 1964 the price was increased by 27 cents a bag. Here they derived three benefits, namely a higher production per morgen, a higher price per bag and an increased demand. Fortunately the supplies were there to satisfy the demand. Things are therefore going very well with them, and it is very wrong of the Opposition to allege that right throughout the country agriculture is in a perilous position and that the farmers are going insolvent and cannot make a living.

But these same conditions prevailed at the same time in the Northern Transvaal when it rained and everything went well. It was the same in the North-Western Cape and in the Eastern and Western Transvaal, and in future it will be so again. I now come to the second extreme, and hon. members will forgive me if I refer to the Northern Transvaal, and I ask myself the question: Does the Northern Transvaal share in the prosperity? Then I say: “No, no, no, three times no, definitely not!” But that is not the Government’s fault. Just to take one example, the farmer has to spend State loans to keep his animals alive, instead of preparing them for the market and selling them in order to make a living. How can he share in the economic prosperity? Seven years ago we were afflicted by foot-and-mouth disease, which lasted two years and after that, in the third year, we immediately had the drought. As the result of the foot-and-mouth disease we were unable during the drought to sell two calf crops; we could not sell a single animal, with the further consequence that as the result of that catastrophic drought and over-grazing the two next calf crops were lost to us as well. When the drought struck us in the third year, immediately after having had foot-and-mouth disease for two years, it had the effect of a drought in its fourth year, with the result that where we had foot-and-mouth disease for two years and after that a drought lasting for four or five years, we are actually experiencing the effects of a 9-year long unbroken drought in the Northern Transvaal, and whatever the Government may do, those farmers cannot share in the economic prosperity of the country. At the moment it is so dry there that four of our schools at Nylstroom which accommodate 3,000 children have no water. We have to sink boreholes to get water for the children to drink, and we are already busy with the fifth borehole. We bored to a depth of 400 and 500 feet, but we could not find water for our schoolchildren to drink. That is the position there. There are farmers who have 10 or 12 production loans on which they have not yet been able to pay a single cent by way of interest or capital simply because it has not rained. You can follow the weather reports every day. Whereas other drought-stricken areas have at least had some rain, the Northern Transvaal has for three months already just had a few clouds and a burning sun. Things cannot go well there. If I had the time I would have liked to tell the House what the Government has in fact done, and how millions of rands were spent to assist those farmers, to keep them going, and how, as hon. members heard again to-day from the hon. the Prime Minister, if better times come along further assistance will be rendered and the farmers will be able to stay on the farms and rehabilitate themselves and again become strong farmers as they have been in the past.

I now come to the intermediate group and I also refer to the crop farmers. They are finding things very difficult. There have now been lengthy droughts lasting for four years or longer, and it is a fact that long droughts result in long and severe winters. As the result of the drought there was an average decrease of 4 per cent in the volume of production. It is true that there was an average increase of 5 per cent in produce prices, but that could not make up for the decreasing income due to the decreased production, partly also because the cost of production increased. We also know that agriculture’s contribution showed a small decrease from R538,000,000 in 1963 to R521,000,000 in 1964. There was decreased production, an increased demand and somewhat better prices, with a declining income nonetheless, and that just about managed to keep the middle class farmer going so that he is still a man with a proud, independent character and he still has that characteristic of independence for which we respect and honour the farmers where in those drought-stricken areas their morale is still so high that we take off our hats to them and salute them.

Let us just review the following: The part played by agriculture in the economic upsurge, whether or not viewed against the background of the decrease in the proportionate contribution to the net internal product. It is important. In 1951-2 the contribution made by agriculture was R354,000,000. The net internal product was R2,589,000,000. Therefore proportionately the contribution of agriculture was 13.6 per cent. In 1962-3 agriculture’s contribution was R538,000,000 and the net internal product was R5,481,000,000, and now we find that the proportionate contribution made by agriculture is only 9.8 per cent. Now people are inclined to say that agriculture is in a deplorable position because the proportionate contribution decreased from 13.6 per cent to 9.8 per cent, but the actual contribution in fact increased by 15 per cent, because the R345,000,000 had become R538,000,000.

The gold mines showed the same decrease.

Yes, proportionately there was also a decrease. The decrease in the proportionate contribution made by agriculture is a normal economic phenomenon everywhere and always when there is such tremendous industrial development as we are experiencing at the moment. I just want to show that the same thing happened overseas. In the U.S.A. in 1951-2 agriculture’s proportionate contribution to the national income was 6 per cent. In 1961-2 it was 4 per cent. In Canada it decreased in those ten years from 13 per cent to 6 per cent, in Western Germany from 11 per cent to 6 per cent, in Holland from 13 per cent to 10 per cent, in Australia from 18 per cent to 13 per cent, and in the Republic of South Africa from almost 14 per cent to 10 per cent. Do we now want to intimate that because the proportionate contribution of agriculture to the income of those countries I have mentioned has decreased, the farmers are all bankrupt and that agriculture is in a deplorable position? Surely that is not the case. What emerges from this is that the decreasing relative or proportionate share of the agricultural sector in the net internal product is not merely a result but is a requirement for a progressive economy. We have, therefore, nothing to fear in this regard. There are temporary setbacks localized in places where severe drought prevails. Elsewhere things are going well, and if it rains again in those areas things will go well again there too within a few years. As a primary branch of activity in the economy of the country, agriculture follows industry, albeit at a distance and only to a certain extent. The local market has always proved to be the best market for the farmer, and whereas industrial development must contribute towards a greater internal consumption, this development must benefit agriculture, and we can see the results of it already. The consumption tendency is one of the best barometers to determine whether or not agriculture shares in the economic prosperity. If consumption increases and is accompanied by higher prices, it becomes a significant factor in the participation of agriculture in the economic growth, and that is happening in this country as industrial undertakings expand, accompanied by a higher per capita income which increases the purchasing power, and, naturally, if fat stock can be marketed and good crops can be harvested.

I just want to give an indication of the increase in the consumption of maize and wheat and butter. [Time limit.]

We have been discussing the seriousness of the drought all afternoon. We are now in April and I am wondering what we will be saying in August, because this is the last month in which our summer rainfall areas can expect any rain, and if we only get limited rains during April, can this House imagine what the position will be by the time August comes, which is the earliest month in which we can expect any rain? What growth can we get now? What is still worse, does the Government realize what will happen if the water resources give out completely? The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) indicated a short while ago what is taking place in his part of the country and I want to assure the Minister that in my part of the country those rivers which have been known as perennial for many years have stopped running. What is going to happen in regard to water? Let the Government answer the two great questions: How is it going to carry the farmers through the next three or four months, with their stock which has to be fed and watered? And when that is over, to what extent has it worked out any long-term planning for rehabilitating agriculture and setting it on a sound footing? Neither of the hon. Ministers replied to the questions of my hon. leader, and they are fundamental to the whole issue. One of his major questions to which there has been no reply is in regard to the mining of our soil as the result of prices being fixed for certain commodities which were uneconomic to the people producing that commodity, so that they have had to mine their soil by producing products quite unsuitable to that soil.

Sir, then there is the question of meat production that was raised by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). What has the Government done with regard to cattle improvement in this country since it dropped the cattle improvement Act that was introduced by the United Party, Sir, except for some outstanding studs in the milk and the beef industry in this country and some outstanding dairy herds in this country, would the hon. the Minister suggest that the remainder of that stock is of a quality in keeping with what South Africa requires to feed its people? What does the hon. the Minister intend to do with a view to bringing about the necessary improvements? What has the Minister done to try to keep some of the best breeding beef herds out of the abbatoirs? Because it is when you have conditions such as the present conditions that they find their way to the abbatoirs. It is the duty of the hon. the Minister to devise a plan whereby this can be done.

We have given them special subsidies.

I know that the Government is giving special subsidies but they are nevertheless going to the abbatoirs and they have to be kept away from the abbatoirs. What are you going to do for mother stock for your future beef industry of South Africa? Sir, that is the state of affairs that exists to-day. The tragedy to my mind is that it has taken a severe drought such as this to spotlight the fact that the farmers of South Africa are in a desperate plight. It is not only the drough-stricken areas which are in trouble; the rest of the farmers of South Africa are in trouble as well. They are faced with the position that they are down financially and they do not know how to rehabilitate themselves. Sir, over the years we have drawn attention to this fact but, of course, the moment we criticize the Government we are told that they are the farmers’ friends and that the farmers have never been better off before. I know that the farmers are in a desperate plight in the drought stricken areas and that they are not in a sound financial position in the other areas. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) does not know that I think it is time he acquainted himself with the facts.

I know more about it than you do.

I want to tell you, Sir, that the farmers of South Africa are in a desperate plight in many respects in the drought-stricken areas, and as I have said, it has taken this drought to spotlight the fact that they are down financially. The tragedy is that the farmers are in this position not only because of the drought but because of the failures of this Government. Their present position is due to one important factor, one thing for which even hon. members on that side pleaded when they were in Opposition, and that is to establish fodder banks. Throughout the years that I have been in this House we have been pleading for fodder banks, and whilst we appreciate that a national fodder bank or a provincial fodder bank is a difficult thing to establish, have the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and his colleague given any thought to the encouragement of domestic or farm fodder banks, because therein lies the answer to many of our troubles.

[Inaudible.]

I will sit down if the Minister will get up and tell me what he is doing to encourage it.

We are giving subsidies for the building of silos.

Fine, but what happens next? There are many progressive farmers who establish fodder banks, but on 28 February those farmers have to pay income-tax on the fodder that they have accumulated to carry their stock through the winter. The hon. the Minister cannot deny that.

Do you ever pay income-tax on silos?

Of course, you pay income-tax on fodder that is on hand or produce that you have on hand at the end of the financial year. It is not everybody who produces silage or ensilage.

Surely he can deduct his expenses?

Yes, but the position is that it is subject to taxation. However, this is one of the items that I want to deal with at a later stage.

Sir, has the hon. the Minister abandoned all idea of trying to save the farmers from the excessive taxation in this country. Has the hon. the Minister given any thought to the fact that our Cape farmers, of whom he is one, are paying a capital tax varying from R200 to R400 on every 1,000 morgen of their farms?

If you plead for the abolition of the divisional councils I will support you.

Sir, will the hon. the Minister make representations to the Prime Minister for the abolition of that tax? Will he make that recommendation to him? He can indicate to the Minister of Finance what taxes should be removed and what steps should be taken.

The Minister of Finance does not get that tax.

Will the hon. the Minister make recommendations to the Administrator in this regard then?

I say again that if you plead for the abolition of the divisional councils I will support you.

It has been done for a period of 20 years; where was the Minister during that period? We said that if we could not get rid of the divisional council tax alone we would be prepared to get rid of both. Where was the hon. the Minister then? [Time limit.]

Business interrupted to report progress.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.